Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[angry cat]

Well, I hope that they abide by the CCA and do not start going off at a tangent!?

 

Many cases are waiting in the background...particularly cases involving MBNA...

[angry cat]

Let's just say that the Banks positively welcomed the OFTs draft guidance in court yesterday

 

I bet they did Josie!

 

However, surely the OFTs draft guidance is simply just an opinion/interpretation;

it will be interesting to learn, how the Barrister's various argue against that opinion?

 

Previously the OFT has followed Goode's interpretation;

whereas, many Barrister's normally follow Francis Bennion...

[angry cat]

It was my understanding that the oft guidance would not be released until after the test cases and in any event, in 2010.

[angry cat]

yup, it will not be available for public viewing until after these 11 remaining cases are heard.

 

but, it is doing the rounds in CMC circles.

 

 

AOL Search

 

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/campaigns/social_policy/consultation_responses/cr_consumerandebt/oft_draft_guidance_on_sections_77_78_and_79_of_the_consumer_credit_act_1974

[angry cat]

That CAB review of the OFT guidance is interesting, what the hell is a 'reconstituted' copy? Sounds like free licence to print T&C's onto the back of signature / application forms.

 

I believe they mean a, conjectured reconstruction;

to the layman, a 'blue-peter'!!!

[angry cat]

A Blue Peter? You mean 'here's one I made earlier'!

 

Yes!

One made out of a fairy liquid bottle;

egg box;

cereal box;

cut out letters and numerals, all stuck on with Glue...

modern day blue peters are made with the aid of an, apple mac.

[angry cat]

It is only the draft that has been released!

the final version, will not be released until 2010.

[angry cat]

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.

 

Quite So!

 

"The Creditor" cannot reconstruct a credit agreement, if they do not hold the basis upon which the credit agreement was originally constructed.

 

In other words, houses cannot be built upon sand but upon rock;

if they are built on sand, they will fall down...!

[angry cat]

...when the wind blew and the waves dashed against his house, it would fall. Look how the sea had washed the foundation away, and how the roof is falling in! And the people; see how they are fleeing to save their lives! And all this calamity because he built his house upon the sand...

 

AC

[angry cat]

One hopes that tomorrow, will see the last of the test cases being heard?

 

Presumably, we will not hear very much until next week or 2010 re: the result?

[angry cat]

Just seen the following on Ceefax; 04/12/2009:

 

"Lenders must not mislead borrowers that their debts are enforceable, when in fact they are not, The OFT says.

The Regulator also says many debtors have, in turn, been mislead about their ability to escape their debts:

 

The OFT's comments are part of an intervention in a series of High Court test cases about the enforceability of debts under the Consumer Credit Act.

 

The outcome could affect thousands of potential court cases."

 

AC

[angry cat]

Seen it CB:)

[angry cat]

Re: media coverage;

there is nothing to say at the present, other than what has already been reported.

 

We just have to be patient and wait until January 2010.

[angry cat]

Duplicate posting...

Edited December 5, 2009 by angry cat

[angry cat]

I wonder if the 65 customers below were made aware that the "true copy" they'd received was "recreated"

 

 

 

I have seen this doc. prior PW. However, the comments made by RBS are noted.

 

Wasn't it RBS themselves who stated that they do not hold account data, going back farther than 6 years? (we know that they do of course)

 

Personally speaking, I have been trying, with the assisatnce of the ICO, to obtain copies of screen notes and log coms from RBS;

RBS have stated three times now that, they are unable to provide these, and that they can only supply limited information that has been copied and pasted from their system and on to a word document.

 

Someone, is telling porky pies...

[angry cat]

:

 

“You’ve got to experience it to realise how much pressure they put you under. [End Quote]

[angry cat]

Seek assistance from your MP!

[angry cat]

by John Story:

 

Any Consumer who has suffered any abuse of the kind identified by Lord Crowther in his brilliant 1971 White Paper "Consumer Credit - Report of the Committee" (Command 4596) need have no concerns whatever when he/she pleads that fact - in the knowledge that (as a 'consumer') Section 8 (Regulated Agreements) of the 1974 CCA is the starting point to which you refer when you say "What surprises me is that there is no legal basis for constructing a agreement " - the moment Section 8 CCA recognises that a contract is about to come into existance it despatches all of the old Common Law (AND ROMAN) tests and the CREDITOR is properly under a duty to demonstrate that he is not abusing the consumer - and that is why he then needs to document in accord with the CCA BEFORE the money is loaned - it's about timing.

 

As we all plainly see, Consumer Credit Law is very much under attack from the common law - an absolute No. No. in constitutional terms, and we must serve to protect it by raising it continually."

 

Totally agree!!!

 

AC

[angry cat]

What surprises me is that there is no legal basis for constructing a agreement

 

 

ITS JUST MAKES ME SICK - I had 4 unenforceable agreements based on the CCA 1974, which now have been left open to "reconstruction and abuse"

 

 

 

Re: lost agreements and more importantly unenforceable agreements.

 

There is no where in the CCA 1974 that allows a creditor to recreate a "true copy".

 

The OFT are a disgrace.

 

You are not wrong there, Paul!

 

AC

[angry cat]

 

Re: lost CCAs

 

The regs do however, allow the creditor to supply the current terms and conditions in order to satisfy a CCA 77 78 request if the agreement has been lost, providing the agreement was entered into prior to 1985.

 

There is no mention that a "recreation" would suffice post 1985.

 

Do They?

 

Well, if the creditor has nothing to base the lost/mislaid agreement on, I fail to see how current terms would suffice.

 

Dare I say;

No they cannot!

[angry cat]

:

There is no mention that a "recreation" would suffice post 1985."

 

 

: ...the OFT goes on to advise that lenders would be acting unfairly, and potentially in breach of their consumer credit licenses, if they misled borrowers by:

 

• hiding or disguising the fact that there was never a proper signed agreement in the first place

 

• providing only a copy of the current terms and conditions, not the original ones

 

• confusing the borrower as to who they should send an information request after selling the debt to a debt collection company

 

• failing to preserve data so the borrower cannot be given an up to date statement of account."

 

 

Roll eyes!

[angry cat]

John, the OFT are controlled by the (present) Government.

 

The Consumer must not be allowed to, 'Rock the Boat';

We the Consumer, intend to Rock their Boat.

 

Our Government, should not underestimate the 'POWER' of the 'British Elecorate'! If they do, then they will have a Public Rebellion on their hands;

many matters involved...

 

AC

[angry cat]

I can't help thinking we are getting worked up about two different things here.

 

A reconstituted agreement may satisfy a 77/78 request but cannot be used in court without a change in the law, and the law cannot be used retrospectively.

 

Court action requires original documentation, with all prescribed terms and signatures; and the claiment must produce any document mentioned in their POC.

 

Also the CCA is to protect unwary consumers not lazy finance houses, a defence against 'caveat emptor' in a way.

 

The Creditor cannot, reconstitute, make a conjectured reconstruction, if said Creditor has nothing upon which to reconstruct!

 

End of.

Edited December 13, 2009 by angry cat
error

[angry cat]

Thinking re: McGuffick...

 

Please sign this Number 10 Downing Street 'Petition':

 

Petition to: Regulate the UK's Credit Reference Agencies. | Number10.gov.uk

 

AC

[angry cat]

____________________________-

AC,

Signed up only to receive a paradoxical email, which asks to both click on reply to have your name added to petition, and also, later, to not reply. Will this distort the result ?

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

Email received reads,

 

"Anthony John Story

Please click on the link below to confirm your signature on the

petition at the bottom of this email.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/experian-equifax/DjkV8OEf4BPJCa57QsBC549

 

The petition was created by Lionel Refson and reads:

'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Regulate the

UK's Credit Reference Agencies.'

[ Please do not reply to this email, it will not confirm your

signature. This email has been automatically sent by the Number

10 petitions system. ] "

 

John, you have to click on the link that was sent to your email address;

the email addy as provided by you when signing the petition.

When you click on the link, this confirms that you have signed said petition.

 

IMHO, this petition may be of great benefit to all.

 

However, it cannot be taken to Downing Street unless, there is a minimum of 500 signatories and by 2nd January 2010!