Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[means2anend]

When I go to the Press...my aim is to make sure that the effect of it will be broad in the sense that many will be met with ''sorry we cannot constitute and honest and accurate copy'' on this occasion we have reduced the balance to nil and closed our files accordingly.

 

As I said I do not wish to miss this opportunity to limit the victory to just my individual situation as as mentioned above but am considering the most effective and resourceful modus operandi so the media can expand the coverage in order that it positively affects the many..(Jeremy Bentham's for greater good of the many...) that is why you have not yet seen me do it..BUT it is GOING TO HAPPEN...WATCH THIS SPACE.

 

Rgds

 

m2ae

:p:p:-D:-D:-D:cool::cool:

[stalin's dead]

In my case I have the A & L by the balls, metaphorically speaking of course. Some people on CAG said I could struggle to prove fraud and forgery because the burden of proof is upon me to prove fraud but i have no doubt that when the judge looks at the evidence he/she can only arrive at one conclusion ie the signature(S) on the agreement are indeed NOT mine.

 

if a person signed his signature TWICE on a document in rapid succession (5-6 seconds) in the Loan and PPI box then any reasonable person would have to assume that those two signatures would be virtually identical. try it and see. on my 'agreement' the signature in the Loan box and the signature in the PPI box are completely DIFFERENT!! I mean totally, utterly and completely different!! AHAH..and the A & L know it. The two signatures on the agreement also bear abs no similarity to mine from that date in 2005 because i have signature copies on credit cards from that date in 2005.

 

The A & L said they look 'sufficiently similar' not too cause 'any real concern' (for them not me!)

 

When it goes to court I dont believe they'll contest the case. I know they wont.

 

They also said they couldnt find any evidence from that date relating to phone conversations about my PPI. It stinks and they know it.

 

The whole sales culture at the A & L back then was testing the limits of legality.

 

the PPI repayment offer was an admission of liability in my opinion but fraud and false signatures in my opinion casts doubt on the enforceability of the contract.

 

im gonna ask for the contract to be set aside. i doubt the judge will rescind it or even void it.

 

in some ways i do feel a moral responsibility repay what i owe but then i do feel a victim of crime because of their alleged act of dishonesty to profit at my expense but as in all these cases the Judge decides the outcome

 

it is my firm belief that the courts have been 'lent on' subtely from on high to prevent another implosion of confidence in the banking sector and a flood of claims. you can see the tide turning against the consumer. the case in manchester allowing banks to reconstitute agreements is an abuse of contract law, pure and simple. what is the point of an agreement in the first place?!!! this stinks of political pressure

Edited February 7, 2010 by stalin's dead

[Laura Cooke]

Waksman gave the creditors the ammunition to create the state of play that we have now where creditors are going to carry out many dishonest acts and means to an end is a prime example creditors are willing to commit fraud to retrieve their money and this needs sorting out as Waksman gave them the green light to go ahead and do this

[Laura Cooke]

it is my firm belief that the courts have been 'lent on' subtely from on high to prevent another implosion of confidence in the banking sector and a flood of claims. you can see the tide turning against the consumer. the case in manchester allowing banks to reconstitute agreements is an abuse of contract law, pure and simple. what is the point of an agreement in the first place?!!! this stinks of political pressure

 

 

Agree Stalin with your above comment, I have lost a lot of confidence over the past few years with being a carer but I am not afraid of a challenge and indeed took on high up people who think they are above the law a few years ago.

 

I did my own defence and one of the people I bombarded questions to who was of senior rank had a panic attack as he hadn`t counted on me being up to "His standards" he couldn`t answer half the things I put to him the judge threw down his spectacles and said he was lost for words that a senior officer could not explain or answer questions put to him and after lunch he refused to go in the witness box again I told this officer I`d have my day in court and he laughed at me at the time but I can tell you now he didn`t laugh that day far from it his solicitor a young man shook my hand and said "Credit to you that was brilliant" I just lack confidence some times but ordinary people have been trampled on far too long and we can fight back and we can win no matter how high up these establishments feel they are

[means2anend]

I have read THE FRAUD ACT 2006 c35 this morning...they HAVE committed a nunmer of offences in Sections 1-3 and although the burden is upon me I CAN DISCHARGE THIS BURDEN.

 

I shall first write to Marlin to disclose as to who it was responsibility it was for this information and then also to HSBC under pain of proceedings.

 

After receipt I shall be getting in touch with the PRESS DEPT at OFT and FSA and ICO and then subsequently the WIDER PRESS

 

YEEHAA!!!

 

rgds

 

M2ae:p

[means2anend]

I would argue otherwise based on the following info . Have a read through this. In essence the judge points out that due to the extremely high reliance modern society has attached to a credit score the very act of an incorrectly placed marker on your file is in itself damage enough and that no actual proof of loss needs to be provided to claim damages, an amount that is not insubstantial in fact.

 

115. The case of King v British Linen & Co dealt with the situation where there had been no specific damage. The only loss which the pursuer had occurred sustained was the loss to his credit standing. That was valued by the sheriff at £100 in 1897, a figure which was not interfered with in the Inner House. It is clear that the reason that the Inner House did not consider it appropriate to interfere with it was because they were dealing with a case where, in the words of Lord Kinnear, "No exact measure" of damages could be fixed. The case is clear authority to the effect that award of damages can be made for simple injury to credit although no actual loss is sustained. It is not, in my opinion, authority for the proposition where injury to credit causes actual loss or damage the fact of the injury itself warrants an award over and above the actual losses.

 

116. Wilson v United Counties Bank Limited was a case brought by an individual (Wilson) and his trustee in bankruptcy against Wilson's bank. The defenders' negligent handling of the plaintiff's estate whilst he was away on military service caused an actual loss to the estate, and also resulted in the pursuer, Wilson being made bankrupt. The trustee in bankruptcy was held entitled to recover actual losses caused by the negligent management. There was only one claim in respect of damage to credit, namely the fact that Wilson was made bankrupt when, had the defenders managed his affairs prudently, he would not have been. There was no claim that Wilson had suffered any specific loss to his credit by virtue of the bankruptcy, but the fact of bankruptcy was recognised as a serious injury to his general credit standing. This resulted in an award in 1919 of £7,500. The case, as was also the case with King v British Linen, was based on breach of contract and not negligence. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead, said of the type of case where a banker, though his customer's account is in funds, nevertheless dishonours the customer's cheque, that the refusal to meet the cheque is so obviously injurious to the credit of a trader that the latter can recover without allegation of special damage reasonable compensation for the injury done to his credit.

 

 

 

He applied that principle to the circumstances of Wilson's case where a defendant had expressly contracted to sustain the financial credit of a trading customer and breached that obligation. At page 120, Viscount Findlay said that the fact of bankruptcy must injure the credit of the person made bankrupt, apart from damage to the estate. He continued "In an action for negligence against a solicitor leading to the bankruptcy of his client even if due to fortuitous circumstances the estate had not been damaged, it seems on principle that the jury might give substantial damages for injury to the credit of the person made bankrupt." Later on he said "It was urged that proof must be given of special damage in order to sustain the verdict on this head for more than nominal damages. I cannot see on what principal this contention rests. The mere fact of bankruptcy imports damage to the credit of the bankrupt. It is a natural consequence, and it is for the jury to assess the damages for such a slur."

 

 

117. Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit was appropriate. In modern society credit plays a very big part in the conduct of the daily lives of a significant portion of the population. The financial services industry is constantly advertising loans, credit cards, store cards, mortgages, consolidation accounts etc. To have one's credit worthiness impugned so that one is at risk of being unable to obtain credit on the grounds that he is not credit worthy is, if anything, a more significant matter for the individual than it would have been at the time of King, over a hundred years ago. Mr Beynon has submitted that a figure of £10,000 would be appropriate. The figure of £100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House in King v British Linen translates, according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008, table 5/3, to £9,975 in the year 2008. The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth £8,215.

 

117. Kpohraror confirmed that such damages were available to individuals who were not traders. In that case a cheque was dishonoured and then the matter put right within 24 hours.

 

118. Also in that case the plaintiff claimed both special damages and the general damages of £5,500. Lord Justice Evans said at page 124 "The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case in so far as this is a presumption of fact."

119. Evans LJ went on to consider the issue of special damages separately. There is, however, nothing in the judgment of Evans LJ to indicate that had the special damages claim been made out he would not have made an award in terms of the general damage claim. Lord Justice Waite and Sir John May each agreed in all respects with the judgment of Lord Justice Evans

120. The cases of Kpohraror, King and Wilson were all based on contract but it does not seem to me that there is any difference in principle between the nature of damages to be awarded in respect of a loss of credit brought about by a breach of contract, and one brought about by negligent misrepresentation.

121. In these circumstances and standing such a recent decision where the claims appear to have been treated as being capable of existing together, I find that the pursuer is entitled to an award for the general damage to his credit in addition to an award in respect of the actual loss flowed sustained. Having regard to all the circumstances I consider that an appropriate award would be £8,000.

 

Your credit worthiness is therefore highly valued and clearly the law recognises that, a useful argument as a defendant if an incorrectly placed marker has been added perhaps due to incorrect default and termination for example and the creditor has commenced litigation.

 

Given the above values which have not been considered excessive by the judiciary et al, I suspect many cases could effectively be stopped in their tracks as the claimant realises there is possibility of the defendant counter claiming a greater value back than their claim is worth. Handy for pre trial negotiation then .

 

 

Thanks

 

I am bearing this in mind as I may have use of this 'further down the road'

 

 

 

rgds

[247orbital]

"it is my firm belief that the courts have been 'lent on' subtely from on high to prevent another implosion of confidence in the banking sector and a flood of claims. you can see the tide turning against the consumer. the case in manchester allowing banks to reconstitute agreements is an abuse of contract law, pure and simple. what is the point of an agreement in the first place?!!! this stinks of political pressure"

 

I totaly agree with the above as well. I'm still shocked a member of the public hasn't taken the bank charges thing further or the CCA case to appeal. There must be someone wealthy enough who has a vested interest in all of this.

[stalin's dead]

Please be aware that the Fraud Act 2006 is not retrospective ie it doesn't apply to offences committed prior to 14/01/2007. I believe the burden of proof is on the 'other person' ie not you though i could be wrong!

[royalblue1878]

I have read THE FRAUD ACT 2006 c35 this morning...they HAVE committed a nunmer of offences in Sections 1-3 and although the burden is upon me I CAN DISCHARGE THIS BURDEN.

 

I shall first write to Marlin to disclose as to who it was responsibility it was for this information and then also to HSBC under pain of proceedings.

 

After receipt I shall be getting in touch with the PRESS DEPT at OFT and FSA and ICO and then subsequently the WIDER PRESS

 

YEEHAA!!!

 

rgds

 

M2ae:p

 

The press are not an easy bunch to get into with stories you want them to print. You may want to try going Via Martin Lewis at Moneysaving expert something. He seems to have good press contacts.

 

Royal.

[InformedSearcher]

Courts operate like anything else. Budgets and Targets are the priority. They need no presuure from The High Court because they must operate within quite tight budgets. Their problem is that even if one agrees they are aware that openeing the floodgates is not something they want to do and probably could easily be quashed.

 

As an example from memory there's an average of 100,000 (!!!) items seized by C&E anually. You get 28 days to appeal otherwise you lose whatever it is. If you appeal it's held initially in a Madistrate's Court. Now the amazing fact of British Justice - 'You can appeal BUT you cannot win'! I'm serious, no matter what, you will not win. So just think if you did and all the others started to appeal. In 1 day flat the system would be overrun and breakdown.

 

Michael

[Laura Cooke]

As an example from memory there's an average of 100,000 (!!!) items seized by C&E anually. You get 28 days to appeal otherwise you lose whatever it is. If you appeal it's held initially in a Madistrate's Court. Now the amazing fact of British Justice - 'You can appeal BUT you cannot win'! I'm serious, no matter what, you will not win. So just think if you did and all the others started to appeal. In 1 day flat the system would be overrun and breakdown.

 

 

Admit Michael I tend to agree with the above but I have won 2 cases against HM Revenue & Customs 1 never got to court 1 went to Tribunal they must never be allowed the satisfaction that they can`t be beaten

[Jameson78]

There must be someone wealthy enough who has a vested interest in all of this.

 

 

someone wealthy enough wouldn't be worrying about debts

[InformedSearcher]

As an example from memory there's an average of 100,000 (!!!) items seized by C&E anually. You get 28 days to appeal otherwise you lose whatever it is. If you appeal it's held initially in a Madistrate's Court. Now the amazing fact of British Justice - 'You can appeal BUT you cannot win'! I'm serious, no matter what, you will not win. So just think if you did and all the others started to appeal. In 1 day flat the system would be overrun and breakdown.

 

 

Admit Michael I tend to agree with the above but I have won 2 cases against HM Revenue & Customs 1 never got to court 1 went to Tribunal they must never be allowed the satisfaction that they can`t be beaten

 

 

LOL erm, This will be Customs & Excise (I'm mentioning) regarding the importing of goods. Be it a single magazine, film, or whatever. If you know anyone who has won one of them then I'll be very surprised. My example is showing that there are certain parts of a judicial system, be it civil or other where things don't go the way that could be called 'fair'.

 

Michael

[Laura Cooke]

LOL erm, This will be Customs & Excise (I'm mentioning) regarding the importing of goods. Be it a single magazine, film, or whatever. If you know anyone who has won one of them then I'll be very surprised. My example is showing that there are certain parts of a judicial system, be it civil or other where things don't go the way that could be called 'fair'

 

 

Yes Michael the cases I refer to are for "importing goods" and as the cca cases the consumer is not meant to win and great steps are taken to place obstacles in the way to prevent this it is very difficult to challenge such people but not impossible they simply hope one will go away, you see Michael from my profession and I still operate on a voluntary basis I have to be familiar with PACE

Edited February 7, 2010 by Laura Cooke

[InformedSearcher]

LOL erm, This will be Customs & Excise (I'm mentioning) regarding the importing of goods. Be it a single magazine, film, or whatever. If you know anyone who has won one of them then I'll be very surprised. My example is showing that there are certain parts of a judicial system, be it civil or other where things don't go the way that could be called 'fair'

 

 

Yes Michael the cases I refer to are for "importing goods" and as the cca cases the consumer is not meant to win and great steps are taken to place obstacles in the way to prevent this it is very difficult to challenge such people but not impossible they simply hope one will go away, you see Michael from my profession and I still operate on a voluntary basis I have to be familiar with PACE

 

 

You've impressed me Laura with what you said!!

I recall Magistrate's Courts as a result of te appeal. As in no tribunals option and the C&E Barrister scaring the Magistrates to hell! The Clerk of the Court was genuinely shocked at the proceedings. I also recall 5 members of C&E there. In the Crown Court for the appeal and losing I also recall the C&E numbers increasing to 10 (!) and also them having now having a QC representing. What was so amusing is that they had to ask 'us' for further examples as we had 20 available to their seized single item!

 

Michael

[means2anend]

Please be aware that the Fraud Act 2006 is not retrospective ie it doesn't apply to offences committed prior to 14/01/2007. I believe the burden of proof is on the 'other person' ie not you though i could be wrong!

 

 

Good Point...

 

I shall read the transitional savings of provisions section...failing that..I will ask for another copy....lol

 

s77 says that requests can be made no more than once a month.

 

They are under a statutory duty to provide.

 

If it happens again then this action/ alleged offence will have happened AFTER the Regulations came into force.

 

They will no doubt HAVE TO GIVE THE 'SAME ['COPY']

 

Rgds

 

the phrase 'many ways to skin a cat' comes to mind

 

m2ae:D

Edited February 7, 2010 by means2anend
fixed sum loan agreement s77 not 78 I stand corrected

[means2anend]

ERR!!

 

HOLD ON!!!

 

My alleged agreement is for a sum that 'is or may or will become payable'.

 

And as this was the case at 15th January 2007 (and is still the present situation) when Fraud Act 2006 sections 1-14 and Schedules 1-3 (THE FRAUD ACT 2006[Commencement] Order 2006 No 3200 (C.112 ) came into force..then the ACT DOES apply and as the request was made in Sept of last year then the alleged offence took place AFTER and NOT before 15th January 2007.

 

No need to ask for another copy then!!!

 

m2ae:)

Edited February 7, 2010 by means2anend
correction of 14th to 15th January

[means2anend]

The press are not an easy bunch to get into with stories you want them to print. You may want to try going Via Martin Lewis at Moneysaving expert something. He seems to have good press contacts.

 

Royal.

 

 

Thanks for slowing me down...I totally forgot about this route...i shall do

 

 

rgds

 

m2ae:)

[means2anend]

Does anyone know where i can find the Original Consumer Credit Regulations 1983 S/1553 BUT without the 2004 amendments

 

Thanks

 

m2ae

[charlie*]

274orbital

 

Too bloody right they've been leaned on... I contribute to another

claims discipline that is being developed and yes, the word has gone

out to the judges.

 

Last year I passed a comment on CAG about a retired lawyer I had

met up with.... I was looking for info and upon learning what it was

about (it was NOT the CCAct... it was other more basic law than

statute law that does stand today if presented correctly (IF being

the BIG word).. and his comment to me was that this will go out thru

the judges grapevine to STOP it from getting thru.

 

That's just what is happening now.... perhaps some of those who

ridicule the notion that money is a fiction, that we are controlled

from birth by a corporate system and all money that is loaned by

banks is in fact a loan from the borrower to the bank who then

lends it back pretending they have in fact loaned their own

(or client's) money.

 

Jeez, it even sez so on th Bank of England web site.

 

Wakey, wakey, you disbelievers.

 

Then there's the case of the fella who challenged the Wirrall

Council claiming that his Council Tax was extortion, fraud or something and that he did not have to pay it...... it's all in the

use of words, our own language.

 

Guess what?.... he has been excused from paying Council Tax.

 

There are people out there, loads of them researching ancient

law, history, learning how to speak the language of the courts

(legalese)... all to help us become FREEMEN on the Land.

 

What's the old saying? .... "don't let the bu**ers get you down"

 

END OF RANT, heartfelt though, some many people suffering, all

to keep the monetary system alive.

[B3rty]

Does anyone know where i can find the Original Consumer Credit Regulations 1983 S/1553 BUT without the 2004 amendments

 

I tried desperately to find these a while ago for my own court case but from what I can gather the amendment with regards to Form & Content means that from 31st May 2005 the prescribed terms had to come before the signature rather than just in the same document...however although my agreement was pre 2004/5 I still used this and got away with it..

[the main man]

Here's a copy, not sure if it was this thread but they were posted up by someone else

 

Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983[1].pdf

[gezwee]

As an example from memory there's an average of 100,000 (!!!) items seized by C&E anually. You get 28 days to appeal otherwise you lose whatever it is. If you appeal it's held initially in a Madistrate's Court. Now the amazing fact of British Justice - 'You can appeal BUT you cannot win'! I'm serious, no matter what, you will not win. So just think if you did and all the others started to appeal. In 1 day flat the system would be overrun and breakdown.

 

Michael

 

Not so sure on this one Michael, I have fond memories of providing evidence (in the course of business) for a £1m+ claim against them in 2005. They have been known to be a tad too hasty in the destruction of goods

 

Gez

[Laura Cooke]

No Michael you are right at magistrates it`s a near on impossibility to win C & E Judges are far too biased and in a recent survey 1 in 4 Customs Officers were reported to be bare face liars so your up against it

 

Won 2 cases but both at tribunal 1 case never got that far they sent a cheque before it went anywhere

 

2nd time they destroyed goods day after they were seized yet suppose to keep them for 28 days!!!

 

I am in process of chasing sars off them been after it since November all letters ignored which is of no suprise at all they are arrogant and think they are above the law

 

The sars will never come as they have admitted to destroying all evidence they are under investigation and meanwhile I have put a N1 in be interesting to hear what they have to say as the sars was evidence for a big Human Rights case so it left no ammunition which to prosecute them messy business, barrister from the Law Centre read the case and said it would have led to a considerable compensation claim so the case cannot proceed as times out now took months trying to get to bottom of the data which as been destroyed so much for keeping it safe for 6 years!!! it would have cost them a lot to keep it safe this government body need a huge shake up they have a lot to answer for

Edited February 14, 2010 by Laura Cooke

[means2anend]

I tried desperately to find these a while ago for my own court case but from what I can gather the amendment with regards to Form & Content means that from 31st May 2005 the prescribed terms had to come before the signature rather than just in the same document...however although my agreement was pre 2004/5 I still used this and got away with it..

 

B3rty

 

Interesting

 

Could you possibly elaborate on what you mean by the' prescribed terms comes before the signature rather than just in the same document'' and how you got away with it..within the law of course

 

m2ae

 

main man thanks for link 4 consumer credit regs 1983 but got feeling this is amended by 2004.