Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[lilly white]

i am unsure on this point however that has not stop me before..........

 

 

In general terms the point is this the agreedment should have been laid before you to sign as laid out in the regs as per the act.

 

the terms should not be hidden but as per the act.

 

If they are hiden , must cases they are , the creditor is in trouble.

 

I DO NOT BELIVE THAT THE MONEY INDUSTRY HAS EVER GOT OVER THAT.

 

 

KIND REGARDS TO YOU ALL

 

lilly

Edited March 16, 2010 by lilly white

[oilyrag]

A very relevant issue to the Manchester Lead cases I'm afraid. I have picked up in the "small print" that there have already been additional hearings and addenda to the judgement handed down on the 23rd of December 2009.

 

I cannot find any definitive data to support this , yet HHJ Waksman has apparently handed down additional judgment material early in January plus there have been additional hearings early this month on the court listings.

 

Does anyone have any further information or detail please?

 

regards

oilyrag.

[JonCris]

Yup this site is not only educating us it's also educating the opposition:(

[oilyrag]

Hi JonCris

 

I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that I am the opposition, very far from it. I had picked this up whilst trying to find something else of relevance to do with business and credit cards. The court hearings before HHJW seem to have been 8th/9th of this month with judgments to be handed down in two to thee weeks.

 

regards

oilyrag.

Edited March 16, 2010 by oilyrag
typos

[citizenB]

I have one if you want it:)

 

Awww, thank you Vint

 

Agree SFU that`s why we seem to get a lot of "Visitors" viewing the site no doubt trying to make as much sense of it as us poor consumers

 

Not all "visitors" are the opposition

 

Sometimes a google search for something will list a a CAG post/thread.

 

Sometimes it will be a bona fide CAGer, like me who follows an interesting email notification from the link and simply forgets to log in:oops:

[seriously fed up]

You might all find this interesting - Debt-laden consumers face dangerous times - of course its the kind of line you would expect them to spin - note in particular the ref to s78 in particular - but its best we know what we are up against.

On the other hand there is this http://angliacreditissues.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/victory-over-lenders-unenforceable-credit-agreements-judge-waksman/

[lookinforinfo]

Seriously fed up, Cartel do make a valid point though. It will make it extremely difficult for c/card companies in particular to amend their rates [or vary their T&Cs] if they cannot produce the original agreement. The flipside I suppose is that they cannot alter them down either.

 

Which raises a question to the experts.

If a financial institution wishes to alter its terms but does not have the original agreements of many of its clients, can it legally send out the amended T&Cs to those who it can include a copy of their agreement?

[vint1954]

In all probability, no, but they will until caught.

[vint1954]

This is why it is more that likely advisable to use a broad sweep when defending a poor application/agreement: s61, s59, s85, s82, s127 and reg 7.

[247orbital]

I know this is slightly off topic but relevant all the same, does anyone have a link or copy of the EU regulations regarding data sharing and requiring individual consent etc?

 

Thanks in advance.

[diddydicky]

i saw in yesterdays papers that the oft has recommended that debtors must be allowed to pay £1 per month on each debt for 6 months in order to overcome financial difficulties

 

that should p*ss a few creditors off

[vint1954]

I know this is slightly off topic but relevant all the same, does anyone have a link or copy of the EU regulations regarding data sharing and requiring individual consent etc?

 

Thanks in advance.

I think I put a link to it on here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/222663-cras-ocs-credit-ref.html

[vint1954]

i saw in yesterdays papers that the oft has recommended that debtors must be allowed to pay £1 per month on each debt for 6 months in order to overcome financial difficulties

 

that should p*ss a few creditors off

Not arf!

 

I also saw yesterday, that the ICO was warning people to check that the data sharing box was unticked when you buy online, or your data can be sharred with third parties.

 

Double standards or what!

[AA99]

i saw in yesterdays papers that the oft has recommended that debtors must be allowed to pay £1 per month on each debt for 6 months in order to overcome financial difficulties and then what:eek:

 

that should p*ss a few creditors off

 

I had a few OC's accept either £1 or minimal amount but they continue to charge £12 + £12 every month so it wasn't worth it:eek:

[diddydicky]

also saw in the MOS that creditors have agreed (although legistlation may be on the way) to now credit payments to the highest interest bearing parts of the account from now on

 

another money spinner choked off

[diddydicky]

I had a few OC's accept either £1 or minimal amount but they continue to charge £12 + £12 every month so it wasn't worth it:eek:

 

i am sure that wont be tolerated!!

[the_shadow]

also saw in the MOS that creditors have agreed (although legistlation may be on the way) to now credit payments to the highest interest bearing parts of the account from now on

 

another money spinner choked off

 

Yep, seen CC firms saying it'll cost the industry 500million in just two years

 

my wallet bleeds for them ;-)

 

S.

[diddydicky]

they may be a bit short of funds to start ill conceived court actions for a wee while then!

[AA99]

i am sure that wont be tolerated!!

 

What about the ones that say they'll freeze interest and charges after you've paid the token amount for 2 months:eek: I've given up with most of them now, confident my agreements or non-agreements are unenforceable:cool:

[Undercover-Elsa]

Am I being cynical or is it not just a clever way to stop the debt becoming statute barred?

[the_shadow]

Am I being cynical or is it not just a clever way to stop the debt becoming statute barred?

 

there is that yes.

 

also read that the oft reckon itll help 5000 people. damm sure there are more than 5000 that need this kind of help. and who is going to be responsible for running the sceme, some new better lending quango i believe.

 

s.

Edited March 16, 2010 by the_shadow
crappy mobile phone web editing :-(

[diddydicky]

Am I being cynical or is it not just a clever way to stop the debt becoming statute barred?

 

no it was foisted upon them by the OFT under pressure from the govt and if they do not play ball they will legislate

 

its only 6 months- not enough to worry about SB

 

designed for those who have just got into debt and need some breathing space to sort themselves out (nothing to do with an election of course)

[Undercover-Elsa]

There was a very scruffy, greasy looking guy from CCCS discussing it on TV, are they going to be the sole administrators?

[Laura Cooke]

Apart from paying creditors CCCS did nothing for my hubbie I went with them to ease some pressure off me but I was still doing all the donkey work writing, answering calls, sorting things out so decided I didn`t need them

[brooooooooooce]

There was a very scruffy, greasy looking guy from CCCS discussing it on TV, are they going to be the sole administrators?

 

I wouldn't trust any organisation that got all its funding from the banking industry.