Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[angry cat]

John, your name has been added:)

 

Thank You:)

 

Time to stand up and be counted!!!

[angry cat]

The chicken from its egg came forth from dinosaurs...

[angry cat]

Hi Paul

 

It has been common knowledge amongst most of us that a court was never going to render an agreement continually unenforceable because the creditor did not produce a copy despite what was said in the legislation.

I have actually been in court when a judge has said as much.

 

It seems to me that some little effort has gone into reconstructing both the meaning and the intention of section 78 in order to ensure that this cannot happen

Some time ago I wrote a letter to the OFT outlining the reasons why in my opinion a copy should ,if the regulations an legislature are followed to the letter, reflect accurately the original signed and executed agreement, with of course the exceptions stipulated by section 3 of the copy regulations.

Some of the points I raised where picked up in the judgement only given a different interpretation.

The judgement says, “For the avoidance of doubt I consider that the reference in s180 (2) (a) to the “prescribed form” and “prescribed requirements” is a reference to the requirements imposed by the Copies Regulations, not the Agreements Regulations. “

For what it is worth I do not agree with this , as admitted latter in the judgement there is very little in the copy regulations relating to form in the copy regs so why refer to them, also the way the section is worded implies to me that they are inferring to the agreement regulations.

Anyway that is the ruling so that is what we must learn to live with.

This means that any of the requirements regarding things like no dispersion of information does not apply to copy regulations so information can be placed wherever they like as long as it is contained within the document luckily the word contained is stated in the act and does ensure that the prescribed terms at least have to be in the same document as the signature.

In the courts apparent zeal to diffuse the unenforceability aspect of section78 they seem to have completely left it without any teeth at all.

It seems to me that the creditor could simply ignore the request ,what sanction he suffer?

The debtor cannot suspend payment the creditor has the right to report any missed payments to a CRA he can apply interest and default charges to the account, issue a default notice and just produce the agreement in court if necessary.

I suppose he may get a slap on the wrist from the OFT but experience tells us that this is very unlikely.

At least the judgment confirmed our analysis of the terms contained (as in within the agreement )and embodied as (can be in another document referred to by the agreement).

It also occurs to me that this is contrary to the approach taken in the neww section77a of the 2006 act which says that any creditor failing to supply annual statements would not be able to charge interest whilst he is in breach.

Repeated reference is given to the idea that the copy is not a method of obtaining “proof positive” of a properly executed agreement but just means of acquiring accurate information of the original conditions of the agreement and any changes that have incurred in its conditions or operation.

I find this difficult to understand ,if for instance a copy you receive clearly shows that a fee has been incorrectly added to the total credit thus breaching section 9 and 127(3) does this mean that this copy cannot be used in evidence as proof of an incorrectly executed agreement?

Again I think that in there zeal to halt the rise in unenforceability claims they have thrown the baby out with the bath water,

 

Cheers

Peter

 

Hello Peter and hoping that you are well!

 

I remember that letter very well, as you know I was a party to it...

 

You may find the following link of interest:

 

Legal news - The Consumer Credit Act 2006 starts to bite - Wragge & Co - UK Law Firm

 

AC

[angry cat]

Yes.

 

Excellent!

[angry cat]

I left numerous msgs for my solicitor who is handling a couple of cases for me. To his credit he came bck to me today. In his opinion the outcome of these cases will have no impact at all on my personal claims. 'Its just confirmed what we already know' and ' the banks have to link any recon' agreement to the original and that will cause them major problems'. I will sleep easier tonight:cool:

 

All remains the same; people should not be panicking!

[angry cat]

did they phone you at home?

 

LOL, PW!

 

AC

X

[angry cat]

reg 3 of the consumer credit cancellation notices & copies of documents regulations 1983 states that signatures and names may be omitted.

 

However;

 

In respect of regulation 7 which states;

 

7(1) Where an agreement has been varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act, every copy of the executed agreement given to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act other than section 85(1) shall include either -

 

a) an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation given in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has been varied;

 

or

 

b) an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act.

 

reg 7 refers to a copy of the executed agreement and that sub sections a) or b) are in addition to this AND NOT ANY ALTERNATIVE to sending the "actual ***EXECUTED AGREEMENT".

[angry cat]

I see, good man.

 

A, Good Man Indeed!!!

 

AC

[angry cat]

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;)

 

Agree!

 

: Almost forgot the next time you complete a claim form tick 'yes' where it asks if the HRA will be involved quoting article 6 'right to a fair trial'"

 

Always Have.

 

Happy New Year Guys!!!

[angry cat]

The following provides confirmation of an opinion that I was provided with Re: conjectured reconstruction/reconstituted credit agreements:

The consumer credit cancellation notices & copies of documents regulations 1983;

In respect of regulation 7 which states;

 

7(1) Where an agreement has been varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act, every copy of the executed agreement given to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act other than section 85(1) shall include either -

 

a) an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation given in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has been varied;

 

or

 

b) an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act.

 

We are of the opinion that reg 7 refers to a copy of the executed agreement and that sub sections a) or b) are in addition to this and not any alternative to sending the "actual executed agreement".

 

from Carey V HSBC Bank plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) (23 December 2009):

 

"108. Accordingly, I conclude that Reg. 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form as well as a statement of the terms as they are at the time of the request."

 

"SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

 

234.

 

(4). If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms."

 

AC

[angry cat]

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

Hi Nick !

Sorry If I bang on here - I'm not a sore loser (re Story) - I'm the determined consumer that Lord Crowther described in his 1971 report. Unbeknown to us, our friendly and informal Natwest manager issued a cheque to redeem our joint £24k mortgage to the Yorkshire B.S. without our knowledge in order to sucessfully obtain the deeds to our home whilst we slept soundly dreaming of the promises he had made that were to underpin our son's future !!! AND, the Court suppressed my submissions on the point. The cheque was not to be found when the Somerset and Avon Fraud Squad asked to see it ! Those are the sort of behavious that we're up against here where (the undoubted but very real minority of) unscrupulous creditors may er "RECREATE" documents to, er, assist the Courts.

 

Come off it ! Parliament saw straight through that one and it was very clear in its instructions to Mr Bennion to address the issue !

 

 

I have studied (and been guided) as to exactly what is going on here and it amounts to a national scandal of unprecedented proportions and severity - the banks are being protected by the common law courts which are taking political decisions that are banned under our constitution - whereas the county court, bound to properly apply the letter of the CCA as instructed by a Parliament that was driven to legislate against a widescale abuse, would have to rule against the creditor in these production cases (and many others besides) - to hopefully, er REGULATE the behaviours of an industry not noted for its tenderness !

 

Against this backdrop of Parliament struggling to create a level playing field - the Common Law is sabotaging the issue by eg turning the burden of proof issue to the creditors' benefit under common law doctrines - especially, Caveat Emptor ("Buyer Beware") - where the CCA turned this around to "Lender Beware" - to address the very problem we see today - where the banks and the common law practitioners rely on inequality of bargaining power to maintain their own earning power within a society that feeds the common law food chain.

 

Parliament was determined to address the mischief of inequality of bargaining power - and we see the common law courts actively striving to restore the inequality in favour of the credit industry which prefers to not document (potentially troublesome [for them]) terms - where the prescribed terms that cause so much trouble today were intended as just the start of the route to transparency in consumer credit agreements - termed "truth in lending" by the OFT at the time - where the OFT was clear to me in the many discussions we held that it wanted to see ALL THE TERMS that applied to a regulated agreement documented.

 

That's what the banks and the Judges are afraid of - the banker/customer relationship becomes recognised in law as a statutory relationship if the CCA is properly applied in these cases - it is taken away from the Common Law Courts where the inequality detested by Parliament, thrives to the sole benefit of the common law practitioners for whom the costs issue is so very profitable.

 

 

With respect, you assume that the Courts are correct to apply normal procedure - where Parliament went out of its way to keep these matters away from the common law !!

 

Says a lot, really, when you think of it.

 

Problem is, the Commons doesn't have much to shout about, when it comes to the Judges' standards, now, does it ?

 

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

Jack Straw is asleep on the job and;

it would appear that the Banks and Judges are in Gordon Browns pocket.

 

Also, the Judges appear to be somewhat confused about the Law in relation to the Consumer Credit Act!

[angry cat]

Dont disagree with that lilly!

 

Also, do not lose sight of the new guidance due shortly;

 

OFT Guidance on sections 77-79;

Irresponsible Lending Guidance and:

 

The new EU Directive that will be implemented in June of this Year.

 

The Gov. should not play with the general consumer: the electorate!

 

We are NOT Fools...

 

AC

[angry cat]

Any chance of a link please?

 

Thanks.

 

Consumer Credit - European Directive - BIS

[angry cat]

The Irresponsible Lending Draft Guidance, is also exremely relevant:

 

Irresponsible lending - The Office of Fair Trading

[angry cat]

So, now we all await the:

OFT Guidance on sectons 77-79.

 

That should make for an interesting read!

[angry cat]

One last thing and then I will leave you all in peace.

 

I must say that I raised both eyebrows when reading McGuffick;

Mr. Handyside QC was blagging it to the judge re: Irresponsible lending!

 

And the Judge bought it?

 

RBS, not an irresponsible lender; that has to go down as being the joke of the last decade.

 

Therefore, I do believe that the Irresponsble Lending Guidance is of great importance and;

RBS (et al) know it!

 

Enjoy your evening:)

 

AC

[angry cat]

Hi AC hope you enjoyed break . 3 days off from dca's at least . Did we make the numbers on the CRA petition as i was only in the 350's when i signed a few days beforer the deadline ?

 

Sadly not ES!

The final tally was 468;

pity, because all that was needed was another 32 signatures and the petition couldn have been taken to Downing Street.

 

Even though I did not personally create the petition, I was surpised about the lack of people signing it.

 

The inaccuracy of the data processed by the credit reference agencies, is constantly a cause of concern not just on here but also in the press.

I guess, some people are just apathetic re: this issue!?

 

Please see the following:

News

MPs call for probe into credit searches - 22/12/2009

 

 

The Treasury Committee has called on the Office of Fair Trading and Information Commissioner to assess whether credit application searches by consumers should appear on credit files.

 

The cross-party committee has called on both regulators to launch assessments amid fears that when shopping around for personal loans and credit cards, consumers build up application searches on their credit reference files and in turn, make it harder for themselves to obtain credit.

 

In a report published today, entitled Credit Searches, the committee calls on the OFT to investigate the complex trade offs between the need to prevent irresponsible lending and the need to ensure consumers can search freely for unsecured credit without being penalised.

 

John McFall, chairman of the committee, said: "While it is right to protect consumers from potentially reckless lending; equally, they shouldn’t be penalised for shopping around for loans."

 

The report has been made as part of an inquiry into the impact of credit searches on credit files and unleashes several obligations on the OFT and Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

 

The inquiry will also be looking at the quality and accuracy of data held by credit reference agencies (CRAs). The committee has recommended that the Information Commissioner consider seeking assurances that data quality at the CRAs conforms with the Data Protection Act. The MPs raised concerns that credit applications, which are rejected because of incorrect data, may remain on file and affect future credit scoring.

 

The Information Commissioner has also been asked to consider whether it is fair for credit reference files to contain details of application searches made while credit reference files were "demonstrably incorrect."

 

McFall added that people should be able to afford to access their credit files and that correcting inaccurate data should be simple and easy.

 

He said: "There may be a case for free access, and we have asked the ICO and OFT to look at this."

 

The OFT has also been told to look at the information presented in credit files, and ensure that consumers can understand the data included in them. The regulator has also been asked to investigate the impact of multiple applications on the availability and price of credit to customers, as many do not end up with the interest rate that was originally advertised.

 

The committee said it has not received unequivocal evidence that application search data is "critical" for lenders, who can assess more than 400 indicators of a consumer’s credit worthiness. But neither did the committee receive "overwhelming" evidence that it is a major source of direct consumer detriment."

 

AC

[angry cat]

AC

 

I think the timing of this petition - over Christmas and New Year break - was CRAZY - as was the ridulously short time given in whoich to sign.

 

I would ask - TRY AGAIN - with more publicity and a sensible period of time given this time.

 

BD

 

Agree!

 

As stated prior, I was not the petition Creator.

However, I did recognise the importance of the petition, that Is why I and others (including some of the site team) attempted to obtain more signatures.

 

Bearing in mind the short time that the petition was running; 468 signatures was not a bad result at all....

 

If once you don't succeed, try, try again;

Another petition will be created re: regulating the CRA's.

 

AC

[angry cat]

Hopefully!

 

Back to the main topic Guys:)

[angry cat]

Negligence in contract; now your talking!

[angry cat]

The costs in a properly defended/counter-claimed trial, could amount to £10,000 - £20,000.

 

Not forgetting the bad press, of course!

[angry cat]

:eek: Don't have ATE OMG:eek:. That is one seriously flawed business proposition they have.

 

Astonished!

[angry cat]

The Royal Bank of Shame?

[angry cat]

Have a look here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/241335-media-failing-accurately-report.html#post2689218

 

Mis-reporting!

 

Simon Read - journalisted.com

[angry cat]

Disgusting human being.

 

Who Me?

 

Or, Simon Read; the journalist?