High Court decision

[St1973]

Good Point!

[count orlok]

I would guess if they use this ruling to argue their viewpoint we can do the same

[cashins]

I would guess if they use this ruling to argue their viewpoint we can do the same

 

Don't see why not.

 

Probably like Rankine. That was going to be the DCA's 'terror weapon', they could do what they liked but errr.............didn't quite turn out like that.

 

These 'get out of debt' companies have a lot riding on this - an appeal would not be a big suprise.

 

David

[JonCris]

Simply the agreement wasnt unenforcable and the CMC went straight for unenforcability (stupidly) in my opinion. The Judge has fired a shot across the bow of these CMC's!!!

 

Regardless of Banks and DCAs, who will make a mountain out of a molehill on this, nothing has really changed

 

 

The agreement had already been deemed unenforceable this was about data processing

[yummymummy82]

I send Eversheds now fairfax cca requests back in july my 4 accounts are in default with them, they still send threatening letters and today I received a card saying they will be sending an agent within 48hrs. They haven't responded to my cca request's at all? I'm not sure what to do now and how long this will carry on for?

[Revenant]

The Hon. Mr Justice Flaux :

Introduction

 

1. The present claim was commenced in the Chester County Court. It is one of a large number of claims currently before County Courts all over the country where disputes have arisen between lenders (such as the present defendant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc to which I will refer as "the bank") and their borrowers or debtors (such as the present claimant). These disputes concern the effect on loan agreements and other credit arrangements (all of which are regulated consumer credit agreements within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974) of provisions such as section 77 of that Act, which render the agreement unenforceable in certain circumstances.
   

Above is the first couple of lines from the notes of this case whereby the basics are set out and you will see that the idea is to sort out the disputes between the lenders and the borrowers/debtors

After trying to sift through the various points raised/answered etc I can find no reference within that this case has any relevance to situations where DCA's have purchased a debt

My thoughts are . .

The OC or lender can appoint a DCA to act on their behalf so this case has bearing as the OC still owns the debt

The OC sells the debt on to a DCA thereby giving up it's rights of ownership, the DCA might now own the debt but they are not the lender as they never supplied any form of credit to the borrower/debtor, case has no bearing

Sorry if this is a bit drawn out and I'll very intrested to read your comments for I feel all is not lost

[andydd]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-finance-industry/225417-high-court-decision-debt.html

 

Most odd, surely nothing has changed. I always thought unenforceable meant that a court couldnt order sanctions such as CCJ's and then bailiffs etc to be applied however the debt technically still exists and the creditor and/or DCA's can still do their best to try and retreive it, not sure how they would ever do this, one poster on the Times site mentioned 'offsetting' but that is very rarely used.

 

Im annoyed at the way it has been reported, no 'loopholes' have been closed, as far as |i can see the situation is exactly the same as it ever was !

 

Andy

[tosh1]

subbing

[babybear39]

Subscribing...

[Having_A_Knightmare]

subbing-------

[JonCris]

seems this was all about getting his info removed from the CRA's, even though his agreement was a good un,

 

AH! but was it It was produced at the 11th hour so there was no time to check it's authenticity & as we know some banks have a habit of producing reconstructed, conjectured ones which don't match the original:mad:

[cashins]

AH! but was it It was produced at the 11th hour so there was no time to check it's authenticity & as we know some banks have a habit of producing reconstructed, conjectured ones which don't match the original:evil:

 

Possibly, but it may be better to accept that it was.

 

That would then open the door to diassociating this judgement from cases where the agreement is not enforceable, or cannot be produced.

 

David

[hunni2006]

hi all,

the fall out from the decision has already begun....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223570-cabot-financial-dealing-cabot-7.html#post2533619

 

Beau was in court yesterday & LOST his case because the JUDGE used this decision.