Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It’s all unsecured loans and credit cards. Mainly loans now though as most credit cards are paid off.   so 95% unsecured loans.   I just don’t know my situation job wise it’s almost impossible to say whether it’s likely or not just don’t want to be caught out by it. My mental health trying to pay this off has taken a huge hit also if I’m being honest. I feel like mentally I need some kind of respite and the credit file cost is something I can accept also. 
    • Depends on whether part of the roof needs to be replaced and whether it is a standard roof type,  but the works should only take a day or two. Someone I know had a whole semi-detached roof replaced in about 12 hours. Suggest you put it in writing to the business about the issues you mention in your post.  Also as business premises, you could also apply pressure by contacting local Council if necessary. 
    • Thank goodness it's not your roof and you get to foot the bill! How big are these bits of mortar? How often are they falling into your garden? Hourly, daily? Just go ahead with your plans, of course, they're not going to be worried by your time pressures and the urgency of the situation, so simply carry on as you would have done and I'm sure everything will go fine. Unless there is a danger to life and serious structural issues which mean you cannot venture into your garden, then IMHO there is little more you can do less for what you have done so already and made them aware of the issue.
    • Hi all!   Thank you in advance for any help you can give me!!    I parked up (at 18:08) in a rush, entered my Reg and paid for an hour of parking. At 18:20 I got a ticket for not paying for parking.    I've just looked at my receipt and noticed why ... I put "22" instead of "21"  when i put in my Reg. yes... what a stupid mistake.    I seem to remember there being a court case or a rule change about entering the wrong reg but the company wasn't at a loss because i had paid for the parking just technically for the wrong car. Am i making that up?    Any advice would be gratefully received, even some key points i have to hit when doing the appeal      
    • You haven't returned to the thread to give us your views, but a couple of other things strike me which you should consider: 1. You say that at no time was your father's licence revoked by the DVLA. It didn't have to be revoked. It expired in September and his "entitlement to drive" (of which the licence provides proof) expired along with it. He could only continue driving whilst his application was being processed by virtue of s88, and it seems clear to me (based on what you have said) that he was not able to take advantage of the benefits provided by that section. 2. The letter he received threatening to revoke his licence was probably a template letter sent when any medical issues are brought to the attention of the DVLA. But it is clear that beyond September until it was eventually renewed, your father had no valid licence to be revoked. I believe a "not guilty" plea in court will fail. The basic facts are that your father's licence expired in September, it was not renewed until February because the DVLA were looking into his medical declaration and he could not take advantage of s88. So in December he had no licence and no entitlement to drive under s88. The facts that he believed he was fit to drive and that his licence was eventually renewed may mitigate the offence but they do not provide a defence. I also asked whether he had received a summons (very unusual these days) or whether he had received a "Single Justice Procedure Notice". The way to proceed from here differs slightly depending on what he has received so if you let me know, I'll advise further.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4649 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

"So what we now have are two conflicting views.

Yes or no please enlighten me as I am totally confused.

Thanks

Stripper "

 

You want a definite view. I hope I have made my own quite clear. But I am not the judge hearing your case, and while I would contend that what I have argued here is correct in terms of the CCA, Waksman etc, its always possible that you will get a judge who doesnt agree.

While the law would like us all to think otherwise, there just isnt that much certainty. We all need to look at our own situation, and do what we think is best for us as best we can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

They either have an Agreement or they don't.

 

There may be no obligation to provide a signed copy upon request but there needs to be a signed copy for the creditor/DCA to prove their case as Claimants in court. DCAs have been trying to get round this for years by quoting the 1983 Cancellation and Copy Docs. regs.... Doesn't mean they have an enforceable signed Agreement though. If they had one, they'd send it and save on all the time-wasting cr*p of pretending they have one; hoping that the poor consumer knows no better.

 

:-)

 

How is this one for an example of "time wasting crap" P1. Letter from a DCA who sent me a computerised summary of T&Cs for an account they have bought (I would think for 10% - got an offer of a generous discount which would only cost me 70% - nice work if you can get it) that the papers they had sent me were "a “True Copy” of a ‘relevant agreement’.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this one for an example of "time wasting crap" P1. Letter from a DCA who sent me a computerised summary of T&Cs for an account they have bought (I would think for 10% - got an offer of a generous discount which would only cost me 70% - nice work if you can get it) that the papers they had sent me were "a “True Copy” of a ‘relevant agreement’.

 

You gotta bless 'em for trying, I s'pose.... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

SFU--I'm in agreement of your views on this but was just trying to show that OC's and more particularly DCA's will refer to these OFT guidelines as being the gospel truth when writing/threatening people whose accounts they have bought.

 

Having the guidelines of the OFT quoted to them will 'encourage' some people to make payments and even for those who decide to defend in court, the opposition's legal team will bombard the judge with some of these guidelines with the intimation that they help prove their case and often the LIP will not be savvy enough to counter these assertions with good legal argument....and that's before we allow for the judge lottery.

 

Some recent cases have gone against caggers because the judge believed the arguments of a qualified legal professional over those of LIP's with scant regard as to what the law actually required to be produced or proved and the production of these guidelines will IMO make defending as a LIP even more difficult than it now is.

 

It's fast approaching the time IMO when being legally represented when taken to court becomes an absolute necessity rather than an option if you can afford or arrange it as the odds are being stealthily but continuously stacked against us by our bank supporting government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

take the point middenmess. There are certainly two points I would fully agree with you.

First of all that the OCs and DCAs will do whatever they feel they have to - big up Waksman, extract from the OFT as necessary, invent the phenomenon that is the "relevant agreement" (see above) - in order to get us to pay up when the reality is that in terms of how the law stands their claim is far from sound (if that good).

Secondly, if you can afford it, a GOOD lawyer is well worth the cost. I completely agree, BUT one can win without one (the lady in the thread I referenced never had a lawyer), and there are some who know a good deal less than you would find on here. But a good lawyer, with a strong background to present a strong case is a big big asset. No question.

Also, its been a good debate, developing and illustrating some important issues/ points. Thanks Middenmess for your contribution to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi middenmiss,

 

In answer to your post no.3179, I heartily agree. We took the decision a long time ago to seek and obtain legal representation. We are still at stalemate, we don't pay they won't go to court (yet). However by following proceedings here and elsewhere it was and is increasingly apparent that to defend yourself as a litigant in person is becoming much more difficult. Sure it can be done I do not deny that and sure any relationsship with any of these lawyers can be difficult and even they make mistakes, in particular you have to remember that these people representing you are exactly the same breed as those opposing you and have to get up to all the tricks in the book to provide you with an adequate defence. I think that even with representation it behoves anyone to remain in touch and do as much of the research as they can handle through out the duration. One of the additional side benefits is being able to rid yourselves of most of the harassment. Although there are foolish DCAs who ignore the law and the regulations hence stacking up further action and damages claims against themselves and their OC clients.

 

regards

oilyrag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the best way to find a solicitor who actually understands this business?

I have never used a solicitor for anything in my life, and really dont know where to start. I realise that

I could pick a name out of the phone book, but are there any who specialise in this subject?

 

BF

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the best way to find a solicitor who actually understands this business?

I have never used a solicitor for anything in my life, and really dont know where to start. I realise that

I could pick a name out of the phone book, but are there any who specialise in this subject?

 

BF

 

Taken from another forum ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/09/28/ldp-legal-liverpool-law-firm-msb-solicitors-wins-appeal-bid-to-handle-family-legal-aid-work-92534-27353900/

 

Hi All, Whilst looking for something else I came across the above reference (I hope the link works OK). It now begs the question to me as to the integrity and veracity of the whole Manchester issue, cases, court, judge the lot. If you read this article all the way through, you will find that a "Ms Emma Carey" is a qualified solicitor and head of the family department of the law firm which represented one Ms Emma Carey in the actual Carey v HSBC bit of the whole shebang. Of course it may just be a coincidence but was Manchester just a big "con"? Firstly "Carey" was brought against all of the advice given to us mere mortals about defending and not bringing proceedings in these circumstances and secondly if the coincidence is true why would someone in Ms Carey's position allow her case to be handled by someone who at the time (as far as I can ascertain from notes made during my search for a lawyer) was a trainee solicitor and not fully qualified. None of it bears logical analysis. Any thoughts anyone?

 

regards

oilyrag

Link to post
Share on other sites

take the point middenmess. There are certainly two points I would fully agree with you.

First of all that the OCs and DCAs will do whatever they feel they have to - big up Waksman, extract from the OFT as necessary, invent the phenomenon that is the "relevant agreement" (see above) - in order to get us to pay up when the reality is that in terms of how the law stands their claim is far from sound (if that good).

Secondly, if you can afford it, a GOOD lawyer is well worth the cost. I completely agree, BUT one can win without one (the lady in the thread I referenced never had a lawyer), and there are some who know a good deal less than you would find on here. But a good lawyer, with a strong background to present a strong case is a big big asset. No question.

Also, its been a good debate, developing and illustrating some important issues/ points. Thanks Middenmess for your contribution to this.

 

 

Think the courts are becoming more pro creditor these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/09/28/ldp-legal-liverpool-law-firm-msb-solicitors-wins-appeal-bid-to-handle-family-legal-aid-work-92534-27353900/

 

Hi All, Whilst looking for something else I came across the above reference (I hope the link works OK). It now begs the question to me as to the integrity and veracity of the whole Manchester issue, cases, court, judge the lot. If you read this article all the way through, you will find that a "Ms Emma Carey" is a qualified solicitor and head of the family department of the law firm which represented one Ms Emma Carey in the actual Carey v HSBC bit of the whole shebang. Of course it may just be a coincidence but was Manchester just a big "con"? Firstly "Carey" was brought against all of the advice given to us mere mortals about defending and not bringing proceedings in these circumstances and secondly if the coincidence is true why would someone in Ms Carey's position allow her case to be handled by someone who at the time (as far as I can ascertain from notes made during my search for a lawyer) was a trainee solicitor and not fully qualified. None of it bears logical analysis. Any thoughts anyone?

 

regards

oilyrag

 

I'd heard that MSB had received permission from the court of Appeal to appeal Waksmans ruling in the Teasdale High Court case - bet he wasn't happy with that :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi middenmiss,

 

In answer to your post no.3179, I heartily agree. We took the decision a long time ago to seek and obtain legal representation. We are still at stalemate, we don't pay they won't go to court (yet). However by following proceedings here and elsewhere it was and is increasingly apparent that to defend yourself as a litigant in person is becoming much more difficult. Sure it can be done I do not deny that and sure any relationsship with any of these lawyers can be difficult and even they make mistakes, in particular you have to remember that these people representing you are exactly the same breed as those opposing you and have to get up to all the tricks in the book to provide you with an adequate defence. I think that even with representation it behoves anyone to remain in touch and do as much of the research as they can handle through out the duration. One of the additional side benefits is being able to rid yourselves of most of the harassment. Although there are foolish DCAs who ignore the law and the regulations hence stacking up further action and damages claims against themselves and their OC clients.

 

regards

oilyrag.

 

The problem you'll face with any DJ is the fact that you borrowed the money and don't want to pay it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...2534-27353900/

 

Hi All, Whilst looking for something else I came across the above reference (I hope the link works OK). It now begs the question to me as to the integrity and veracity of the whole Manchester issue, cases, court, judge the lot. If you read this article all the way through, you will find that a "Ms Emma Carey" is a qualified solicitor and head of the family department of the law firm which represented one Ms Emma Carey in the actual Carey v

link3.gif

bit of the whole shebang. Of course it may just be a coincidence but was Manchester just a big "con"? Firstly "Carey" was brought against all of the advice given to us mere mortals about defending and not bringing proceedings in these circumstances and secondly if the coincidence is true why would someone in Ms Carey's position allow her case to be handled by someone who at the time (as far as I can ascertain from notes made during my search for a lawyer) was a trainee solicitor and not fully qualified. None of it bears logical analysis. Any thoughts anyone?

 

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6995381.ece

 

it has Mr David Uff and Mr James Malam for Carey

 

Judge Waksman, QC, sitting as a Queen’s Bench Division judge, so held in the Mercantile Court at Manchester, when considering six preliminary issues of law in eight selected cases concerning requests for copies of credit card agreements pursuant to section 78 of the 1974 Act: Emma Carey against HSBC Bank plc; Shafeel Younis against Barclays Bank plc; Samantha Conniff against Barclays Bank; Mohammed Adris against the Royal Bank of Scotland plc; Brian Backwell against the Royal Bank of Scotland; Rajan Mandal against the Royal Bank of Scotland; Andrew Light against MBNA Europe Bank Ltd; and Robert Atkinson against Bank of Scotland plc, with the Office of Fair Trading intervening in all cases. Additionally, two applications by the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays Bank that the claims of Mohammed Adris and Shafeel Yunis, respectively, had no real prospect of success and should be struck out were granted. Mr David Uff and Mr James Malam for Carey, Conniff, Backwell and Light; Mrs Zoe Thompson and Miss Laura D’Cruz for Yunis; Mr Julian Gun Cuninghame and Mr Bradley Say for Adris, Mandal and Atkinson; Ms Sonia Tolaney and Mr James Macdonald for HSBC Bank; Mr Andrew Mitchell for Barclays Bank; Mr Bankim Thanki, QC and Ms Julia Smith for the Royal Bank of Scotland; Mr Geriant Howells for MBNA Europe Bank; Mr Fred Philpott for Bank of Scotland; Mr Stephen Neville for the Office of Fair Trading

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem you'll face with any DJ is the fact that you borrowed the money and don't want to pay it back.

 

Ain't that the truth !! Unfortunately we are now faced with persuading judges to comply with the law let alone the creditors !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6995381.ece

 

it has Mr David Uff and Mr James Malam for Carey

 

 

I have always thought this was a very badly thought out case.

 

All the debtors advocates (except Bradley Say) were comparative novices in consumer credit law and no wonder all bar Gun Cuninghame do not mention the case in their profiles.

 

Look now at the qualifications of the banks team including Thanki QC who took an action against Michael Jackson !

 

I'm pretty sure now it was a set up, especially as the lead claimant (Carey) is herself a partner in a firm of family solicitors.

 

I'm also sure the result is not 100% what the banks wanted. A real result for them would have been 'reconstituted' agreements OK for s61 as well as s78.

 

The real crime is that they know few LiPs can afford barristers to appeal these dodgy judgments. Having said that I think Waksman did a good job of judging what was before him, the problem was the debtors solicitors look to have taken a 'dive' IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous post removed just now.

 

Please be careful when referring to individuals or law firms by name.

 

Anything detrimental or defamatory could put CAG at risk.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous post removed just now.

 

Please be careful when referring to individuals or law firms by name.

 

Anything detrimental or defamatory could put CAG at risk.

 

Wasn't the post just bringing together information that is already in the public domain. Perhaps if it were referenced it would have been clearer that that was the intention...

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the 'elf (from H&S) has been around again.

 

I can only state that ALL the names I referrered to are stated quite clearly on the first two pages of the High Court judgment cited as Carey v HSBC and is the case this thread is about.If that isn't being in the public domain, I don't know what is!

 

The only fact that isn't in the judgement is the name of the chambers the barristers belong to, again all public information. Just search on 'google' for the individual barristers (or Emma Carey for that matter). They all come up. Again, if 'google' isn't public information than CAG must be run from China!

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

How come its Ok to post the names in post #3192 but not when you link them together?

 

So let's try the links without the names.

(1) The barristers for the claimants backed by a claims managment company are from the same set of chambers as the barristers representing two of the banks in the case and also the OFT.

(2) The barristers representing two other banks come from the same set of chambers and which was also the chambers for the trial judge and the judge in the OFT v The Banks case.

(3) The leading claimant is a solicitor whose firm instructed two Manchester barristers who had also been instructed by a

Manchester firm of solicitors who do debt recovery work. The other firm of solicitors mainly carry out personal injury and debt recovery work but instructed a Manchester barrister specialising in personal injury matters.

(4) The first named bank acted as they normally do.

 

Hope the elves are satisifed!

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...