Jump to content


Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.


Blondie40
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4249 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Berty and Baggio. I have unapproved 4 posts.. 2 each. I have asked nicely. I will not ask again. I will not pull a thread that is of value to other posters. I will just get someone to ban you both. Please hear me.

 

Thanks.

 

Now as I said before, play nicely. Contribute or not as you will. There are people on CAG that need my help and if I am playing referee to you two, they wont get it.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well said citizenB

It can be hard enough trying to decipher information, when not legally trained, and all the to and fro between arguing CAGgers only adds to the confusion.

That's just my opinion though, please don't anybody have a go back at me for stating a point.

Never mind, it could be raining!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is more than fair enough, CitizenB, my apologies for my role in the proceedings.

 

Right, on to some breaking news.....

 

The Walker appeal will be appealed by the Barristers fighting on our side of the fence, it will go to the newly formed supreme court at a further cost of £60-80K.

 

A press release will be released next week, they believe the judge did not take to them as they had a sharp meeting about costs prior to the hearing and they feel this got his back up and he totally disregarded clear precendent (wilson)

 

They are mighty confident of a victory at the new supreme court and are also considering raising a formal compaint with regards to the appeal hearing and the way in which there arguments were muted.

 

A clear case of a judge who no matter what argument was put to him... had made his mind up already.

 

The battle was lost, the War certainly won't be ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good News!

 

Both McGuffick and Walker being appealed then:)

 

Thanks for that information Baggio.

 

AC

 

Yes that is good news :)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is more than fair enough, CitizenB, my apologies for my role in the proceedings.

 

Right, on to some breaking news.....

 

The Walker appeal will be appealed by the Barristers fighting on our side of the fence, it will go to the newly formed supreme court at a further cost of £60-80K.

 

A press release will be released next week, they believe the judge did not take to them as they had a sharp meeting about costs prior to the hearing and they feel this got his back up and he totally disregarded clear precendent (wilson)

 

They are mighty confident of a victory at the new supreme court and are also considering raising a formal compaint with regards to the appeal hearing and the way in which there arguments were muted.

 

A clear case of a judge who no matter what argument was put to him... had made his mind up already.

 

The battle was lost, the War certainly won't be ;)

---------------------------

Well, we'll certainly not be giving up on our efforts to reopen Natwest V Story & Pallister, either, after 10 years. Currently "in discourse with" the Court of Appeal over exactly who's abusing process ! We're without the £60-80K, (at mo) to approach Supreme Court, and without barrister prepared to risk his/her career where Court is seen defeating Parliamentary Supremacy - but with, better still, a criminal burden of proof (hence barrister's reluctance to break ranks) that proves that Court of Appeal deliberately defeats Parliament to favour a bank - a burden of proof that will eventuallly be heard - when the Court will (regretably) be seen, historically, as experiencing an unacceptably bureaucratic and right wing 'phase'.

 

John Storysmilie.gif

First defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister (Re Section 18 CCA (1974)[Multiple Agreements])

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited by ruinedbynatwest
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

---------------------------

Well, we'll certainly not be giving up on our efforts to reopen Natwest V Story & Pallister, either, after 10 years. Currently "in discourse with" the Court of Appeal over exactly who's abusing process ! We're without the £60-80K, (at mo) to approach Supreme Court, and without barrister prepared to risk his/her career where Court is seen defeating Parliamentary Supremacy - but with, better still, a criminal burden of proof (hence barrister's reluctance to break ranks) that proves that Court of Appeal deliberately defeats Parliament to favour a bank - a burden of proof that will eventuallly be heard - when the Court will (regretably) be seen, historically, as experiencing an unacceptably bureaucratic and right wing 'phase'.

 

John Storysmilie.gif

First defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister (Re Section 18 CCA (1974)[Multiple Agreements])

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

Have you thought about approaching a CMC, who will have the funding and the barrister to fight this for you... in order to raise their own profile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's interesting reading RBN.

 

I read the case and started off by thinking you were wrong and it did appear like one agreement. However, it clearly was not. It may have been one total borrowing limit acceptable to the bank but no way could it be one agreement. At the very most they were linked, but all 3 agreements were different types, so even if there was a verbal agreement on the total borrowings it appears to me that you agreed and were given 3 seperate agreements to sign by the bank.

 

Had you have signed 2 and then as you were about to sign the 3rd turned round and said, I have changed my mind I don't want the 3rd amount, then it would have made not the slightest difference to the other 2. The bank would not have said we need to rewrite the deal then because it is not complete.

 

Bad luck on that one. Your time will come.

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pedross !

You see, what Auld LJ termed "the undoubted existing debt of about £12000" in the Natwest V Story & Pallister Judgment, was also evaluated by him in the same Judgment as: 1) a £10,000 joint loan from Feb 1986, 2) a £1500 Joint Home Improvement Loan from May 1985, and a £5000 business overdraft facility from OCt 1986 - giving 3 separate agreements of which "about £12000" had been drawn when we refinanced and "topped-up" to £35,000 in November 1986 - over 3 new facilities that replaced the 3 existing facilities (well, in reality they were only renamed). IE there were 3 renamed facilities that kept the old ratio of 2 Joint loans and 1 sole business overdraft (to me alone). So, we have 3 regulated agreements that were already in existance before they were refinanced by 3 new 'regulated' agreements - I say "3 new regulated agreements" because the regulation remains to stop lenders from doing exactly what Natwest did here !!!!! AND S 18 serves to ensure that the existing regulated "terms" are identified as such!

 

The problem is that there's £300 Billions hanging on this single ruling across the UK because after our ruling the lenders said "Whooppeee!!! All we've gotta do is lend 'em more money on a secured basis [take the house as security] and the unsecured lending is secured and we can sell 'em on as triple A rated securitised lendings"

 

IE the Court of Appeal allowed the current (UK) credit nightmare to happen ! How's that for "impartiality" ?

 

Thanks for your support.

We won't give up - we've a criminal burden of proof supplied by Section 8 CCA - ie there's no way they can argue that the existing loans were not regulated .

 

Warm Regards

 

John Story smilie.gif

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited by ruinedbynatwest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pedross !

You see, what Auld LJ termed "the undoubted existing debt of about £12000" in the Natwest V Story & Pallister Judgment, was also evaluated by him in the same Judgment as: 1) a £10,000 joint loan from Feb 1986, 2) a £1500 Joint Home Improvement Loan from May 1985, and a £5000 business overdraft facility from OCt 1986 - giving 3 separate agreements of which "about £12000" had been drawn when we refinanced and "topped-up" to £35,000 in November 1986 - over 3 new facilities that replaced the 3 existing facilities (well, in reality they were only renamed). IE there were 3 renamed facilities that kept the old ratio of 2 Joint loans and 1 sole business overdraft (to me alone). So, we have 3 regulated agreements that were already in existance before they were refinanced by 3 new 'regulated' agreements - I say "3 new regulated agreements" because the regulation remains to stop lenders from doing exactly what Natwest did here !!!!! AND S 18 serves to ensure that the existing regulated "terms" are identified as such!

 

The problem is that there's £300 Billions hanging on this single ruling across the UK because after our ruling the lenders said "Whooppeee!!! All we've gotta do is lend 'em more money on a secured basis [take the house as security] and the unsecured lending is secured and we can sell 'em on as triple A rated securitised lendings"

 

IE the Court of Appeal allowed the current (UK) credit nightmare to happen ! How's that for "impartiality" ?

 

Thanks for your support.

We won't give up - we've a criminal burden of proof supplied by Section 8 CCA - ie there's no way they can argue that the existing loans were not regulated .

 

Warm Regards

 

John Story smilie.gif

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

man you got some story, i just proper looked into this, what a conspiracy

 

your problem is... your case is far far too damning of the judicary and government.

 

justice? yeah right, what justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

be careful guys, i have had about 8 people PM me, and boy... there are some real wolves in sheeps clothing on this site.

 

take EVERYTHING anybody says with a pinch of salt... especially if it has a negative connatation to it.

 

"they" are defo on the run now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case you haven’t read the following Court Ruling, see post 1

[url=http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/221925-ray-sun-light-you.html][/url]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/221925-ray-sun-light-you.html

 

At least some Judges do understand the Consumer Credit Act and the implications of unenforceability.

LIBM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote LIBM:-

Just in case you haven’t read the following Court Ruling, see post 1

 

A Ray of Sun Light for you!

 

At least some Judges do understand the Consumer Credit Act and the implications of unenforceability.

LIBM"

End Quote.

 

Many thanks LIBM - for the reasons I say on that thread, I shall refer to this ruling in my amended N244 to reopen Natwest V Story & Pallister which lies at the root of this thread on Multiple Agreements under the 1974 CCA.

 

There was no disagreement in Story as to the essential statutory facts - it's just that Auld LJ failed to find (and has now, tellingly REFUSED to determine) that what he termed "an undoubted existing debt of about £12000" that was refinanced in Story was in fact provided by 3 separate common law agreements which are also Regulated Agreements under Section 8. Point being that they were in existence at a much earlier time, ie they were PRIOR to the later multiple agreement in question that has caused so much trouble to my family and to countless other families to whom the Judgment is applied.

The case must be reopened where the credit industry relies upon the (unlawfully flawed) Judgment in Story to the tune of at least £300 Billions of (secured) debt consolidation agreements.

People are losing their homes as a result of an unlawful Judgment (The Judges do not have Jurisdiction to override Primary Legislation - here those 3 existing regulated agreements).

 

John Story smilie.gif

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited by ruinedbynatwest
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ruinedbynatwest.

 

See Link,

 

http://www.bw.libertycredit.co.uk/BOS.pdf

 

LIBM

 

Many thanks, LIBM !

Not much is made of the fact that (S 141) CCA 1974 grants to the County Court Sole Jurisdiction for ALL Consumer Credit Act matters - ALL CCA matters - in fact Parliament was so anti- the Common law Courts that Section 141(2) deems an action started in the High Court as "improperly brought" if it is not transferred immediately to the County Court, as the designated Court of Competence.

So, why the Common Law Courts (High Court and above) overturning many County Court Judgments ? Picqued are we ? Let's see if BOS V Mitchell is appealed - doesn't look like it will be, does it ?, thanks to a very competent District Judge, His Honour Judge Langhan QC, who has tied up all the loose ends that would otherwise delight a common law Judge. HHJ Langhan QC is evidently a master of his craft.

 

Let's hope the County Court Judges 'get together' to quietly live up to Parliament's expectations, as Judge Langhan undoubtedly has in Mitchell - I'm gonna enjoy reading it again and again !

 

It just so happens that Natwest V Story & Pallister started out in the High Court (Natwest very cleverly dressed it up as a common law claim - but we entered a CCA defence). My complaint that it was "improperly brought" under S 141(2) similarly fell on deaf ears at the Senior Appellate Court which also happens to be the Senior Common Law Court, next to the old House of Lords.

 

John Story smilie.gif

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited by ruinedbynatwest
Typos
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

be careful guys, i have had about 8 people PM me, and boy... there are some real wolves in sheeps clothing on this site.

 

take EVERYTHING anybody says with a pinch of salt... especially if it has a negative connatation to it.

 

I believe, that most of us are street wise. However, your comment is not without merit!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe, that most of us are street wise. However, your comment is not without merit!

 

AC

 

I have been amazed at the types who have PM'd me, with a VERY clear agenda, fishing for certain info... and the types are some you would think of as real stalwarts on here.

 

Its obvious when somebody is a new joinee to the site, you take what they say with a pinch of salt, but when posters who have been on the site for years and made thousands of posts pipe up with clear bullshine, it really does make you wonder.

 

All is defo not what it seems on this site. If we just clearly remember that there is no way out legally for the banks from this sitaution they created... then maybe some of the bullshiners may bore off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of the people who has P.Md on here I would like to say that it is up to the person who recieves a message to decide if it is authentic or not. In my case a message was sent to a certain member to enhance an ongoing campaign and hopefully this is getting the response that both myself and that other member wanted. However I am aware that DCAs read this forum as one of the major banks' threat monkeys quoted me virtually word for word a post from this site when trying to intimidate me on the phone.

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites

We must be careful of creating a witch hunt or to put it another way the great CAG inquasition. One method of defeating an enemy is to divide and conquer, pick off the stragglers and allow the rest to implode through arguement. I too have had a similar situation to batman1956 but on a 'sister/spin off' board to this? I stopped using that board because I did not know who it was - all that I can say is that it was a regular!

 

It is up to the individual to check out what is advised - if it doesn't check out ignor it!

 

Just remember the old adage:

 

KEEP YOUR FRIENDS CLOSE BUT KEEP YOUR ENAMIES CLOSER

Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of the people who has P.Md on here I would like to say that it is up to the person who recieves a message to decide if it is authentic or not. In my case a message was sent to a certain member to enhance an ongoing campaign and hopefully this is getting the response that both myself and that other member wanted. However I am aware that DCAs read this forum as one of the major banks' threat monkeys quoted me virtually word for word a post from this site when trying to intimidate me on the phone.

 

lol, that does not surprise me in the least.

 

DCA centre staff are fantastic to poke fun at on the phone, they really are the simplest simple simon simpletons one could hire. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drat you’ve caught me out…..yes I admit I was recruited straight from Cambridge to the MI8, a banking based secret policing unit aimed at consumer oppression and misguidance. I spent 25 years in a normal career just to allow me the chance to appear as an ordinary person and build a credit history and credit file. I even managed to build a successful business and part of me wanted this to continue however I knew deep down that my true vocation was debtor persecution so I did a poor deal and allowed my business to collapse. This gave me the opportunity to preset my self as a debtor with over £80k in debt and I even allowed one DCA to get a default judgement just to make it look convincing.

 

It wasn't easy I went from a new BMW to a 10 year old ford even took my children out of private education but the cause was worth this pain to my family. then,2 years ago I was able to infiltrate CAG and even managed to even fool some of the site team including pt who entered into private correspondence to help me with my court case against 1st credit , obviously being a Cambridge undergraduate I was able to learn about consumer credit law very easily however I would post the most basic questions in the early days just to make it look like I didn’t really know…lol……I even helped others with letters, defences and companies I supposedly had “dealings” with such as Marlin and Cabot this gained build a good level of reputation points and my deception was complete until now…

 

 

On a serious note debate is healthy and just because someone has a differing view or asks questions doesn't mean they are not all genuine....all it takes is a little look at early posts to get a feel for that person and its quite interesting how most of us come here pretty ignorant then over time build a knowledge base and a mind set that's a million miles away from those early days.

 

This is an important thread and needs to be kept going so I am sure if we all keep it civil there’s not a problem

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...