Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[Gallahad]

I agree completely with you shadow the politicians, judiciary and banking industry are all part of the establishment and as such protect each other to sustain the status quo.

g

[Gallahad]

I believe MBNA lost a test case in Manchester today where they could not produce the original agreement.

They also threw in the towel on two cases yesterday in the same court

MBNA settled both cases and agreed to pay costs, one balance was 11038 pounds and the other was 6200 pounds :grin:

Thanks for info Axiom may I ask where info came from and do you have case ref numbers?

G

[Gallahad]

my personal view is that the OFT getting involved is good for postive publicty for UCAs at last, there IS actual law and case law backing up UCA claims, bank charges never had either.

 

there are millions out there, struggling in a heap of debt, contemplating suicide as they see no way out.... but there is a way out, a legal way out.

 

which ever moral view you take on UCA claims... surely the banks messing up and being bailed out by the taxpayer is a lot worse than joe bloggs messing up his finances and getting bailed out by legal precedent.

 

Baggio I agree completely

G

[Gallahad]

OFT gave their submissions in court on wednesday, these CLEARLY supported the arguments put forward by the barristers on our side of the fence (consumer side)... to say the lenders barristers were perturbed is putting it VERY mildly i am told

 

The main argument being if the Lender wants to reconstitute the agreement it must demonstrate a link to the clients original contract.

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G

[Gallahad]

On the basis that everything that happens in the USA eventually arrives here maybe this could be considered a glimmer of hope.

Liz Pulliam Weston - Credit card reform; new law and fees - MSN Money

[Gallahad]

i have not got a copy of the judgement, but i have spoken directly to a chambers that have got a copy... and the banks did not succeed in their attempts to get away with simply providing updated T&Cs in response to a sec 77/78.

 

the judgement will state they need to disclose a direct link to these T&Cs and the original agreement.... which we all know they will struggle to provide.

 

happy xmas

Good news to a degree Baggio but does this not mean that the strict provisions stated in the statute as to the original agreement having to be provided in the prescribed manner is somewhat diluted. I suspect the banks will still attempt to create falsehoods regarding a direct link to keep the issues fudged as well. I do of course hope I am proved wrong.

G

[Gallahad]

That would sure warm all our hearts thank Baggio

G

[Gallahad]

I see no mileage in debating a document that we have not had sight of.

[Gallahad]

There are some on here who have 'agreements' which no court dare enforce & it's these who we need to get into court.

 

I also suggest that the next hearing should be attended by some CAG supporters just to show the powers that be that the individual in question is not alone;)

 

JC I have to agree that wherever possible a show of strength in numbers at all court hearings should be an aim

G

[Gallahad]

No 'progress' since mid-2007 :D

 

I got some 'Annual Statement' cr*p from 1st Credit recently (ex-Citicard)

Nothing from MBNA or associated reptiles at all.

 

I'm certainly not going to do anything which brings my 'case-file' to the top of the heap, including CRA checks. I'm just sitting back and letting the six years count out.

 

Softlee-softlee forgettee monkey

 

Steve may I ask if the inaction for such a long period may be due to you having no assets or property for them to gat a charge on.

G

[Gallahad]

Hi need a bit of help. I wrote to the Co-op in July 2009 with a section 78 request. They responded with some barely legible t & c, that did not contain the rate of interest (just a reference to them charging it, changing it etc but no amount). They confirmed in the same letter that they did not have the original agreement or even a copy of it.

 

They also did not provide the statement of account information. I believe this puts them in default of s.78 (if the Waksman & new OFT take on s.78 compliance is applied).

 

I continued to write to them but they refused to accept my dispute. On the 23rd October they issued a default notice. This gave me until the 6th November to remedy my breach. On the 4th November they issued a termination notice. I was gonna pay up before the 6th honest!!

 

On the 14th January I wrote to them making an f & f of 15%. No reply. 1st February I got a phone call from Fredericksons chasing the debt. I told them about the non compliance with s.78, IEA (if relying on the t & c provided) and lack of even a copy of the original agreement. He said he refer it to someone or other.

 

Today got letters from both the Co-op and Fredericksons. Co-op says in respect me f & f the debt is no longer theirs so I need to discuss it with Fredericksons. I spoke on the phone they say lowest f & f they'll accept is 60%. I laugh and hang up.

 

I want, ideally, to settle my CC's with low f & f's. I am thinking about writing to Fredericksons along the following lines:

 

1. Please provide a copy of the deed of assignment.

2. Co-op still not complied with s.78 so debt redeemably unenforceable.

3. Co-op t & c's provided don't show APR - so this would be an IEA. They are also illegible. So irredeemably unenforceable.

4. Co-op confirms that don't have the original or even a copy agreement.

5. Default notice & termination notice are defective. Can somone explain what the consequences of this are?

 

Any thoughts? Am I giving too much information (particularly about the DN/TN)? Do you think Fredericksons will pass the debt back to the Co-op? Should I write to them at all?

 

Any advise greatly appreciated!

 

In regard to your note (5) it is my understanding that once a faulty DN issued and followed by termination the only legal claim the creditor can make is the amount of arrears at the time the DN was issued.

G