Jump to content


Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


PriorityOne
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3697 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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...