Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[diddydicky]

Skemdosser,

 

the DCA's of course will try;

that is the nature of the beast.

 

Personally, I do not believe that much has changed. However, this is of course dependant upon ones case;

every case is different!

 

and IMO any judgement in such a case is bound to be appealed as it would seek to overtturn the CCA itself. which no judge has the power to do

[lickthewallfatboy]

notice Eversheds rubbing their hands over this in today's Daily Mail

 

A bit premature I feel,but expect them to start trying it on anytime soon

[gyos]

notice Eversheds rubbing their hands over this in today's Daily Mail

 

A bit premature I feel,but expect them to start trying it on anytime soon

 

This?

 

Judge closes credit card loophole | Mail Online

 

Many of these claims are cynical because people knew what they had signed up to,' says Chris Busby, of law firm Eversheds. 'This judgment is another nail in the coffin of the credit card reclaim industry.'

 

blah...blah...blah....

 

The ruling means that only those treated unfairly by a bank and cases where there have been technical breaches of other consumer rules have a chance of having debts eradicated.

 

.

[brooooooooooce]

"The ruling means that only those treated unfairly by a bank and cases where there have been technical breaches of other consumer rules have a chance of having debts eradicated"

 

Well at least they have been honest enough to say that those of us with an IEA have a chance. Would have expected worse from the Daily Mail.

 

[lilly white]

imho.

 

the next round will have a different poc then we saw at MANCHESTER.

 

THEY WILL ATTACK THE AGREEDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED.

 

THE BANKS WILL NOT WANT TO DEFEND,

 

It will go like this, this is the agreedment a true copy, but it does not have my clints sig, on, o dear,

 

game over

[paulwlton]

imho.

 

the next round will have a different poc then we saw at MANCHESTER.

 

THEY WILL ATTACK THE AGREEDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED.

 

THE BANKS WILL NOT WANT TO DEFEND,

 

It will go like this, this is the agreedment a true copy, but it does not have my clints sig, on, o dear,

 

game over

 

Agreed. bring on the next round.

 

PW

[brooooooooooce]

the next round will have a different poc then we saw at MANCHESTER.

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'POC'?

 

THEY WILL ATTACK THE AGREEDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED.

 

ATTACK THE AGREEMENTS - WHO? THE CMC'S?

 

THE BANKS WILL NOT WANT TO DEFEND,

 

It will go like this, this is the agreedment a true copy, but it does not have my clints sig, on, o dear,

 

game over

 

GAME OVER FOR WHO?

[vjohn82]

"A High Court judge has decided banks are entitled to chase debts even if they have lost the original credit agreement or have failed to provide the document within 12 working days."

 

This has ALWAYS been the case. The problem for lenders is whether they can take "legal action" to enforce the account.

 

"But in Manchester District Registry Mercantile Court last week, it was ruled that lenders did not have to provide an exact copy of a credit agreement, just a reconstituted version. Even if a copy was not produced within 12 days, the debt was still valid"

 

Errrr... of course it is. We all know the debt still exists. The Judge deliberately refused to rule on s.61 (regarding prescribed terms) because the test cases did not request a ruling on it. Why? Because the law is pretty solid on that point and backed up with secondary legislation.

[babybear39]

Erm...The banks and DCAs

 

Read your own comment back

[babybear39]

The palaver over the test case is completely over done IMO. The rulings of the House of Lords completely over turns that of any lower court.

[lilly white]

"A High Court judge has decided banks are entitled to chase debts even if they have lost the original credit agreement or have failed to provide the document within 12 working days."

 

This has ALWAYS been the case. The problem for lenders is whether they can take "legal action" to enforce the account.

 

"But in Manchester District Registry Mercantile Court last week, it was ruled that lenders did not have to provide an exact copy of a credit agreement, just a reconstituted version. Even if a copy was not produced within 12 days, the debt was still valid"

 

Errrr... of course it is. We all know the debt still exists. The Judge deliberately refused to rule on s.61 (regarding prescribed terms) because the test cases did not request a ruling on it. Why? Because the law is pretty solid on that point and backed up with secondary legislation.

 

Welcome back I hope you had a good break.

 

I was reading a tread over the holidays it did make me smile.

 

A cagger was asked are you denying having the credit.

 

His reply

 

I do not deny the debt I am just not going to pay it.

 

happy days

[vjohn82]

Welcome back I hope you had a good break.

 

I was reading a tread over the holidays it did make me smile.

 

A cagger was asked are you denying having the credit.

 

His reply

 

I do not deny the debt I am just not going to pay it.

 

happy days

 

Hi Lil... I have had a refreshing, and much needed, rest and am raring to go again.

 

I'm planning on using the knowledge I have accumulated in the court process to be very active in the Legal Forums.

 

I read that quote somewhere too... simple and to the point.

[Its WAR]

There are a many of us who have (following earlier advice on CAG) issued as claimants against the banks to obtain an order for the banks to provide copies of the original agreements, rather than wait to be defaulted before seeing them. The idea being to get the agreements early and so see whether the banks can actually enforce.

 

I have two cases adjourned as the banks produced the agreements (reconstituted) at the hearing. The costs issues are reserved.

 

How should we proceed assuming we no longer want to be the claimant and would (under the advice in this thread) be better to wait until we can become the defendant?

 

In my case, how should I conclude the matter? as I have no need to attend the new hearings (I now have the agreements), but need to deal with the costs the barristers are seeking of £2500, in attending the first hearing.

 

(my threads in the bank sections are not getting the answers) and I only have two more weeks.

[vjohn82]

There are a many of us who have (following earlier advice on CAG) issued as claimants against the banks to obtain an order for the banks to provide copies of the original agreements, rather than wait to be defaulted before seeing them. The idea being to get the agreements early and so see whether the banks can actually enforce.

 

I have never seen any thread from any person within my circle of friends on CAG suggest to anyone to take their creditors to court. If you have then you have been given the wrong advice.

 

I have two cases adjourned as the banks produced the agreements (reconstituted) at the hearing. The costs issues are reserved.

 

Perhaps you could request an amendment to your Claim?

 

How should we proceed assuming we no longer want to be the claimant and would (under the advice in this thread) be better to wait until we can become the defendant?

 

You are already the Claimant... therefore if you discontinue you will be liable for a wasted costs order.

 

In my case, how should I conclude the matter? as I have no need to attend the new hearings (I now have the agreements), but need to deal with the costs the barristers are seeking of £2500, in attending the first hearing.

 

You would need to be looking for some sort of negotiation outside of the court process I would imagine. However, you have a "reconstituted agreement" and not the original I take it? Therefore they are unlikely to issue proceedings especially now they have a good case for costs.

 

Did you issue in the Small Claims Court?

 

(my threads in the bank sections are not getting the answers) and I only have two more weeks.

 

Send me the links or post them here... I need to see your POC, Witness Statement and their reply.

 

Cheers.

[davefirewalker]

Subbing.....

 

will have a good read

 

Dave

[diddydicky]

There are a many of us who have (following earlier advice on CAG) issued as claimants against the banks to obtain an order for the banks to provide copies of the original agreements, rather than wait to be defaulted before seeing them. The idea being to get the agreements early and so see whether the banks can actually enforce.

 

I have two cases adjourned as the banks produced the agreements (reconstituted) at the hearing. The costs issues are reserved.

 

How should we proceed assuming we no longer want to be the claimant and would (under the advice in this thread) be better to wait until we can become the defendant?

 

In my case, how should I conclude the matter? as I have no need to attend the new hearings (I now have the agreements), but need to deal with the costs the barristers are seeking of £2500, in attending the first hearing.

 

(my threads in the bank sections are not getting the answers) and I only have two more weeks.

 

i am no legal expert but i believe that if a party discontinues then they are liable for the other sides costs up to the point of discontinuance

 

therefore if you are minded to discontinue i would advise doing it sooner rather than later!

[Its WAR]

Hi VJ82,

I have sent you a pm with the threads. I would think though, that if the bank has failed to supply after so much correspondence, a cca request and a cpr request, a letter before action and a summons, all ignored, but 2 minutes before a hearing they give me reconstituted agreements, witness statements and a costs order (which they must have prepared days earlier). They could have sent me the cca in time for me to cancel the hearing. Its a bit unfair for them then to then spend £2000 to attend the hearing, when it could easily have been cancelled a few days earlier.

 

And Diddydick, Now they have produced the cca, why should I be faced with their £2000 costs? It would have cost nothing had they dealt with any of the earlier correspondence.

[diddydicky]

Hi VJ82,

I have sent you a pm with the threads. I would think though, that if the bank has failed to supply after so much correspondence, a cca request and a cpr request, a letter before action and a summons, all ignored, but 2 minutes before a hearing they give me reconstituted agreements, witness statements and a costs order (which they must have prepared days earlier). They could have sent me the cca in time for me to cancel the hearing. Its a bit unfair for them then to then spend £2000 to attend the hearing, when it could easily have been cancelled a few days earlier.

 

And Diddydick, Now they have produced the cca, why should I be faced with their £2000 costs? It would have cost nothing had they dealt with any of the earlier correspondence.

 

as i said im no legal expert - it seems like a bitch to me and to be fair i havent followed your case all that closely- just thought i'd remind you that IF you are going to withdraw sooner is cheaper!!

 

good luck

[the_shadow]

Hi VJ82,

I have sent you a pm with the threads. I would think though, that if the bank has failed to supply after so much correspondence, a cca request and a cpr request, a letter before action and a summons, all ignored, but 2 minutes before a hearing they give me reconstituted agreements, witness statements and a costs order (which they must have prepared days earlier). They could have sent me the cca in time for me to cancel the hearing. Its a bit unfair for them then to then spend £2000 to attend the hearing, when it could easily have been cancelled a few days earlier.

 

And Diddydick, Now they have produced the cca, why should I be faced with their £2000 costs? It would have cost nothing had they dealt with any of the earlier correspondence.

 

I'm also no legal minded bod but if your hearing was specifically for disclosure and they have disclosed but just prior to the hearing then I would think its a case of disclosing this to the judge on the day when costs should be awarded against them for wasting yours and the courts time.

 

S.

[PriorityOne]

There are a many of us who have (following earlier advice on CAG) issued as claimants against the banks to obtain an order for the banks to provide copies of the original agreements, rather than wait to be defaulted before seeing them. The idea being to get the agreements early and so see whether the banks can actually enforce.

 

 

I've read your threads (search facility) and no-one on CAG advised you to do this. Unless I've missed something somewhere, your threads began with questions re. claims for bank charges.... However, your thread re. non-production of a CCA; detailing your action as claimant, was started after you'd issued the summons.... so I'm unsure as to where your decision to do this stemmed from.

 

Unfortunately, I have no other advice to give you that's not already been said here....

[lilly white]

i see you have now got the cca.

 

it may be a good move to scan minus id and we can have a look.

 

 

lilly

[tamarindo]

i am no legal expert but i believe that if a party discontinues then they are liable for the other sides costs up to the point of discontinuance

 

therefore if you are minded to discontinue i would advise doing it sooner rather than later!

 

 

Hi

 

Would staying on the proceedings make any difference !!!

 

would that save you from the costs??

 

Ask the court!!!

 

just a thought!!1

[bazaar]

Hi VJ82,

I have sent you a pm with the threads. I would think though, that if the bank has failed to supply after so much correspondence, a cca request and a cpr request, a letter before action and a summons, all ignored, but 2 minutes before a hearing they give me reconstituted agreements, witness statements and a costs order (which they must have prepared days earlier). They could have sent me the cca in time for me to cancel the hearing. Its a bit unfair for them then to then spend £2000 to attend the hearing, when it could easily have been cancelled a few days earlier.

 

And Diddydick, Now they have produced the cca, why should I be faced with their £2000 costs? It would have cost nothing had they dealt with any of the earlier correspondence.

 

Seeing that youre this far along in trying to obtain the 'executed ' agreement, point out the unreasonable behaviour. Youre going to have to have a really good argument why costs should not be awarded, but if the judge is prepared to listen, then you should at least try. IMHO

[vjohn82]

I might add that if this is a small claims court are the victorious party only eligible for a maximum of £260 of legal costs incurred?

 

I might also add that the Judge will consider the behaviour of the parties during the proceedings on the issue of costs and that if one side produces documents without the appropriate time to digest them, especially as a litigant in person, then each side should bear their own reasonable costs in the proceedings.

[vjohn82]

I also read this:

 

Litigants often benefit from Before the Event Insurance (BTE) against paying the other party's legal costs as part of their domestic or car insurance policies. However, many are unaware of that fact. Otherwise, they can purchase After the Event Insurance (ATE) at the start of litigation.

 

I'm not sure of the applicability of this but it might be worth pursuing?