Why no news coverage in the media re manchester test case judgements last week?

[domtheman7]

This judgment is not really aimed at people who are defending cases brought by banks or debt collection agencies. It is aimed at people who bring cases AGAINST THE BANK to have their debt written off.

 

The judge is basically saying that:-

 

1) If you try to do it because you think they haven't complied with section 78, then don't. (which we knew anyway after McGuffick)

2) If you try to do it because the prescribed terms are not on the same side of the piece of paper where the document was signed, then don't.

3) If you try to do it because you say the agreement was not properly executed, but you refuse to actually say why, then don't.

4) You can do it, by saying "I didn't sign the agreement". But if you do, you better make sure you didn't, because if you didn't you will be guilty of contempt of court (this isn't spelled out in his judgment, but those solicitors amongst us who have been waiting for this know that is what he is getting at).

 

Not good news.

[domtheman7]

Are you saying then, that the way to go is to stop paying and force them to take you to court, whereby they will have to provide the paperwork before the court appearance, and the agreement can then be checked over?

 

BF

 

Absolutely yes. You stop paying, you request your original agreement. If they don't provide it, you write and say that you infer the reason for this is that they don't have it. You say you will not be paying and you invite them to take you to court. You say you would like them to resolve the dispute out of court by providing the agreement, as required by the pre action practice direction.

 

And then sit back and file the increasing number of letters from moron Debt Collection Agencies in a nice folder, and wait. And after six years it is written off anyway. If they sue, you defend it by saying because they didn't provide the agreement when you asked you think it wasn't properly executed. They provide it at court and you lose, you offer to pay £1 per month, and the court accept it (or some other figure) and you pay back what you can afford. They don't provide it at court and you win.

[domtheman7]

And it will ruin your credit rating as well. It is possible for them to go for bankruptcy, but they would still need the agreement and it is very expensive so unlikely.

 

CCJs are unlikely also, but they do happen to many thousands of people each year. But even if you lost the case it would be rare for you not to have the opportunity to throw the towel in and agree repayments.

 

But then you will also have the bank's legal costs to pay. The can be SIGNIFICANT.

 

Please don't take me as actively advising you to do anything. What you do depends upon your personal circumstances. But after the McGuffick and Manchester cases, this is pretty much the only option available.

[domtheman7]

They would be payable if a court case was started (by you or the bank), you don't "win" (whether because you lose at hearing, or give up before the hearing but after the court claim was commenced), and you can't pursuade the judge to alter the usual rule (which you could try, by saying "if only they had provided the agreement at the outset when I asked them to none of this would have happenned", but it is very unlikely to be a successful argument).

 

They would be added to the amount you would be ordered to (or agree to) repay the bank.