Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[oilyrag]

Maybe Citizen, however when a detailed question is asked directly relevant to Manchester, then most walk away. I will state and ask again.

 

On the 8th/9th March 2010 additional hearings in the Carey v HSBC (The Manchester of this thread) series of cases. These were before HHJ David Waksman QC with judgement to be handed down in two to three weeks. Question: Does anyone know what these were/are about? Are they the housekeeping/procedural/costs issues which were hung over from the November hearings?

 

regards

oilyrag.

[AA99]

oilyrag, had a quick trawl through the internet but there doesn't seem to be an update yet! In view of those time factors, think we may have to wait till the end of this month. Sure we'll all hear about it here first

[the main man]

There is the issue of costs coming up on the on the 24th/25th March?

 

 

 

Cartel customers face £30k court fees

 

Alan O'Sullivan, This is Money

15 March 2010 Reader comments (1) |Chat

Customers of claims company Cartel Client Review could find themselves further in debt to the tune of £30,000 after it has emerged its legal firm botched their court cases.

Court costs: courts fees can cost between £20-30,000 if a case is unsuccessful.

How long to clear your credit card debt:

Wake up and smell the coffee...

- Card debt calculator

 

 

The firm working almost exclusively on Cartel's 'debt-free' cases, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors, was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority last week due to concerns over 'suspected dishonesty'. It has now emerged CCLS took four cases to a Manchester High Court before Christmas as part of 10 test cases chosen by a Judge Waksman to decide the circumstances in which debts could be deemed 'unenforceable'.

CCLS failed to win the cases for its clients and had costs awarded against them.

However, the solicitors did not have insurance in place to cover it in the event of a failed court case, according to a source at Manchester Civil Justice Center, which has details of all upcoming cases.

This means the indebted individuals who originally hoped Cartel would free them of their debts could now be slapped with further court fees of up to £30,000 each.

This comes despite Cartel customers being led to believe their initial fees were the only costs they would pay in the event of an unsuccessful claim.

Further cases are being held in Manchester presided over by Judge Waksman on March 24 and 25 to decide whether these costs should be borne by the individuals involved or paid for by CCLS. A judgment is expected shortly after Easter.

 

The SRA says between 50-70,000 people could have paid at least Cartel's £495 minimum fee, with many paying more. The firm promised to free clients of their debts for large fees. The SRA said it found files which just seemed to have been piled into boxes at the CCLS' offices.

 

• Concerned about the fees you paid to Cartel? Read our Q&A on your chances of getting them back...

And what has been going on at Cartel Client Review?

Cartel founder Carl Wright paid himself £790,000 in the year to September 30, 2008 from his company Cartel Group Holdings (CGH), of which Cartel Client Review is a subsidiary.

 

CGH also earned £2.2m from its subsidiaries throughout the year, but Mr Wright declined to disclose how much of these expenses were paid directly by Cartel Client Review.

A This is Money investigation has also found Mr Wright took out a £300,000 loan in August last year, secured against the future success of hundreds of client cases. He said this was for the 'expansion of the business' when asked by us in January.

However, this deal values each claim at only £500, little more than the money paid by some clients to have their case reviewed.

At the same time, Mr Wright took out a 'debenture' on the company, which makes him a priority creditor over any other creditor should the company go bust. This would make it difficult for Cartel to secure loans from other sources, as any other creditor would only be paid after Mr Wright was paid funds owed to him.

Marian Owen, editor of Business Opportunity Watch, a subscription service for entrepreneurs, said: 'Why did he feel it was necessary to suddenly do that? If a company did go bust, debentures like this could be set aside if the liquidator thought a person was trying to get an unfair advantage over other creditors by using insider information.'

[diddydicky]

Maybe Citizen, however when a detailed question is asked directly relevant to Manchester, then most walk away. I will state and ask again.

 

On the 8th/9th March 2010 additional hearings in the Carey v HSBC (The Manchester of this thread) series of cases. These were before HHJ David Waksman QC with judgement to be handed down in two to three weeks. Question: Does anyone know what these were/are about? Are they the housekeeping/procedural/costs issues which were hung over from the November hearings?

 

regards

oilyrag.

 

well whatever they are - you can bet they are not favourable to the creditors otherwise you would have heard them bleating about it by now!!

[diddydicky]

There is the issue of costs coming up on the on the 24th/25th March?

 

 

 

Cartel customers face £30k court fees

 

Alan O'Sullivan, This is Money

15 March 2010 Reader comments (1) |Chat

Customers of claims company Cartal Client Review could find themselves further in debt to the tune of £30,000 after it has emerged its legal firm botched their court cases.

Court costs: courts fees can cost between £20-30,000 if a case is unsuccessful.

How long to clear your credit card debt:

Wake up and smell the coffee...

- Card debt calculator

 

 

The firm working almost exclusively on Cartel's 'debt-free' cases, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors, was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority last week due to concerns over 'suspected dishonesty'. It has now emerged CCLS took four cases to a Manchester High Court before Christmas as part of 10 test cases chosen by a Judge Waksman to decide the circumstances in which debts could be deemed 'unenforceable'.

CCLS failed to win the cases for its clients and had costs awarded against them.

However, the solicitors did not have insurance in place to cover it in the event of a failed court case, according to a source at Manchester Civil Justice Center, which has details of all upcoming cases.

This means the indebted individuals who originally hoped Cartel would free them of their debts could now be slapped with further court fees of up to £30,000 each.

This comes despite Cartel customers being led to believe their initial fees were the only costs they would pay in the event of an unsuccessful claim.

Further cases are being held in Manchester presided over by Judge Waksman on March 24 and 25 to decide whether these costs should be borne by the individuals involved or paid for by CCLS. A judgment is expected shortly after Easter.

 

The SRA says between 50-70,000 people could have paid at least Cartel's £495 minimum fee, with many paying more. The firm promised to free clients of their debts for large fees. The SRA said it found files which just seemed to have been piled into boxes at the CCLS' offices.

 

• Concerned about the fees you paid to Cartel? Read our Q&A on your chances of getting them back...

And what has been going on at Cartal Client Review?

Cartel founder Carl Wright paid himself £790,000 in the year to September 30, 2008 from his company Cartel Group Holdings (CGH), of which Cartal Client Review is a subsidiary.

 

CGH also earned £2.2m from its subsidiaries throughout the year, but Mr Wright declined to disclose how much of these expenses were paid directly by Cartal Client Review.

A This is Money investigation has also found Mr Wright took out a £300,000 loan in August last year, secured against the future success of hundreds of client cases. He said this was for the 'expansion of the business' when asked by us in January.

However, this deal values each claim at only £500, little more than the money paid by some clients to have their case reviewed.

At the same time, Mr Wright took out a 'debenture' on the company, which makes him a priority creditor over any other creditor should the company go bust. This would make it difficult for Cartel to secure loans from other sources, as any other creditor would only be paid after Mr Wright was paid funds owed to him.

Marian Owen, editor of Business Opportunity Watch, a subscription service for entrepreneurs, said: 'Why did he feel it was necessary to suddenly do that? If a company did go bust, debentures like this could be set aside if the liquidator thought a person was trying to get an unfair advantage over other creditors by using insider information.'

 

i would be surprised if they could "stick " these fees on the clients

 

the clients paid 495 to cartel to find out if their agreements were valid

 

it was CARTEL's decision if they decided to challenge agreements in court .

[Axiom99]

There is the issue of costs coming up on the on the 24th/25th March?

 

 

 

Cartel customers face £30k court fees

 

Alan O'Sullivan, This is Money

15 March 2010 Reader comments (1) |Chat

Customers of claims company Cartal Client Review could find themselves further in debt to the tune of £30,000 after it has emerged its legal firm botched their court cases.

Court costs: courts fees can cost between £20-30,000 if a case is unsuccessful.

How long to clear your credit card debt:

Wake up and smell the coffee...

- Card debt calculator

 

 

The firm working almost exclusively on Cartel's 'debt-free' cases, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors, was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority last week due to concerns over 'suspected dishonesty'. It has now emerged CCLS took four cases to a Manchester High Court before Christmas as part of 10 test cases chosen by a Judge Waksman to decide the circumstances in which debts could be deemed 'unenforceable'.

CCLS failed to win the cases for its clients and had costs awarded against them.

However, the solicitors did not have insurance in place to cover it in the event of a failed court case, according to a source at Manchester Civil Justice Center, which has details of all upcoming cases.

This means the indebted individuals who originally hoped Cartel would free them of their debts could now be slapped with further court fees of up to £30,000 each.

This comes despite Cartel customers being led to believe their initial fees were the only costs they would pay in the event of an unsuccessful claim.

Further cases are being held in Manchester presided over by Judge Waksman on March 24 and 25 to decide whether these costs should be borne by the individuals involved or paid for by CCLS. A judgment is expected shortly after Easter.

 

The SRA says between 50-70,000 people could have paid at least Cartel's £495 minimum fee, with many paying more. The firm promised to free clients of their debts for large fees. The SRA said it found files which just seemed to have been piled into boxes at the CCLS' offices.

 

• Concerned about the fees you paid to Cartel? Read our Q&A on your chances of getting them back...

And what has been going on at Cartal Client Review?

Cartel founder Carl Wright paid himself £790,000 in the year to September 30, 2008 from his company Cartel Group Holdings (CGH), of which Cartal Client Review is a subsidiary.

 

CGH also earned £2.2m from its subsidiaries throughout the year, but Mr Wright declined to disclose how much of these expenses were paid directly by Cartal Client Review.

A This is Money investigation has also found Mr Wright took out a £300,000 loan in August last year, secured against the future success of hundreds of client cases. He said this was for the 'expansion of the business' when asked by us in January.

However, this deal values each claim at only £500, little more than the money paid by some clients to have their case reviewed.

At the same time, Mr Wright took out a 'debenture' on the company, which makes him a priority creditor over any other creditor should the company go bust. This would make it difficult for Cartel to secure loans from other sources, as any other creditor would only be paid after Mr Wright was paid funds owed to him.

Marian Owen, editor of Business Opportunity Watch, a subscription service for entrepreneurs, said: 'Why did he feel it was necessary to suddenly do that? If a company did go bust, debentures like this could be set aside if the liquidator thought a person was trying to get an unfair advantage over other creditors by using insider information.'

 

 

Cartel just had their MoJ authorisation suspended not looking good for them

[the main man]

Only that one company, CW's other ones continue

[JonCris]

i would be surprised if they could "stick " these fees on the clients

 

the clients paid 495 to cartel to find out if their agreements were valid

 

it was CARTEL's decision if they decided to challenge agreements in court .

 

Negligent legal advice by the solicitors means the Law Society compensation fund is in the firing line

[oilyrag]

This is exactly the reason we went and did the legwork to find a specialist solicitor that was not tied to a claims management company. Our cases are in direct with a practice and the fees are certainly not as high as those quoted by Cartel.

 

Unfortunately there were some folk out there who insisted (some with the practice we are with) that they would be proactive and take their alleged creditors on in a head on fight, purely on the s78 issues egged on by CMCs. Expectations had been lifted far too high far too quickly by the CMC industry. Our collective opposition has a saying which is "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Hence we went into all this on the basis of very low expectation "it must be too good to be true" . Now we are pleasantly surprised if thats the right word in these circumstances as to what the law actually extends to us.

 

And thanks guys for the replies on the 8th/9th hearings, I will post up anything that does come my way on the subject.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[angry cat]

Cartel Client Review have been shut down and;

their solicitor CCLS have been shut down by the SRA and Law Society!

Page 237 CEEFAX

[angry cat]

Cartel Client Review shut down | This is Money

[oilyrag]

:)Hi AC,

 

Not spoken for a while. Yes I was aware of the Cartal situation and if you look behind it all they seem to be the same few figures pocketing the cash. They, in fact, were one of the people we ruled out at round one when we were doing our inital legwork to find someone. I suppose it was gut feeling to be honest but what they were saying and asking for in terms of cash just did not ring true. if it sounds too good to be true then it usually is.

 

One of the statements they were making was pay the fee and we will guarantee to clear your debt in three months.

 

Definitely not true.

 

However what should not be forgotten in all this is that MBNA folded just prior to the Manchester hearings for Cartal clients, having to write off significant sums of money. My understanding was that these came about as a result of MBNA losing in court with another case and additionally being lumbered with the costs.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[AA99]

:)Hi AC,

 

However what should not be forgotten in all this is that MBNA folded just prior to the Manchester hearings for Cartal clients, having to write off significant sums of money. My understanding was that these came about as a result of MBNA losing in court with another case and additionally being lumbered with the costs.

 

regards

oilyrag.

 

oilyrag, do you have a quick link to that case of MBNA losing ?

[brooooooooooce]

Just had a letter from HSBC quoting the Carey case / Waksman judgment. States:

 

'in compliance with a statutory request made under s.78 CCA 74 the bank is able to furnish you with:

 

1. a reconstituted copy of the credit agreement plus the original t & c's

2. A copy of the current t & c

3. The latest notice of variation

4 A statement of account.

 

For the purpose of satisfying s61 of the act, both the signature page and original t & c are to be read as one single document.''

 

What do you think?

 

This is the agreement document I got following my SAR.

HSBC - Agreement.pdf

[diddydicky]

i think that the final sentence is a self serving interpretation of something that was not in the judgement

 

an attempt at BBB i think

[JonCris]

i think that the final sentence is a self serving interpretation of something that was not in the judgement

 

an attempt at BBB i think

 

Quite the judgement never stated that:mad:

[the_shadow]

Quite the judgement never stated that:mad:

 

Yep agree 100%

 

Probably asked their inhouse "legal" team for an opinion, good old DG

 

S.

[brooooooooooce]

i think that the final sentence is a self serving interpretation of something that was not in the judgement

 

an attempt at BBB i think

 

Can I quote you in my reply? DD says "..."

[lookinforinfo]

Probably better to point out what Justice Waksman said in relation to variations of the T&Cs.

 

Carey v HSBC

Final Summary

S 234 [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.

 

As you have never received a copy of your original agreement along with each variation of the contract, you are therefore only governed by their original T&Cs. In order to comply with your S 78 request it would obviously have to include a copy of their regulations when the agreement was signed. If they have increased their charges or interest rates in the meantime you should ask to be reimbursed the difference.

[paulwlton]

Just had a letter from HSBC quoting the Carey case / Waksman judgment. States:

 

'in compliance with a statutory request made under s.78 CCA 74 the bank is able to furnish you with:

 

1. a reconstituted copy of the credit agreement plus the original t & c's

2. A copy of the current t & c

3. The latest notice of variation

4 A statement of account.

 

For the purpose of satisfying s61 of the act, both the signature page and original t & c are to be read as one single document.''

 

What do you think?

 

 

This is the agreement document I got following my SAR.

 

I think they're talking bollards.

[diddydicky]

Can I quote you in my reply? DD says "..."

 

no reason why not, i DO have letters after my name

 

Diddydicky, Batchelor of Arts, Science, Technology And Religious Denominations

[sunflower99]

Great thread!

[AA99]

Hi Sunflower (waves)! I just tickled the man's scales to say that!

[basa48]

 

For the purpose of satisfying s61 of the act, both the signature page and original t & c are to be read as one single document.''[/i]

 

What do you think?

 

This is the agreement document I got following my SAR.

 

I'm not altogether comfortable with the phrase "...accompanying leaflet 'Credit Card Agreement Terms'".

 

This could be interpreted as indicating they were supplied and present with the signature page.

[sunflower99]

Hi Sunflower (waves)! I just tickled the man's scales to say that!

LOL! AA99 !Great minds think alike! LOL