Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[the_shadow]

Hi

 

I presume this was an indication that the breach was expected to br cured by production of a true copy.

 

Peter

 

Yep agree, but didnt they take HER to court, hence double jeopardy involved?

 

S.

[diddydicky]

Hi

 

I presume this was an indication that the breach was expected to br cured by production of a true copy.

 

Peter

 

all the more reason to accept an unlawful repudiation when it pops up!!

[diddydicky]

if wit were sh*t he'd be constipated!

[diddydicky]

Seriously empty vessels make the most noise.

I have better things to expend energy on than banter words with those so blind they will not see.

 

there you go again ,- if people don't accept your point of view you spit your dummy out!!

[fergal71]

good luck then oily....

[angry cat]

DD, I am apalled...

 

STOP prodding oilyrag!

 

Your behaviour is akin to the school playground...

 

IMHO, oilyrag has made some excellent posts;

he/she clearly thinks out of the box, pity some others are not the same.

[angry cat]

if wit were sh*t he'd be constipated!

 

Well, one thing is for sure;

your comments are not funny!

[Gallahad]

The Ghosts must be laughing their heads off at us fighting each other instead of them.

G

[C2K]

Hi Oilyrag, Saddler & Andrew1

 

I hope you don't stop posting Oily because its people like you that are giving hope to people like me.

 

After advice from people on CAG I recently wrote to a number of creditors (that I had received dodgy agreements for) offering them a full & final settlement of 15% of the amount outstanding. Not had any written replies yet except one has just contacted me to confirm they will accept my offer and mark my credit file as 'account satisfied'. He says they'll confirm it all in writing and give me 28 days to pay.

 

 

I was getting a bit down with the whole job (especially after so much misplaced negativity following the Waksman judgment) but this has really pepped me up - the whole unenforceable credit palava - its not a myth!

 

 

 

The other thing is that this company did provide me with a microfiche copy of an agreement which on its own wasn't enforceable but did contain a line of text that said something like 't & c on the reverse'. They provided a typed copy of these t & c which did appear to make the agreement enforceable.

 

 

 

The relevance to this thread is they have provided a signed copy of an agreement and the alleged t & c. But they obviously don't have the original and presumably know that without it the court couldn't enforce. Back to the old 'better to be defendant than claimant'. And they settled for only 15%.

 

 

Some might post that I should have offered nothing - but the thing that drives us all nuts is the 'uncertainty'. Provided they are as good as their word I now have 'certainty' and in my view at a small price

 

 

Thanks to everyone who posts and please keep posting. 1 down only 8 more to go!

 

 

 

Hi brooooooooooooce

 

That's very truth, it seems that this could be another way out, especially for some they do not want to endure the ongoing pressure and not knowing the end result. Do you mind me asking which creditor has accpted your offer?

Good luck.

[angry cat]

Sick to death of some people who appear to enjoy making sarcastic brain dead comments;

comments that are intended to annoy and annoy they certainly do!

 

We are supposed to welcome new members, not take the wee-wee out of them!

 

DD, you have done it to me re DN's; even though I was giviing sound legal advice.

 

This site desperately needs people with lateral thinking;

don't drive them away!

[angry cat]

The Ghosts must be laughing their heads off at us fighting each other instead of them.

G

 

Gallahad, I am not fighting, simply speaking my mind!

[diddydicky]

Sick to death of some people who appear to enjoy making sarcastic brain dead comments;

comments that are intended to annoy and annoy they certainly do!

 

We are supposed to welcome new members, not take the wee-wee out of them!

 

DD, you have done it to me re DN's; even though I was giviing sound legal advice.

 

This site desperately needs people with lateral thinking;

don't drive them away!

 

and you didnt throw your toys out of the pram!!

[diddydicky]

Well, one thing is for sure;

your comments are not funny!

 

i think they are- that's why i posted them!!

 

it's called "a sense of humour" although as we have established in the past- yours is not the same as mine!!

[diddydicky]

DD, I am apalled...

 

STOP prodding oilyrag!

 

Your behaviour is akin to the school playground...

 

IMHO, oilyrag has made some excellent posts;

he/she clearly thinks out of the box, pity some others are not the same.

 

I am not "prodding" and you will note that in his reasons for leaving the forum the ONLY person he unfairly cited was myself - i therefore have a right to reply

 

I don't want him to leave- i don't want anyone to leave.

 

Clearly from his job he is probably far better educated than myself or some other caggers - but that doesn't mean we have to put up with his arrogance

 

the guy clearly has a problem if people don't accept or accede to his point of view

[diddydicky]

Gallahad, I am not fighting, simply speaking my mind!

 

and at the same time criticising me for speaking mine!!!

[Josie8]

This is my Swansong to CAG.

 

 

 

From what I have been able to glean about the original case management conferences setting up Manchester in the first place a number of LEAD cases were to be heard in the Mercantile Court, note LEAD not TEST to establish a set of rules that could be applied and used by other courts in the light of SECTION 78 claims by claims management companies. Certain solicitors were also involved directly who also wished to establish some ground rules improving the advice to clients and providing a settled course of action to be taken on behalf of clients. The numbers of cases being heard was also settled I believe and have that in writing.

 

That is correct they are only lead cases not test cases.

 

Carey v HSBC therefore was a number of cases to be heard subsequently by HHJ David Waksman Qc,

 

In the cold light of day MBNA lost one case and settled two others. No dissection of these on here to any extent. Why? Their details are more than relevant to your/our troubles.

 

Because MBNA provided documentation that complied with s.78 after proceedings had been issued.

 

 

The other serious thing is that, unless my arithmetic is wrong there is still a case "missing" from the Manchester hearings which was within the numbers issued from the case management conferences. Nothing has been published about this case, if the numbers are to be believed then it wasn't heard by HHJ Waksman. Why was it "pulled"? Why no mention on here? You can all do the sums. What was or is the significance of this case and the implications it might have had for the people here? Does anyone know?

 

The case is Jemitus v Bank of Scotland. It was being handled by the same solicitors instructed in the actual case Carey v HSBC. It was discontinued becuase the Bank of Scotland provided compliant documentation after the proceedings had been issued. However an alternative case was put in in its place so numbers should have remained the same.

 

 

Goodbye I won't be drawn down further to the level of some supposed caggers on this debate

 

oilyrag.

 

 

Don't let the ill manners of some Caggers who think a lot of themselves get you down. Their philosophy seems to be that if you don't agree with them you are wrong. They then use the bully boy tactics of he who shouts loudest..............................

[diddydicky]

It has been made clear now to Oilyrag that he has lots of support and that even those who disagree with him (or the way he expresses his views) also dont want him to leave.

 

so lets leave him to his decision and get on with the business in hand before this boils up any further ( i suggest)

[angry cat]

i think they are- that's why i posted them!!

 

it's called "a sense of humour" although as we have established in the past- yours is not the same as mine!!

 

Just stop jibing at members, it is not funny;

there is no humour to be found in taking the wee-wee out of other members.

 

Stop it and allow other members to have their say, without adding your little quips.

 

AC

[Josie8]

Just stop jibing at members, it is not funny;

there is no humour to be found in taking the wee-wee out of other members.

 

Stop it and allow other members to have their say, without adding your little quips.

 

AC

 

 

Hear Hear - it gets very boring..............

[angry cat]

I am not "prodding" and you will note that in his reasons for leaving the forum the ONLY person he unfairly cited was myself - i therefore have a right to reply

 

I don't want him to leave- i don't want anyone to leave.

 

Clearly from his job he is probably far better educated than myself or some other caggers - but that doesn't mean we have to put up with his arrogance

 

the guy clearly has a problem if people don't accept or accede to his point of view

 

You are doing it again;

the guy is not arrogant;

he was just putting forward very sound lateral thinking logic and quite frankly, I agree with his wider view.

 

Lets be nice and treat this member with some common decency.

[diddydicky]

yes miss, no miss three bags full miss:D (another joke before you go off on one again)

[angry cat]

Hear Hear - it gets very boring..............

 

Very good Josie;

back to business then:)

[diddydicky]

You are doing it again;

the guy is not arrogant;

he was just putting forward very sound lateral thinking logic and quite frankly, I agree with his wider view.

 

Lets be nice and treat this member with some common decency.

 

I will indeed treat this member with common decency - as i did from the outset, and only responded when he suggested that i have only "half a brain cell" if i disagree with his views.

 

subject closed from my point of view

 

kindly do not re kindle it!

[JonCris]

Hi Oilyrag, Saddler & Andrew1

 

I hope you don't stop posting Oily because its people like you that are giving hope to people like me.

 

After advice from people on CAG I recently wrote to a number of creditors (that I had received dodgy agreements for) offering them a full & final settlement of 15% of the amount outstanding. Not had any written replies yet except one has just contacted me to confirm they will accept my offer and mark my credit file as 'account satisfied'. He says they'll confirm it all in writing and give me 28 days to pay.

 

 

I was getting a bit down with the whole job (especially after so much misplaced negativity following the Waksman judgment) but this has really pepped me up - the whole unenforceable credit palava - its not a myth!

 

 

 

The other thing is that this company did provide me with a microfiche copy of an agreement which on its own wasn't enforceable but did contain a line of text that said something like 't & c on the reverse'. They provided a typed copy of these t & c which did appear to make the agreement enforceable.

 

 

 

The relevance to this thread is they have provided a signed copy of an agreement and the alleged t & c. But they obviously don't have the original and presumably know that without it the court couldn't enforce. Back to the old 'better to be defendant than claimant'. And they settled for only 15%.

 

 

Some might post that I should have offered nothing - but the thing that drives us all nuts is the 'uncertainty'. Provided they are as good as their word I now have 'certainty' and in my view at a small price

 

 

Thanks to everyone who posts and please keep posting. 1 down only 8 more to go!

 

Great but you must make it clear that your payment is in 'CONSIDERATION' (use the term consideration) of your early settlement of an unenforceable debt

 

Fail to do this & they'll be within their rights to come back for more:eek:

[supasnooper]

Please keep this thread on topic - the last few pages are not pleasant reading and certainly not what CAG is about.