Jump to content


Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3166 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

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No this is just the propaganda from RBS. Have a look at the thread on Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites
No this is just the propaganda from RBS. Have a look at the thread on Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice.

 

 

Times are quoting Ultimate Law again- Daniella Lipsynch- what is her agenda I just can't figure it out.

She runs a company which allegedly trains lawyers in consumer law so they can act for clients to write off debts and then keeps rubbishing the process.wtf is that all about :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manchester Cases

There is going to be a preliminary hearing in the week beginning 30 November to determine several legal principles. 13 cases have been chosen. All other cases are stayed pending hearing. Trial window in March 2010.

 

HHJ Waksman has said that he does not consider himself bound by the McGuff case as he is sitting in the Mercantile court.

LIBM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that HHJ Waksman sat in the Administrative Court in Manchester?

 

The Mercantile Court and the Commercial Court are both part of the High Court. I believe the Mercantile Court can sit in Manchester and has its own section of the CPR. The Commercial Court hears more comlpex commercial transactions and again has its own part of the CPR. So to that extent there is some separation.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been missing in action on this one (crap at work) so lost the thread (ha!).

 

Has their been any further developments, notice from LIBM's post about preliminary hearings. Has is been established yet what these particulars cases are dealing with.

 

B40

Link to post
Share on other sites
Been missing in action on this one (crap at work) so lost the thread (ha!).

 

Has their been any further developments, notice from LIBM's post about preliminary hearings. Has is been established yet what these particulars cases are dealing with.

 

B40

 

Daily Express | YourMoney :: Consumers set to gain from debt cases

Link to post
Share on other sites

We propose that the hearing listed for ******2009 be vacated and that the claim be stayed for a period of two months (*******2009). We consider that a stay would be prudent in light of the numberous test cases currently progressing in the Mercantile Court in Manchester and which are due to be heard before *******QC on *******2009

 

The test cases deal with a number of issues relevant to our client's claim, including :

1. Wheather a copy of agreement given under section 78(1) must have the quality of a photocopy or may the copy be a reproduction;

2. Whether a creditors breach of section 78(1) gives rise to an unfair relationship;

3. Whether, if there is a breach of section 78(1), a declaration to that effect is appropriate;

4. Whether the document signed by the debtor contains the prescribed terms if they are on a separate sheet attached to or supplied with the piece of paper signed by the debtor; and

5. Whether a failure to show that there was a document signed by the debtor containing the prescribed terms of itself give rise to an unfair relationship.

 

Does anyone have any further info on the Manchester Cases, the above is from ssshooter's post on another thread, any ideas on what the several legal principles are to be determined as mentioned by letitbeme in post 182.

 

OllieH

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, my posts have been reinstated but the thread has now been closed.

 

It might be worth bearing in mind that, if one becomes embroiled in slanging matches, this will be the result!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baggio.

 

My case is up for a case managmen conferance on 18th Nov, the

Solicitor defending my case is actively involved with the Manchester test case’s, so will update this thread when the relevant unenforceable points eventually get to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Baggio.

 

My case is up for a case managmen conferance on 18th Nov, the

Solicitor defending my case is actively involved with the Manchester test case’s, so will update this thread when the relevant unenforceable points eventually get to court.

 

good stuff, i am meeting quite an eminent barrister within the whole consumer credit law arena this coming week, and will be picking his brains re: mcduff and future test cases.

 

will report back here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at this,very interesting

 

Reported this morning on BBC

 

Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

By Ian Pollock

Personal finance reporter, BBC News

 

 

The obligation to repay many consumer loans may be undermined

A decision by a county court Judge could mean thousands of borrowers being able to renege on their debts.

Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields county court has decided that the MBNA credit card company cannot demand the repayment of a customer's debt.

It tried to force Lynne Thorius to repay the £8,000 she owed on her card.

But the Judge decided there had been an unfair relationship between Ms Thorius and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance.

'Massive ramifications'

Ms Thorius' case was pursued on her behalf by a claims management firm Cartal Client Review, based in Manchester, and the law firm Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors.

Carl Wright of Cartal Client Review, claimed the court decision was a landmark judgement.

"This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country," he said.

But MBNA downplayed the importance of the court decision.

"The judgement went against MBNA for a number of reasons," a spokeswoman said.

"In principle, because the deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases," she explained.

"The case is a county court case and each case is decided on its own merits and on the factual circumstances of each case. This does not set any legal precedent," said MBNA.

'Secret commission'

The credit card in question was branded with the logo of Sunderland football club and was sold to Ms Thorius in the club's shop in 2002.

The PPI policy was sold to her at the same time, to pay off her account if she fell ill or was made redundant.

But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.

Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Ms Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach the Consumer Credit Act.

This point could potentially undermine many other agreements where PPI has been sold by the lender alongside a loan.

These include car finance deals, other personal loans and even mortgages.

"This practice is believed to be widespread and formed part of the Competition Commission's decision to prohibit the co-sale of PPI with credit in its report published on 29/1/09," Mr Brant noted.

"This point is likely to affect many thousands of individuals within England and Wales," he added.

Repayments

Judge Smart also agreed that the debt on Ms Thorius's credit card was unenforceable because the card company could not provide a copy of the original loan agreement, which is also required by the Consumer Credit Act.

MBNA's claim for the repayment of the outstanding money on the card was rejected.

And the Judge ordered the company either to repay Ms Thorius's PPI premiums and interest, or the value of the commissions it had received which so far has been undisclosed.

The PPI premiums, which rose each month as the credit card debts increased, amounted to £2,500 over the time the card had been in use.

Controversial

The claims management industry which has emerged in the past few years has been highly controversial.

Many firms advertise in newspapers and on television, encouraging people to come forward to write off their debts.

This year the authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Ministry of Justice (which regulates claims management firms) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, have warned firms not to make exaggerated claims about their ability to get debts written off because of apparent technical errors in the lenders' paperwork.

Since April 2007 more than 100 such firms, or those advertising for people to pursue personal injury claims, have been shut down by the OFT.

But the South Shields ruling appears to open up a new and genuine line of attack for claims firms.

"We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity," said Mr Wright.

MBNA applied for leave to appeal, which was rejected, but it may now apply directly to a higher court for permission to appeal.

Only when higher courts have decided the issue will the legal ramifications, and the effects on lender and borrowers, be clear.

 

Very interesting information and well worth looking into.

 

As discussed elsewhere and recommended by the Ministry of Justice everyone should take advice before paying a CMC to take on their case

 

]cartelclientreview.co.uk

 

 

Any football fans out there good idea to post this on the Sunderland football fans website and the liverpool Man utd nEWCASTLE etc etc

 

 

in fact all the affiliated front names that MBNA ARE BEHIND !!!!!

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...