Waksman, Carey and summary of findings 4

[PriorityOne]

 

On all the recent threads I've read of people defending against financial institutions/DCA's when it goes to court the claimants solicitor or judge quotes the carey case as a reason for not producing the original agreement and the defendant loses. But section 4 of the summary of findings says contrary. So are you saying it shouldn't be used at all, even if the claimant quotes it?

 

Lots of creditors/DCAs blabber on about Carey/The Rankines in the hope that consumers don't know the difference between being a Claimant (bringing a claim) and being a Defendant (defending a claim). Both Carey & The Rankines were Claimants and as such, they were bringing action against a creditor(s). This is a totally different ball game; the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to prove their case, which they failed to do..... and which is why creditors/DCAs have latched onto it. Providing you remain a Defendant and do not issue proceedings yourself (which applies to most people), then it's left to the creditor, as Claimant, to prove their case against you.... Under CCA 1974, the law is quite clear. Under CCA 2006, a creditor can refer to payment history in order to re-enforce a claim however.... because s127 (3) was removed from the new Act.

 

 

 

Carey has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with enforcability in a court of law. Please read up the case management conferences pre court (October 16th 2009) plus the WHOLE judgement. Waksman actually states the limitations of the judgement with crystal clarity and it is that it is for s78 requests ONLY for the INFORMATION PURPOSE only and NOT THE PROOF PURPOSE for the court to grant a creditor a judgement or an enforcement order.

 

This state of affairs and the case history now building in the lower courts because of weak LIPs and aggressive CMCs is making life much more difficult for knowledgable LIPs and professionals who ARE prepared to help us less fortunate people. This constant round-a-round with Waksman and talking the whole thing into a corner is doing NOTHING to forward the cause of effective defences for us all.

 

If anyone feels out of their depth then GO SEEK proper competent professional advice it IS out there is you look.

 

regards

oilyrag.

 

Good summary there Oily....

 

 

Very specifically on the thread, it should be noted that a lady by the name of Emma Carey is a full partner in one of the solicitors'practices representing clients at the Manchester hearings. Of course it might be a coincidence, I am just pointing the facts as they are in the public domain. People must draw their own conclusions and make their own judgements.

 

regards

oilyrag

 

Conspiracy is very much alive and well..... as is the "old boys' network".....

[spamheed]

I don't think there has ever been a doubt about the value of the S77 CCA request, although there is some genuine confusion over the expectations of the person making the request. Carey has muddied the waters a little and it certainly seems like a number of claimants are deliberately using Carey to mislead the judiciary and grant judgements where none should be granted. This should be stopped and the perpetrators brought to book for at the very least, lying in court.

 

A clear and public message needs to be made to ensure that all of those responsible for the upkeep of the judicial system in this country should at least try to have a basic understanding of the relevant case law, judgements and their underlying statutes before even stepping into the court. so at least the people for whom the system was designed to serve can at least have a small chance of real justice

[Bigdebtor]

subbing - a great thread and great posts!

[leopard lady]

I don't think there has ever been a doubt about the value of the S77 CCA request, although there is some genuine confusion over the expectations of the person making the request. Carey has muddied the waters a little and it certainly seems like a number of claimants are deliberately using Carey to mislead the judiciary and grant judgements where none should be granted. This should be stopped and the perpetrators brought to book for at the very least, lying in court.

 

A clear and public message needs to be made to ensure that all of those responsible for the upkeep of the judicial system in this country should at least try to have a basic understanding of the relevant case law, judgements and their underlying statutes before even stepping into the court. so at least the people for whom the system was designed to serve can at least have a small chance of real justice

 

My whole sentiment in posting this thread, and so well put. Either the law is the law, or the law is dependant on what judge you get on the day and their opinions, in which case there would be no need to study law.

[cymruambyth]

You need to study Carey and all the commentaries on it. You can find arguments both for and against the debtor. If you go to court you need a copy of Carey and all the passages marked that can be of use. Carey is clear about the requirements to satisfy a request and what has to be produced.