Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[Baggio]

I thought so but I was wrong - the claimant turned up with the wrong T & C and won, its unbelievable. You will find the thread in new posts.

 

humbleman needs help Baggio if you have any ideas.

 

pedross, i will check the thread out.. was he LIP?

 

i personally cannot encourage anybody to fight the banks as LIP... you will get roasted.

[Baggio]

Alas, most people dont have the money to pay for a barrister otherwise they'd pay the debt

 

S.

 

Shadow... come on fella, there are options out there that will cover this for you.

 

I know they are hated on here.. but a proper CMC, with a fully funded solictiors practice would be very useful in this instance.

 

I don't buy the LIP process of just following 100% advice on a forum... its far too risky, the banks are now sending in their top guns to fight LIP's in court... i can assure you they don't even contemplate that thought when they are coming up against the same consumer... aided by a CMC and their legal firepower.

 

I will point out again, i am not connected to any CMC or have any kind of affiliation with any CMC.

[Baggio]

Baggio, can you recommend any good CMC's?

After reading some of the things that have happened lately, I really dont feel confident about being a LIP, when the day comes.

 

What are likely to be the costs involved, and can they be covered by insurance?

 

BF

 

I can't but there are plenty out there to choose from.

 

You need to do some real digging when speaking to them, ask them to provide some proof of the sols they use and ask them how they are funded and what type of ATE cover they have.

 

If they are real and serious they will answer your questions and provide any documents you request.. if at any time they get hot under the collar from the questions.. quickly put the phone down and NEVER call them again.

 

Move on to the next one.

[Baggio]

Does what they send have to actually show the signature though?

 

The problem is a copy of the executed agreement could be just a copy of what was "agreed" at the time. Not an exact photocopy of the original signed agreement. The agreement is what was agreed. (I am starting to sound like Waksman!)

 

Proving it really is a copy of the executed agreement is a different thing, especially if you/they don't have the original agreement.

 

Does that make sense?

 

True, but if you can successfully evidence a case against a particular lender... who has in the past tarnished their reputation by "forging" a reconned agreement..... surely this will weigh heavily in only one sides favour.. if a "balance of probabilities" is relyed upon to make judgement.

[Baggio]

an accurate copy, rather than the original agreement

 

they will be asked to prove how they account this accuracy... and if they have been caught out in the past "forging" agreements... etc etc

 

a decent barrister would rip them a new one in court.

[Baggio]

Do you know of one?

 

there are a few around, i note one of the site team on your thread passed you information about one he reccomended... did you make any progress with that lead?

[Baggio]

I consider myself more than competent and I have a degree in law. I have studied the CCA for years. I also have the shameful past of working for a credit card company for 10 years - so I know a little bit of what goes on behind closed doors. (I even got to deal with my own letters requesting a credit limit increase on my own account - fun)

 

From past experience I would never in a million years act as LiP against the banks. Not just from the view of law but from the threat to the other side of having to pay a pros costs, that representation brings. Being taken seriously at a trial also helps. Not that is gets to trial most of the time if you have proper representation.

 

could not agree with you more.

[Baggio]

I have, he is not Direct Access

 

i will PM you sometime tommorow and give you my thoughts.

[Baggio]

yes, how are things progressing Baggio. The other side seem to be taking advantage of the Manchester judgement - and McGuffick - so when will the response be forthcoming?

 

a large number of cases have had proceedings against lenders issued this month, the response is more than forthcoming.

 

i personally know of over 1500 cases that have been issued this month, all 1500+ cases had sec 77/78 disclosures that did not meet the requirements of the waksman judgement.

 

each of these cases had a barristers opinion wrapped around them following the waksman judgement.

 

i fully expect a very large percentage of these cases to be settled out of court.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Baggio
spelling

[Baggio]

I understand the Carey case is going to full trial with disclosure prior to the 02 Feb.

[Baggio]

:eek: and is it any wonder why crapone has just bombarded customers with almost double apr% raises.

 

S.

 

sorry, i meant over 1500 cases on behalf of consumers that had been issued against the lenders.

[Baggio]

 

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/con...OFT1175con.pdf

 

Edited January 27, 2010 by Baggio
link

[Baggio]

sorry guys, have repasted another link

 

makes interesting reading

 

certainly not the whitewash we were maybe expecting from the OFT

 

i am most surprised.

[Baggio]

The OFT disagreed with elements of the Royal Bank of Scotland versus McGuffick court case, which said threatening legal action does not constitute enforcement. While acknowledging the case, it said: "A creditor should in no way mislead a debtor as to the enforceability of the agreement. To do so would be an unfair of improper business practice and would be highly relevant to the creditor’s or owner’s fitness to hold a licence."

 

It added: "No communications or requests for payment should in any way threaten court action or other enforcement of the debt where the creditor or owner is aware that it cannot or will not be entitled to enforce."

 

The OFT then went further, insisting that communications with the debtor should in fact make it clear that the debt is unenforceable.

[Baggio]

OFT consults on unenforceable credit agreements guidance - The Office of Fair Trading

[Baggio]

it's not the CMC, it's actually the weak, 4th rate solicitors behind them who are very unsure of the act, recent judgements, and all future judgements.

 

i know very well in my capacity that there are just not enough decent law firms out there who know how to proceed correctly and efficently with a claim.

[Baggio]

nick - this is CAG, i am not allowed to post up link to solicitors etc

 

template letters etc is the way forward, apparently

[Baggio]

Dont blame me! I dont need one. Was just having a laugh. :D Anyway, what is your pm box like? Think you are going to get some pm's though.

 

don't worry, i never blamed you.

 

i'll PM you a proper joke later

[Baggio]

Baggio brunnel franklins seem to be dropping a lot of their cases on the back of this judgement is it the case with other claim handling companies ?

 

BF were never that concerned about pursuing UCA cases as there sols are a injury claims specialist and have little understanding of CCA74.

 

I understand they have issues with their ATE insurers and prefer to concentrate on PPI claims.

[Baggio]

Yes and many cases where the creditor has backed off at the last minutre.

 

J

 

Hundreds!!

 

Believe you me

[Baggio]

Baggio Have you any idea what is happening with the CMC Cartel/CCLS.Put 3 cards through them re UCA over 18 months ago and no further forward Have left 20 messages over the last couple of months with no reply, but yet they seem to be all over the press telling us how great they are. Bloody shambles of a company and I wish I had seen this site before I gave them my money

 

House of cards i'm afraid...tumbling as we speak... allegedly

 

You will do well to mentally write what you paid them off...unfortunately.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Baggio

[Baggio]

Thanks for replying to my BF post earlier . You hit it right on the head my sol was an injury sol and not up to much . BF kindly sent a voucher to everyone and said your not having your money back . Any advice ? Hows the mood in your camp with these rulings ?

 

The mood in the camps i deal with is good, on the whole.

 

Clearly all the recent political judgements have not been fantastic, but they have certainly not been anywhere near as bad as some would like to make us believe.

 

Onwards and upwards... they certainly won't be getting off the hook... i can 100% assure you of that.