Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4584 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

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi guys,

I found Teasdale under:-

 

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/612.html

 

Also please note that it is rumoured that one of the solicitors' practices has been given permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal two of this mis mash of cases.

 

As regards Carey BF, I have no case law reference for any use of the para 234 summaries of HHJ Waksman's judgement but I know that the banks are fighting a little shy of trying this one on at the moment. We have just been told sit tight all is not as good as it appears for the lenders in this respect but remember that the abiding principle behind Carey and other cases is for the debtor not to go on the attack, but wait patiently and defend.

 

regards

oilyrag

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou Oilyrag much appreciated

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at (4) below people

  1. The following is a brief summary of the principal findings and conclusions set out above:
     

    (1) A creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself;

    (2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;

    (3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;

    (4) If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms;

    (5) If a creditor is in breach of section 78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A;

    (6) The Court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there has been a breach of s78. Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case;

    (7) In assessing whether Prescribed Terms are "contained" in an executed agreement the principles set out at paragraph 173 above are relevant. On the assumed facts set out at paragraph 177 the Prescribed Terms were so contained;

    (8) The claims that there was an unfair relationship and an IEA in
    Adris
    should be struck out or dismissed. The claim that there was an IEA in
    Yunis
    should be struck out or dismissed. The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims. The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim.


  2. Following the handing down of this judgment, I will hear Counsel on the form of the various orders that will need to be made, any further directions in relation to the cases with which I have dealt and all ts of confusion here people I have pasted the the judges sumation

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two appeals are listed for hearing at the Court of Appeal on 23rd/ 24th February 2011

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets hope (The Pleaders) get it right this time. there has been a concerted effort on the part of the judiciary to run a coach and horses through the 1974 CCA under the notion that it is immoral for the comsumer to wiegh their options but OK for banks and insurance companies to wriggle out of paying up whenever they can( seepast judgements handed down by these same people

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

hope you don't mind me "butting in" on the Manchester thread, but I think my latest update relates to it in some small way...

 

Anyone care to have a look & offer thoughts please? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?244511-Bradfordlad-Vs-MBNA&p=3178233&viewfull=1#post3178233

 

Cheers in advance

 

BL

Well 6 years on and most of the defaults have disappeared, thank you CAG for a

ll your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at (4) below people. The following is a brief summary of the principal findings and conclusions set out above:

 

The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims. The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim.

 

all ts of confusion here people I have pasted the the judges summation

 

I think most here are aware of (4) and its implications. However the section I have extracted is the REAL crux. Don't forget it was the debtors who were the claimants. They had to prove there was no compliant agreement but as the judge points out, they didn't even plead that !!!

 

IMO this whole affair smacks of a set-up. All the familiar players were present and the CMCs involved were bankrupt by all accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

proving the original when the terms have been varied- is not a panacea- the creditor can still provide a re construction of THAT document too

 

Perhaps a tad more difficult since it would have to be in the same form as the original and be complete with signature. Don't forget Waksman said I conclude that Reg. 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form.

 

Not sure exactly what that requires? Will a 'recon' suffice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a tad more difficult since it would have to be in the same form as the original and be complete with signature. Don't forget Waksman said I conclude that Reg. 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form.

 

Not sure exactly what that requires? Will a 'recon' suffice?

 

IMO that's open to 'abuse' by the creditor, as who knows what the original executed agreement looks like [assuming of course that one was ever executed by the Bank] --most of us have only ever seen a [poor] microfiche copy of one side of an application form

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Certainly CCR (Cartel Client and associated solicitors practice Manchester based if memory serves correctly) have now gone and the associated solicitors as I uinderstand it have effectively been prevented from practising any further by the SRA. This left many clients high and dry with no representation and some seriously out of pocket. However there were other solicitors and barristers involved who are still practising and some of those remain actively trying to clarify what rights we ( and they with regard to costs) actually have.

 

Some of these are actually at odds with what you are saying DD in that whilst s234 of the judgement is not a panacea ( what in civil law ever is?), it certainly is an avenue which can be used. The whole judgement is complex and interwoven, yes, but on this point HHJ Waksman actually gave little if any room for manoeuvre. His words were and I quote "copy of the original". Elsewhere in the judgement he makes a lot about reconstituted documents etc. BUT and it is a big BUT, as I have said (and others) on several occasions the origins of this need to be examined by going back to the case conferences held early in October of last year which set up these 13 cases. Remember there were 13 (MBNA lost one and withdrew from two others writing off all alleged debt, all Cartel's clients please note). The abiding principle that HHj Waksman was actually asked to rule on as LEAD cases not TEST cases was what was acceptable practice for provision of information purposes under section 78 of the CCA 1974. Again some of this was rooted in the decisions made in a lower court by another DJ in Chester who actually refused to rule on certain aspects and asked the High Court to intervene, again not based on total unenforceability but upon section 78 requests for "true copies" by alleged debtors.

 

Another side issue which has subsequently crept out is the issue of very old agreements which pre date 1983 but postdate CCA 1974. The waters in these areas seem to have become increasingly muddied and until a solid defence is built, of course the banks and associated rovers are going to try and have a field day.

 

regards

oilyrag

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my case MBNA have recently sent me and others a letter stating they dont have the original agreement in their possession, and while this is so they will not take any court action, but because of McGuffick, etc, they can still chase, etc. etc. The thing is though, they had already sold this account to Varde/EC last year. If EC decide to go to court with this on the back of one of their reconstructions, how is it likely the judge would look at it?

If the OC cant provide an agreement, what exactly is a DCA ''reconstructing'' it from?

 

BF

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OC cant provide an agreement, what exactly is a DCA ''reconstructing'' it from?

 

BF

 

the same thing the OC would have used;

 

the details of the debtor, the type of card and the date when made. If it has such details, it appears that there is no real difficulty in ascertaining the applicable terms including the relevant Prescribed Terms. And if so, there is unlikely to be a real risk of inaccuracy; I do not accept that a reconstituted copy is simply based on “mere assertion” by the creditor. It must – of necessity – be based upon records held as to the debtor and the agreement he made.

 

Assuming the OC can and will provide such info. to the DCA.

 

Don't lose sight of the fact that all this reconstructing is only good for s78 compliance - what HHJ refers to as the the "Current Information Purpose" - not executory compliance i.e. the "Proof Purpose".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly basa,

 

HHJ Waksman actually refused to deal with s61 et al and made it absolutely clear he was ruling on s78 information requests only. Initial reaction to this judgement was that "reconstruct" as much as you like for s78 information to the debtor but "should you bring a case before me in my court against an alleged debtor, you had better have all your paperwork in order which includes the original documentation".

 

Again back to the principle of NOT bringing an action against an alleged creditor but awaiting to defend their actions against you, the alleged debtor. All onus of proof lies then with them. It is just my own personal view that things are becoming more difficult because of poorly executed defences by LIPs and some professionals, plus HHJ Waksman in my view alludes all of the time that each case should stand or fall on its own merits when brought before a court.

 

Just a few of my own thoughts.

regards

oilyrag

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basa48 is correct, reconstruction is for compliance. these constructs can be drawn from a number of sources rather than just one, and no restriction as to what these other sources might be save that the construct may or is likely to have looked like the original in a form extant at the time. Clearly this is just a device to maintain the status quo as no judgement could be made as to the liabilities of a party under any agreement that is not available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basa48 is correct, reconstruction is for compliance. these constructs can be drawn from a number of sources rather than just one, and no restriction as to what these other sources might be save that the construct may or is likely to have looked like the original in a form extant at the time. Clearly this is just a device to maintain the status quo as no judgement could be made as to the liabilities of a party under any agreement that is not available.

 

Thanks very much guys....... I understand this, the hard part is getting the judges to understand it! :)

 

BF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dirty Harry comes to mind, I had a letter from mbna the other day quoting Mcguffick and Carey declaring my obligation to keep paying even though mbna admitted they have only one side of an application form and that they will not respond further in the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

proving the original when the terms have been varied- is not a panacea- the creditor can still provide a re construction of THAT document too

 

There is no authority in the Carey Judgement that when terms are varied a copy of the ORIGINAL can be constructed from 'other sources' that existed at the time of the agreement...this only applied to s78 reconstituted agreements.( INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES)..so YES basa48.... a tad more difficult

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

This carries weight as in as much Waksman had positively expressly asserted that a s78 could be reconstituted 'from other sources that existed at the time' so NOT a copy directly from an executed agreement....by the same token he maintained his silence in para 108 that when terms are varied THAT a copy of the orignally executed agreement could ALSO be reconstituted 'from sources other than directly form the original executed agreement'...but concluded simplky for a copy of the original ..nothing more nothing less.

 

m2ae

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now also bear in mind that when s78 reconstructions are to take place...they must be in DONE IN 'good faith' and must be an accurate and true copy of the original WHEN taken from 'THESE OTHER SOURCES'.....

 

....now imagine bearing in mind the above limitations on a creditor in providing s78 requests..BUT ESPECIALLY when a copy taken directly from an original executed copy.

 

Most of their small victories in the lower courts tend to be when THEY are bringing the case knowing full well of the existence of the Judge Lottery.

 

If they tried the same thing in the Higher Courts in BRINGING the claim all sotrsw of different circumstances,thresholds,requirements now apply...and they do not want a precedent set

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is such flawed logic behind the contruction principle it beggars belief, evidently there could a number of agreement formats being used by The Creditor at the time of the signing of the original agreement, if the original is not to hand then a construction from a number of other agreements as to form and content should rule out the use of construction since the original document would presumably be one of those used in the construction, this being the case, the construction could not possibly be like the original since the original could only be part of the reconstruction therefore the document constructed is flawed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is such flawed logic behind the contruction principle it beggars belief, evidently there could a number of agreement formats being used by The Creditor at the time of the signing of the original agreement, if the original is not to hand then a construction from a number of other agreements as to form and content should rule out the use of construction since the original document would presumably be one of those used in the construction, this being the case, the construction could not possibly be like the original since the original could only be part of the reconstruction therefore the document constructed is flawed.

 

... and if you defended any court action on that basis, they could get their knickers in a twist very quickly. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Priorityone

It could be further argued that the orginal was not part of the reconstruction which is the reason for the need to reconstruct in the first place.

In this case since the reconstruction did not contain part of the original agreement then the original agreement did not exist at the time because it was not considered for use as a whole at that time as the true copy or in part because it formed the agreement in question. If the original did exist at that time it can't be identified as such or it wouild have been so identified as a copy of the agreement in question without the need for construction If an agreement in existance cannot be identified as a copy of the agreement in question, then any construct would be a construct of an agreement that could not be identified as a copy of the agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...