Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[unclebulgaria67]

 

I think the point being made about Australia, has nothing to do with Red Tape, but freedom.

 

But what freedom ? Australia is catching up with the UK. They work longer hours and pay more interest on a higher level of debt than UK citizens.

 

If you moved to OZ 20/30 years ago, then yes it was great. But times have changed.

[JonCris]

My daughter is off to Australia she said this country a joke and more interested in immigrants and criminals thatn the people that made it once great, she as to swear her allegiance to Australia and so she should they offering her a much better life this country as no loyalties to it`s citizens it tramples over them because we allow it half the mps not in touch with reality they simply have no idea otr are even interested how we live and how their actions and actions of others have broke this country

 

My Ozzy lawyer mate says it's much like here the politicians have turned 1/2 the population into criminals & in the eyes of the cops the other half just haven't been caught yet:mad:

[247orbital]

As someone who has lived in Australia, NZ and the UK with the exception of NZ, Australia is well on its way to repeating the same mistakes as the UK, regarding immigration under the new government and taxation etc.

I'm going back in September as, although Australia is catching up with the UK and its social and economic problems (they seem to be 10 years behind) its still a far better place to live then the UK.

The only glimmer of hope is the Australians don't take any crap and are just as likely to vote the liberal governement out and bring in a more hard line one. Its not had its day yet but if the Australians do not learn from the UK mistakes, its well on its way to disaster.

[JonCris]

Absolutely and although going a bit off thread [but perhaps not as far as one might at first think] I would urge readers of this thread to find out more about Common Purpose. Look through the PC gloss, and it's chilling.

 

AND the appalling Civil Contingencies Act

[Laura Cooke]

I looked at the thread because I thought it was about 'dissecting the Manchester Test Cases'.

 

Have recent threads been 'on topic' ? Ok having a rant, but for what purpose, apart from getting it off your chest.

 

I would suggest that you club together and buy your own island. Then you can make any laws that you want to or have none and you would not even need a parliament.

 

I have family in Australia who have resided there for 10 years. My BIL is a corporate lawyer. He says it is one of the most bereaucratic countries he has ever lived in, as they love red tape. The cost of living in Australia is now a lot higher than the UK. I love Australia but unless you have £500k+ or are willing to live in the middle of nowhere, money does not go far.

 

 

I have a cousin there she`s a midwife I have a auntie from opposite side of family who is there as well as having friends there and none say any other than it`s a much better place, they have felt nothing about a recession and they don`t put up with any tom dick or harry unlike the UK dumping ground, my daughter had to get loads of points to go there and that`s how it should be then we`d get desirables instead of the undesirables

[unclebulgaria67]

My family has had a long association with OZ, since before WW2, when my great Grandmother moved there to teach in a coal mining town.

 

For some people that move there life can be very good, but all I am saying is that times are changing. The cost of living now exceeds the UK and buying an affordable home on average wages near any major city, is now vitually impossible.

 

The OZ economy is based mainly on their wealth in minerals and due to the size of the place, it is going to take a long time before these resources become exhausted. But other sectors of the economy are really struggling, particulaly tourism due to the exchange rate.

 

I have been to OZ many times, but like the many Aussies that live in the UK, would only go there on holiday.

[Laura Cooke]

My daughter wanted to go to Perth she only made enough points to go to Adelaide she is head lecturer of sport at our local College and her husband is a computer engineer it`s him they want not her and they been told they will not be allowed to purchase a house till they have been residents for 2 years it`s cost them thousands to go in fees and Australian Passports, I don`t think they`ll stay they go often for holidays but that`s very different from living there

[unclebulgaria67]

My sister and BIL obtained citizenship within 3 years. They were able to buy their first house near Sydney within a year. But they had the support of other family who have lived there for years, who sponsored them. But this was about 10 years ago and would not happen now.

 

I have been to Adelaide. Probably my least favourite Oz city, but the locals hate calling it a city anyway. They refer to it as a big town.

 

The good thing is that if they move to Adelaide and don't like it, they can move elsewhere with OZ, after a year I believe, if they have job offers. I have read that others have gone there and moved to Perth. I have been to Perth on a couple of occasions and if you like white sand beaches, with crystal clear waters, it is the place to be.

[FlyboyAgain]

I note the judge states the reasoning in the McGuff case (CCA1974 & s78/enforcement et all)can be used in cases which are disimilar because the judge has reasoned in the bigger picture and not just that distinct case... not too sure on that reasoning tbh, it stinks of the sort of thing a normal bank/dca employed solicitor would claim.

 

...and no doubt will now these test cases have been handed down.

 

S.

 

Are you of the opinion this is what will now take place? One judge, moving the goal-posts, and we're all on the back foot again?

[basa48]

I note the judge states the reasoning in the McGuff case (CCA1974 & s78/enforcement et all)can be used in cases which are disimilar because the judge has reasoned in the bigger picture and not just that distinct case... not too sure on that reasoning tbh, it stinks of the sort of thing a normal bank/dca employed solicitor would claim.

 

...and no doubt will now these test cases have been handed down.

 

S.

 

I still maintain the use of McGuffick can only be with regard to agreements deemed unenforceable due to non compliance with s78.

 

It is evident Waksman went on to consider compliance with s61 as a totally separate issue not with reconstituted agreements.

[Drexl Spivey]

There ought to be a central repository of what these alleged cca's look like . One that cannot be accessed by the creditors and dca's . We would forward each and every constructed cca to this repository , so that over time it would have a database (of images) of what these alleged agreements are supposed to look like in a given year . Then that body holding the database , without disclosing the contents of the actual cca for that year could say , it is accurate or it fails on this point or those terms etc . If anyone has their own cca from those years that is forwarded , they would be the standard un-tampered documents to which these constructed ones must adhere.

[Laura Cooke]

Good idea as so many of us have no idea what is a enforceable CCA when we haven`t got any to compare with as some creditors won`t send a CCA

[spartathisis]

suggested on this thread way, way back.

[diddydicky]

pity Mr benion did not place a clause in the CCA that stipulated that creditors must lodge with the OFT a copy of EVERY agreement it produces together with a statement of the dates that the particular agreement was in use from and to!!

 

or better still stipulate that the format of a credit agreement had to be filed and given an official govt approval as acceptable before it could be used!

 

still- that wouldnt do- his pals in the courts would lose a lot of money

[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.

[stripper]

Hello Oilyrag

is this a case of 'bullsh*t baffles brains' the dictum of the Civil Service.

Stripper

[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.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Dangly things in pairs between the legs spring to mind.

 

Not in this weather!

Trust me, I'm a nurse...

[vint1954]

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 think that is right OR. We need to remember that this was drafted nearly 40 years ago. The intent was protection for the consumer, from dodgy lenders, probably not from the banks, who were at that time viewed as reasonable and respected institutions, as they were. Regrettably the banks have now joined the dodgy bregade.

[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.

[diddydicky]

nice to know

[diddydicky]

since more focus now seems to be on dodgy DN's and in particular 1/ the expression of the remedy date and 2/ the habit of one or two judges to rule 1 day short as de minumus- what his intentions/opinions are on those

[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.

[Laura Cooke]

When did this change that a Judge now doesn`t class the DN as being dodgy if it`s short of a day or two? thought 2nd class is 4 days so now that`s not the case? what next been told to concentrate on a faulty DN so now what does one concentrate on? if the goal posts keep shifting

Edited March 6, 2010 by Laura Cooke

[Drowning but not sunk...]

Please is anyone available to clarify this point regarding one or two days being 'de minumus'