Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[Enron]

The part i'm surprised about is that effectively they have judged that they can continue to run the account as normal, even when the creditor is in default of a request.

 

"If McGuffick is rightly decided, the effect of the unenforceability provision is as follows: the contractual liability of the debtor to pay any sums due or falling due by reason of his use of his credit card remains. It is not the case that the creditor’s rights to payment were never acquired or that they were extinguished. The result is that if the debtor stops paying during the s78 breach period, interest will accrue. And if and when the s78 breach is cured, the creditor may sue him and recover all outstanding amounts. Moreover, during the breach period the creditor can still report the debtor to credit reference agencies (“CRAs”) without the need to tell them that the agreement is currently unenforceable."

 

This runs contrary to the OFT take on a s77-79 request which is in default where they state that "a creditor is not entitled to enforce the agreement AT ALL either with or without a court order until which time the default (request for executed agreement) is remedied."

 

My understanding was that an account could not be operated as normal whilst the request was in default, I even had Citi refund interest and acknowledge that no adverse information had been reported to my credit file during a period that they acknowledged they were in default of a request.

[Enron]

Would be interesting in a situation where there were clear doubts as to the authenticity of the copy.

 

I know in that recreated agreements have been tested in court, but I wonder whether a DCA would likewise go to the lengths of submitting a photoshop job to a court.

 

A creditor would always recreate to their benefit if an original copy is deficient, my worries are that this could become standard practice if an original "executed agreement" was seen to be missing prescribed terms by a creditor and has not been sent to the customer - this would be lost/destroyed, the compliant agreement would then be used to seek an enforcement order.

 

Having experience of some very underhand institutions in recent years I would not put it past certain companies.

[Enron]

I know that the 3 MPs and 1 Lord that looked to be charged by the CPP are arguing that they are above the law by claiming Parliamentary privilege.

 

Well if politicians are able to enact legislation that gives them immunity from prosecution then the very law which everyone else complies to is a joke, and maybe it's time for a fundamental rethink.

[Enron]

Know that Citibank provided me with the information typed out on a blank sheet when I asked for a copy of my "executed agreement" for a credit card account.

 

Which just goes to show that they are crafty with SAR, shame that they didn't retain the back of that "executed agreement" which I found out when Trading Standards got involved on my behalf.

[Enron]

I think the thin end of the wedge was in removing the offence contained in s78(6)b of the Consumer Credit Act, since 2007 we have creditors play fast and loose with the law and simply not comply.

 

The act as according to it's draftman is to offer "financial protection" to the consumer.

 

It would appear that the repeal of s127(3) whereby agreements that did not contain all the prescribed terms would automatically render an agreement unenforceable has made the situation even less equitable towards the ordinary consumer.

 

Here are some interesting details on his views:

 

http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2003/2003-061-consumer-credit-1974-s127-3.pdf

http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2009/2009-043-cca-aborted-foreword.pdf

[Enron]

Know from experience that Citi were sending out recent Terms & Conditions, their data controller refering to them as the "executed agreement" which is obviously a false statement.

 

It must have been mentioned to Citi, as they contacted all of those who complainted with letters at the time their licence was due for renewal stating that s78(1) CCA requests would dealt with. Their licence was renewed. And none of us have heard a peep since.

 

This must be the so called "New World Order" that Gordon Brown has mentioned on a number of occasions, where effectively institutions do what they want with very little repercussions.

[Enron]

In the instance of Citi, they played along, got their licence, then have done nothing subsequently - but wasn't surprised to be honest thought they would just be paying lip service which is the case.

[Enron]

It`s getting more like a Communist country by the minute oh how I wish i was an illegal immigrant the world would be my oyster lol

 

There certainly is a visible feeling of a shift in power, the government is becoming more authoritarian, the regulators less and less effective, and the banks seem to be gaining more power and influence.

 

I would call it a new world order, but that is entering the realms of conspiracy theorists, but certainly things are changing for the worse.

[Enron]

This may be a better topic for another thread.

 

However I will make the point that the world seems to certainly becoming a lot less democratic, after all have we ever voted for anything other than being part of a European Trading body - but still the march of legal, monetary and political integration continues with Brussels?

 

Edward Heath (a conservative prime minister) commissioned a consultation report into the effects of becoming part of a trade agreement with Europe, it warned that there would be a danger of a dissolution of borders and sovereignty in time.

 

Think of all those who fought in World War 2 for the rights and freedoms of the nations of Europe, which are now being stripped away.

 

What we are witnessing is the birth of a plutocracy:

Plutocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Enron]

I know that in the US they are proposing action in the form of a strike on the 15th of each month.

 

The problem obviously in planning a similar event here would be spreading the knowledge, and gaining the support of the public to join in at a time when people fear for their jobs.

 

I am certainly of the opinion that the government needs to be made re-aware that they work for us, and not the other way round.

 

Of course that depends on your view of politics, and whether you believe the political stage is anymore than grand theatre.

[Enron]

I agree DD. However I do feel that Crowther and Bennion had good intent to prevent mischief by lenders, but the detail of the wording of the Act was drafted by, as usual, an army of civil servants. I would think that both of those people did not believe just how far the major financial institutions would go in their grasping greed to evade their responsibilities under the Law or to the extent of their illegal tactics in trying to keep their customer base in ignorance.

 

I know of a classic example of this whilst working on an EU technical project at the beginning of the nineties. A small A4 booklet was produced by the Technical Commission about 6mm thick on radio emmissions RFI and EFI) etc of EU Guidelines. It took the UK Civil Service just three weeks to turn that into a tome of three telephone directories size of "EU Directives". Totally unnecessary and gives the lawyers a fortune in someone else's money because in truth none of them understand it fully as is now the case with our consumer issues.

 

regards

oilyrag.

 

I've spoke to Bennion and been in contract with him on a couple of occasions, if we have any sensible questions I don't minded asking them.