Jump to content


Is this true about a test case no agreement


noogie
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5225 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

:confused:We have just been told that when a company cannot produce an enfocable agreement (in my case they cant produce one at all). There has been a test case and if the company can prove that you have made a payment on the account then a test case in the high court states that a judge can enforce it.

 

CAnt believe this is true. Is it utter twaddle again

Link to post
Share on other sites

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

 

 

 

 

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633, Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor said:

The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid

In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said:

Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. We have been trying to get an agreement since last Feb. Long story and a charge was placed on house, OC state they sold the debt. new creditor states every three weeks that they are trying to get agreement, Told them today they must take charge off, they said they would not as new test case stated when paperwork cannot be found all the company need do is prove we had made a payment, then we need to pay the emainder.

 

They said they would not remove charge vountarily and we would need to take them to court. I am quite prepared to do this and they said they would vigourouslt defend.

 

Just want to make sure of my ground as I will be starting proceedings on 16th DEc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that a reliable defence in court to quote that case?

 

I guess each case is judged on merit, but if you quote that case and say you'll make payments that you can afford, that would suffice?

Playing devils advocate here, I guess the judge would still direct you to make some sort of payment even if the account was unenforceable also?

 

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

 

 

 

 

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633, Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor said:

The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid

In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said:

Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was advised recently that you claim you paid because of harassment from the DCA.

 

Not sure if that will stand up in court but that’s the advice I was given.

 

 

Hopefully someone will clarify.

 

 

:confused:We have just been told that when a company cannot produce an enfocable agreement (in my case they cant produce one at all). There has been a test case and if the company can prove that you have made a payment on the account then a test case in the high court states that a judge can enforce it.

 

CAnt believe this is true. Is it utter twaddle again

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...