Cap1 & CCA return

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Also UNI

Can you give us more info on her attitude etc

[un1boy]

Also UNI

Can you give us more info on her attitude etc

 

Guys - check my thread for full details about it (it's a bit fragmented, but I'll post a summary post in a few days -she wasn't very nice at all and i am appealing it through a circuit Judge, so keep looking at the thread for update on that.

 

the bank admitted they didn't have the T&C's yet she still ruled that the agreement was enforcable.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/102075-un1boy-n1-issued-breach-27.html#post1676079

Edited August 24, 2008 by un1boy

[un1boy]

Yes, it's rubbish.

 

From Wilson vs Hurstanger Ltd, COA June 2007

 

33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them.

 

Did you use this to argue against their claim?

 

Hi Ian,

 

Yes I did - it was in my skeleton arguments, but I didn't add the whole case to my bundle. She told me that she would only use the evidence in front her (bear in mined I was a LIP AND I only got their skeleton arguments the night before, by email!!!) she let them use things that they had enetered THE MORNING of the trial but wouldn't take the case from me. they also brought up the definitions sections without it being in their arguments or bunlde - he admitted he onyl thought about it on the train!!

 

She wasn't very nice at all, basically called me a lier and said that with reagrds to defaults - there's nothing to stop thm issuing new ones which would stay on my file for another 6 years from now if the agreements were enforcable.

 

I asked for leave to appeal on the basis that it was "hearsay" that the prescribed terms were in the T&C's - she told me it wasn't hearsy, because he had made ruling based on fact. She couldn't tell me what the fact was and woudn't give me leave, so said I have to apply to a circuit judge.

[un1boy]

Also UNI

Can you give us more info on her attitude etc

 

she knew nothing at all - she kept saying, but that woudl cause "banking chaos" despite having the rulings of higher courts in front of her and me pointing out that the CCA was implemented to protect consumers.

 

She was compelety bumming the bank's solicitor and he was bumming her - it was making me feel physically sick. I knew i didn't have a chance, right from the start.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

she knew nothing at all - she kept saying, but that woudl cause "banking chaos" despite having the rulings of higher courts in front of her and me pointing out that the CCA was implemented to protect consumers.

 

She was compelety bumming the bank's solicitor and he was bumming her - it was making me feel physically sick. I knew i didn't have a chance, right from the start.

 

Cant believe this UNI

 

Nevermind the CJ will put it right and then we can all laugh at the DJ

[Peterbard]

HI Uni

 

Notice subseccrion (a) says containing this means the terms must be contained within the document the section.

(b) refers to other pieces of information. Which means other documents mentioned in the above.

 

Prof Goode makes this point in his book where he talkes about the difference between the terms contained and embodied, its on page 322. I have reproduced the bit of the act unfer here.

Unfortunately i cannot include the quote from Dr, goodes book athough i can send you a scan of the page if you email me.

 

Big difference between the words contained and embodies.

 

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed

terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the

prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the

creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than

implied terms, and

©

the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for

Butterworths Direct - Print Page 38 of 160

http://wellington.butterworths.co.uk/wbs/NETbos.dll?POView?sk=AAFIMJMA&bk=... 22/12/2001

Edited August 24, 2008 by Dodgeball
spelling stinks

[pt2537]

Hi Peter,

 

which book of Prof Goode are you refering to?

 

is it his consumer credit law and practice?

 

if not can you let me know which book it is please

 

Regards

 

paul

[Peterbard]

Hi Peter,

 

which book of Prof Goode are you refering to?

 

is it his consumer credit law and practice?

 

if not can you let me know which book it is please

 

Regards

 

paul

 

HI

Yes its, "consumer credit law and practice."

 

And it confirms that the terms must be contained within the agreement other items may embody the total document.

 

Petr

 

 

 

Regards

Peter

[pt2537]

HI

Yes its, "consumer credit law and practice."

 

And it confirms that the terms must be contained within the agreement other items may embody the total document.

 

Petr

 

 

 

Regards

Peter

Cheers peter, thats great, i shall go and have a read

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Paul

 

Can you post it

[foolishgirl]

OK, you legal bagels (seagulls) - now you've lost me. Who's Prof Goode please?

Can he be quoted in court or is he just reference?

Edited August 24, 2008 by foolishgirl
Whoops, sorry beagles, but you might be tastier as the original!

[tinkerbell20]

OK, you legal bagels (seagulls) - now you've lost me. Who's Prof Goode please?

Can he be quoted in court or is he just reference?

 

He is the next best thing to a HOL ruling .......................

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Just a quck question.

 

As well as claiming costs if you win a SD set aside hearing, can you also claim for stress and suffering?

 

HAK

[foolishgirl]

Thanks Tinkerbell - I'm off to study him...

[pt2537]

Thanks Tinkerbell - I'm off to study him...

 

you will need a few pennies to do that Transferred Title here a link to the page to purchase a copy

[foolishgirl]

I know PT - just picked myself up off the floor. That's a 'ell of a goode price!!

[paulwlton]

Guys - check my thread for full details about it (it's a bit fragmented, but I'll post a summary post in a few days -she wasn't very nice at all and i am appealing it through a circuit Judge, so keep looking at the thread for update on that.

 

the bank admitted they didn't have the T&C's yet she still ruled that the agreement was enforcable.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/102075-un1boy-n1-issued-breach-27.html#post1676079

 

Unfortunately judges hearing cases in the county court are not taking claims against the big boys seriously and are just going through the motions. I think an appeal in your case may result in a different outcome. However there is the cost implication if you are unsuccessful.

 

Good luck.

[car2403]

you will need a few pennies to do that Transferred Title here a link to the page to purchase a copy

 

£930, for a CD-ROM?

 

Lets all chip together and get it bought...

[car2403]

Unfortunately judges hearing cases in the county court are not taking claims against the big boys seriously and are just going through the motions. I think an appeal in your case may result in a different outcome. However there is the cost implication if you are unsuccessful.

 

Good luck.

 

Agreed, Paul.

 

Interesting, though, as I was just considering this costs point - surely a small claims track appeal to a Circuit Judge, as in un1's (and mine!) case, would mean that costs are limited to court fees and any ordered by the court if we were to be deemed vexatious, only?

[pt2537]

Agreed, Paul.

 

Interesting, though, as I was just considering this costs point - surely a small claims track appeal to a Circuit Judge, as in un1's (and mine!) case, would mean that costs are limited to court fees and any ordered by the court if we were to be deemed vexatious, only?

Correct Chris, although if deemed unreasonable you could be spanked for costs, in reality i cannot see that happening and the other sides costs would be minimal

[banker_rhymes_with]

There can't be that many Judges out there, so why don't we start to compile a CAG List of Judges, based on CAG Members direct experiences in Court, after all, we must've seen them all by now!

 

Something along the lines of:

 

Fair and Reasonable Judges

 

Judge Smith

Judge Jones

 

CCA Clueless Judges

 

Judge Green

Judge Red

Judge Blue

 

Bank Biased Judges

 

Judge Brown

 

Something like this could give people a Heads Up on the Judge Lottery before they step into Court. Indeed, it might even force a change that could remove or reduce the Lottery aspect. Some Judges may start to do their job a little better if they realised their conduct and performance were being watched and ranked, and their bias and/or incompetence made public.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Dont think we would be able to put the Court location for liable reasons

[ncf355]

Hmm

 

Dont think the site admin would take kindly to that - chance of libel , especially considering the subjects

 

That would do you no good whatsoever anyway as you dont find out until you arrive who the judge will be

[Peterbard]

Guys,

 

I lost a case yesterday and wasn't givn leave to appeal so I'm taking it to a circuit judge.

 

The bank relied on the following from the CCA:

 

[/font][/size][/font]

 

They reckon that this means the prescribed terms can be in the t&Cs, which is a seperate document. The judge agreed (although, the bank admitted they didn't have the T&C's and couldn't confirm their contents).

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

HI

This really dies need challengining.

 

You only need to look at the act.

Section 61a is quite clear as is SI1983/1553 that the agreement must contain the terms.

The provision mentioned in subsection(b) is to provide an overall coverage for the inclusion of other information relavant to the document not those stipulated by section 60.

 

Dr Goode even conjectures that section (b) could be interpreted to mean that all documentaion involved in the purchasing of the loan should be included, this would mean any advertising and pre contractual information even that not set in writing, for instance any verbal promises made by the creditor under section 56 (in the anticedent neotiations ) would have to be included as since they were spoken they could not be regarded as implied terms and would fall under section 61(b).

If they were not, then in theory section 65 would apply and the agreement could be made unenforceable. In practice the court would not be likely to allow this but it illustrates the funcion of section 61(b) and also the meaning of the term "embody" which is a world away from, "contained", as in 61(a) wich relates to the terms that must be within the agreement.

Besty regards

Peter

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Peter

Is Dr Goode the writer of the CCA 1974