Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[oilyrag]

Just a quick comment on the OFT guidelines and licensing. I thought that it was a written conditon and signed up to by the institution concerned that they WOULD abide by all of the OFT guidelines as a condition of them being licence holders. The proper sanction being removal or severe restriction of said licence.

 

Surely this can be brought up in a defence?

 

The discussion here, and I know the OFT is a joke really, is that most of the bodies involved, blatantly and deliberately flout these rules with out sanction. Correct??

 

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

I think we are getting into over dissection again. Carey v HSBC was in fact a series of LEAD cases not TEST cases as has been stated and verified on this thread previously. For reference check the case management conferences which took place early in October 2009 at Manchester Mercantile Court.

 

These LEAD cases were put together to be heard in order to attempt to establish some ground, procedural and "housekeeping" rules due to the overwhelming number of cases being brought before the courts by CMC's on behalf of clients claiming unenforcability of their alleged agreements under Section 78 of the CCA1974.

 

Whilst much is constantly made on here about reconn agreements etc. these according to HHJ Waksman QC may, note may be acceptable in response to a section 78 request by an alleged debtor or their representatives (note the questions in his words actually in the judgement handed down re substance) however in his OWN WORDS in his summaries particularly section 234 if memory serves correctly he stressed the word ORIGINAL and even placed further difficulites on the banks and CCs by stating they had to provide the original at every variation along with the modified T & Cs right back to date of inception.

 

Our solicitors were THERE!

 

Representing a client who insisted on proceeding as a claimant and not waiting to defend. Hence the confusion that seems to be spreading about this case and which has just been ruled by another judge as irrelevant in enforcement via the courts. Exactly as HHJ Waksman stated it to be so.

 

Hope that this provides a little clarification for those a little concerned by this case. It may well be that the actual Carey v HSBC case itself may well be taken to full trial, in which case only evidential facts will be acceptable to the court, not the assumed facts that HHJW ruled upon.

 

Regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Hi Guys,

 

Several of us are looking for the actual judgement allegedly made this very week whereby Carey v HSBC was ruled irrelevant in respect of enforcability. It has been raised elsewher on these forums and I just cannot find the D**N post now.

 

Regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Brilliant--- thanks vint. I will read with interest

 

regards

OR

[oilyrag]

Hi Laura C,

 

Yep, totally agree. I looked at the Lisbon Treaty as much as I could understand, and guess what Gung-Ho Gordon and his merry men have signed us up to a treaty which forces all the bad bits on us mere mortals but hidden away in the appendices it says that Poland and the UK will not be bound by all the good bits it will the "law" prevailing in those two countries.

 

Hooray Henry Cameron has now taken the cowards way out of this as well now!!!!

 

Apologies for the politics folks

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Hear hear Axiom99

 

Very well put and if you want to know the basis of your agument look up Adam Weishaupt on this information net we have.

 

Regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Oh and by the way did any of you see the demands by John Varley (CEO Barclays Bank plc) that he and his "president of investment banking" be directly involved in formulating the new regulation bodies for the banking industry.

 

I will not say more for fear of being cagbotted!!!!!

 

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

In the UK, yes Laura it is too much to ask.

 

OR

[oilyrag]

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.

[oilyrag]

Hi stripper,

 

Yep, unfortunately I think this is the case. When I challenged the instance cited, I was told by a civil servant involved "well English is such an inexact language". Dangly things in pairs between the legs spring to mind.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Well section 78 seems to have been so eroded now as a point of law, although has to be the starting point, it must move the situation on to the defective paperwork surrounding default notices and subsequently termination on the back of same.

 

I cannot see where any judge is coming from, over declaring one or two days short as being de minimus. If I am over the drink driving limit by 1mg per litre then I am over the limit, (percentage error is not remarkably different is it?). It is de facto. The Law specifies the number of days notice to be given to an alleged defaulter to rectify. How can it possibly be de minimus if it is one day short? I just get the feeling that we are all being railroaded.

 

I have been following your arguments closely DD in these issues and I would certainly welcome any additional knowledge on this subject as I have recommended others to start looking carefully in this direction and not rely on s78 so much as many are still trying to do. Unfortunately this routing takes much more patience until they (the DCA/Bank/CCco.) shoot themselves in the foot.

 

Regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Can I be permitted to play Devil's Advocate for a moment here please? If the defective paperwork surrounding Default Notices and subsequent Termination is such a powerful tool in our armoury and we all know it is, then why do Mercers/Calders who are part of the original creditor's organisation consistently send out seriously defective paperwork which to all intents and purposes undermines or even destroys their own case against an alleged debtor?

 

My own assumption has to be that they assume that we are all idiots and wiould not know, or seek advice on such documents.

 

Regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Hi Brooooooooooce

 

I have been told by the BC monkeys that they are above the law with the full backing of the Supreme Court and Parliament ????????????????????

 

I think that says a lot.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

I think the judge in question was ruling/commenting about enforcement generally under the CCA1974 and the interpretation of the word itself. From what was said and discussed here on the site I seem to remember that taken to the letter, normal "collection" practices (LOL) are OK, and it is not up until proceedings take place and the court "enforces" does actual enforcement take place. However just one judge's view on a case before him/her and a junior one to boot.

 

I would take issue with those statements as it is stretching interpretation to the limit when the actual wording of the legislation is examined. Even taking into account the "balance of probabilities", anyone with the remotest amount of common sense can read exactly what the sanctions are in Statute Law if the Account is in Dispute for a number of non- compliant reasons.

 

I believe Waksman was alluding to this throughout most of his wordings and again I say, in his summaries of Carey v HSBC.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Hi DD and Vint,

In my experience, never, in answer to your last posts. But can I just return all those going back over the "recon" territory to actually read what Waksman said in the multiple LEAD cases which constituted Carey v HSBC. He positively refused to deal with anything other than section 78 claims for unenforcability, mainly by CMCs whereby the alleged debtor was claimant and the lender, the defendant.

 

Discussion around paras 100, 104 and on a bit.

 

Plus in his summaries from about 234 onwards he was insistent that the ORIGINAL (not a recon) agreement be provided at each and every variation of the agreement in fact right back to inception of said alleged agreement. Many professional legal eagles have examined this in full and most banks and their cohorts would find it impossible to fulfill this obligation. He, in the opinion of some of our defenders, laid the recon thing to rest in that these may be OK for compliance with section 78 requests for information but would not suffice for enforcement via the courts. This is in total keeping with the exact wording of the Statute and now reinforced by Waksman. Who seems to have added further obligations on the lenders to have kept and to keep their documentation in order as is required under Statute Law.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Yes agreed, but following Carey v HSBC, it has been argued that unilateral variations such as credit limit changes, interest rate changes etc should also be notified with the new terms and conditions accompanied, please note with copies of the ORIGINAL agreement.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

BC are very quick to send out fancy leaflets about updates to T & Cs for their credit cards, however always and just always they have never sent the ORIGINAL agreement with them so you have no comparison. HHJW has said at Para234(4) that they must do so and must have done so. His bald and clear statement demonstrates that any unilateral variation under the terms of the alleged agreement must have and must be dealt with in this way (including credit limits, interst rate changes and the like). Please note that this says ORIGINAL as well not a recon, forgery or anything else ORIGINAL. There is no interpretation to that wording and I am sure that HHJW intended it to be that way.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Hi GoForIt,

 

"bald" --- "with scalp wholly or partly hairless, without the usual covering, hairless, featherless, leafless, (of style) meagre, dull, (of bad qualities) undisguised. Source Oxford English Dictionary (mine is dated 1959) Please note the definition highlighted in bold.

 

My OH is part qualified in accountancy and files and hoards just about every bit of paper in recent years until I lose my rag and shred a load including sadly our old (very) CC agreements.

 

regards

oilyrag.:)

[oilyrag]

Just to reinforce what you say basa48, there is case law at House of Lords level and hence irrefutable by any one, that these terms and conditions, "the prescribed terms" MUST be within the "four corners". John Story has quoted it as well and I will back track to find it unless one of the closer followers has it at their fingertips.

 

This just about wipes out all of the "additional bits of paper" argument. getting a biased DJ to accept that might be another matter and would have to fought at appeal.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

A very relevant issue to the Manchester Lead cases I'm afraid. I have picked up in the "small print" that there have already been additional hearings and addenda to the judgement handed down on the 23rd of December 2009.

 

I cannot find any definitive data to support this , yet HHJ Waksman has apparently handed down additional judgment material early in January plus there have been additional hearings early this month on the court listings.

 

Does anyone have any further information or detail please?

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Hi JonCris

 

I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that I am the opposition, very far from it. I had picked this up whilst trying to find something else of relevance to do with business and credit cards. The court hearings before HHJW seem to have been 8th/9th of this month with judgments to be handed down in two to thee weeks.

 

regards

oilyrag.

Edited March 16, 2010 by oilyrag
typos

[oilyrag]

There are authoritive members of this group who say how good they are so can they be trusted as well I ask myself..

 

Agreed broooce, funded by the financial industry could not be trusted to wipe their own backsides properly. If you need any further evidence as to the average intelligence quotient, look at the DCAs that call YOU and I. All recruited from the same stock

 

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Hi Brooooooce,

 

I have had a little spat about CAB on another thread. I was a Stafford Hospital patient and in 1999/2002, I and one or two others were warning that this hospital would end up killing people. 1250 dead bodies, 2 behind closed doors gov't enquiries attest to that statement. At that time, you were not allowed any professional help whilst in the complaints procedure other than CAB or the Community Health Council (NHS funded) please note otherwise the NHS and the GMC had/have a legal right to walk away from you. Well the CAB guy turned out to be running with the fox and hunting with the hounds, ex probation officer and a director of the health trust concerned plus being the convenor for the independent reviews and the most accomplished liar and charlatan I have ever come across. So would no longer trust anything CAB says now unless it can be corroborated from more reliable sources.

 

Just be careful of all of these people, they all have some axe to grind. sadly it is not a nice world we live in.

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

Hi Elsa,

 

Have done the search. 998 results in 0,53 seconds. Brilliant:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

regards

oilyrag.

[oilyrag]

CCCS and thirty pieces of silver spring to mind. They have loosed many vulnerable people down, look on here, as JonCris says look on other forums.

 

And lets not be ingratiating here. A CCA dispute is a CCA dispute, a defective DN is a defective DN, UNLAWFUL RECISSION is UNLAWFUL recission and it is the credit card company that has and is behaving unlawfully AND has probably done so for the last 35 years or so.

 

So to claim unbiased help and advice seems to me to be just verging on the hypocritical and not just a little. We did not make the law, Parliament did and EVERYONE should obey it!!!! Lord Justice Argyll used to insist that the spirit as well as the letter was obeyed. Denning had the same approach.

 

regards

oilyrag.