Creditor unable to supply a cca is no defence

[sequenci]

good news storm!

 

the 2006 act amends the 1974 one as far as i was aware.

 

even still with the 2006 act and recent contracts post april 6th '07 - no contract still equals no debt, surely?

[ODC]

Excellent News. The DCA took you as far as they could and were slapped in the face. The court letter confirms what we thought. The law cannot be backdated to cover old agreements

[pford]

good news storm!

 

the 2006 act amends the 1974 one as far as i was aware.

 

even still with the 2006 act and recent contracts post april 6th '07 - no contract still equals no debt, surely?

 

yes you are quite right sections 127 (3 and 4) still apply to contracts pre April 6th 07

 

SCHEDULE 3

 

TRANSITIONAL PROVISION AND SAVINGS

 

11 The repeal by this Act of-

(a) the words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

(b) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

© the words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Great news storm......even if the judge didn't understand consumer law at least the correct conclusion was reached

 

 

Well he certainly learned something new which should place him in good stead the next time some poor downtrodden debtor comes before him

[rory32]

Well he certainly learned something new which should place him in good stead the next time some poor downtrodden debtor comes before him

 

Alleged debtor pliny.

[Guest Mincemeat]

Defo alleged!

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Alledged or otherwise I don't care as long as the greedy lenders & their agents get judiciously stuffed!!

[NitrousOxide]

Just to update everyone on this I received the order from the court today, and it says

 

And upon the claimant having failed to provide a copy of the regulated agreement showing that is was properly executed

 

It is ordered that

 

The claim be struck out

 

My conclusion on this is that the judge clearly didn't fully understand consumer law but was not going to admit it in front of me, and gave other reasons as to why he was striking the claim out

 

Also ensures the claimant will have to provide the agreement if they want to appeal

 

Worry over

You know something,

A group of ordinary people on the internet got together, discussed things logically and seem to have put those in the know to shame.

[noomill060]

Just a thought, pliny.

 

Halifax settled out of Court paying out substantial damages when a woman took action against them under the Protection from Harrasment Act for a debt which didnt exist.

 

If this DCA had been hassling you for ages, for this non-existant debt...

 

Just a thought.

[noomill060]

Mirror.co.uk - News - Top Stories - GET A LITTLE XTRA HELL

 

GET A LITTLE XTRA HELL

 

Halifax bombarded mum with calls

 

 

 

HALIFAX Bank promises "a little extra help" - but when battling single mum Alison Turner took it on, she got a lot of extra aggro.

Alison's troubles began after she successfully forced the bank to wipe out £775, made up of a string of unjustified £30 charges imposed for going overdrawn.

Amazingly, it took six weeks to clear the debt. But though Halifax had agreed not to contact her, in that time Alison was bombarded with 33 phone calls and letters demanding the money she no longer owed.

Advertisement

 

//'); //]]>

The persistent calls flooded in at night and weekends. Sometimes Alison's two children answered the phone and were asked to provide security details.

As the relentless hounding continued Alison, 31, suffered anxiety, stress and emotional problems and was frequently reduced to tears.

Eventually she brought a landmark legal action under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 seeking an injunction against the bank and "substantial damages".

She has now won an out-of-court settlement in a triumph for consumers against the might of big banks.

Last night Alison said: "I've been told by my solicitors not to say anything."

But a neighbour in Devonport, Plymouth, said: "She's a lovely woman.

"She was being bullied but decided to fight back. Whatever she has won she really deserves."

Eddie Weatherall, of the Independent Banking Advisory Service, said: "This is a step in the right direction. People still get rung late at night and repeatedly phoned on their home number.

"But making three or four calls on the same day is harassment.

"People are now more aware that banks shouldn't be doing it and are telling them to p**s off. If you say to a bank 'You're harassing me', they'll take it quite seriously."

Consumer group Which? added: "This is a different case than most because it's based on a bank's behaviour. Most actions against banks are based on financial matters rather than the way someone feels they've been treated.

"It's another example of how people can keep challenging banks. If they feel they have a case they should seek advice. It takes time and patience - but it can be done."

When Alison was first hit by the bank charges she was so desperate she was about to approach a loan shark. Then she spoke to lawyers.

She said earlier this year: "There was a lot on the news about banks not being allowed to charge excessive overdraft penalties to customers. It made me think and I took advice."

When she launched her action for harassment, she said: "I was bullied by the bank and made to feel a failure for getting into debt.

"If customers are having problems, banks should try to get them back into the black not make their position worse by harassing them on the phone.

"I got calls at 6.20pm on a Friday and early on Saturday morning. The constant calling reduced me to tears."

Solicitor Neil Mercer said at the time: "She was constantly harangued for money she no longer owed.

"It caused sleepless nights and great concern. There's no question it amounted to harassment."

The Financial Ombudsman Service said customers taking action against banks have jumped by 50 per cent to more than 100,000.

It added: "There are now clear channels on how to go about challenging the banks. There's very little case law history, so banks are wary of going to court.

"They don't know what will happen. Even if a bank wins, it will be portrayed as the bad guy. So more and more are settling out of court."

Halifax Bank said: "We have no comment to make about the case other than to say it's settled. There's no court hearing."

'She was being bullied..but she fought back' ALISON'S NEIGHBOUR YESTERDAY

 

By Richard Smith [email protected] 23/05/2007

[ODC]

Ha ha you beat me to it. I read the Mail

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmstandard/frame.html?in_bottom=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisismoney.co.uk%2Fcampaigns%2Fbankcharges%2Farticle.html%3Fin_article_id%3D420623%26in_page_id%3D507%26ct%3D5

[pford]

Just been doing a little diging into something and game across this wonder where is report is?

 

Five years on, 'banks still run a monopoly'

Profits of £30bn prove little has changed, says Cruickshank

Jill Treanor

Friday February 18, 2005

 

Guardian

Don Cruickshank, who conducted a sweeping review of the banking sector for Gordon Brown, believes that nothing has changed to boost competition among banks and that, five years on, it might be time for the government to act.

 

Mr Cruickshank told the Guardian that the banks' sustained profitability was a sign that they were operating in a complex monopoly.

His investigation, which culminated in his 300-odd page report in March 2000, infuriated the high-street banks at the time, particularly his claim that they were making "super-normal profits" of £3bn to £5bn a year. His comments almost five years later come in the middle of the bank reporting season. By the time the last of the biggest banks reports next month, the industry is expected to have totted up a record £30bn of profits.

Mr Cruickshank said the government did not act on his report because of a "regulatory contract", which in effect exists between the banks and the government. This contract, he said, had prevented successive governments - not just those run by Tony Blair - from making significant changes to the way the banks are regulated. But, he said: "Sustained [and] very high profitability is an indication that they are operating in a complex monopoly and that on balance this is bad for an economy.

[dannyboy660]

Digging this one up from the depths, it just got me wondering if anyone has requested CCA but fallen foul of CCA2006 yet?? ...Or is that yet to come??

[ODC]

I think if it were true then the DCAs would be quick to leap upon that excuse in a similar way where they say they dont have to provide a CCA but are doing so as good business practice. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!

 

Similarly the idiots who try to use the Law of Property ploy to say they have the rights but not the responsibilities.

 

All that said we Know the MIB regularly pollute this forum so doubtless some of us will get this nonsense from them in another threatogram.

[dannyboy660]

I feel a bit guilty now - like I've presented them with a new idea to bully people with

 

 

It's just that those few threads that appeared recently regarding EEO's and overseas stuff fuelled my interest in how it all ties up with the CCA '06, because I thought it would perhaps put a different spin on things. It does partly explain why UK took it's time to even begin implementing the new stuff, because they have been well out of step. Good news for ex-pats though (I think). I remembered this thread from yonks ago and dug it up for any interesting comments when it appeared in the search.

 

 

The bad guys do read these threads of that there is no doubt, but I didn't think I might be stirring up a Poo pond :(

 

 

I'll get back in my kennel. Somebody close the door behind me

[ODC]

I feel a bit guilty now - like I've presented them with a new idea to bully people with

 

 

It's just that those few threads that appeared recently regarding EEO's and overseas stuff fuelled my interest in how it all ties up with the CCA '06, because I thought it would perhaps put a different spin on things. It does partly explain why UK took it's time to even begin implementing the new stuff, because they have been well out of step. Good news for ex-pats though (I think). I remembered this thread from yonks ago and dug it up for any interesting comments when it appeared in the search.

 

 

The bad guys do read these threads of that there is no doubt, but I didn't think I might be stirring up a Poo pond :(

 

 

I'll get back in my kennel. Somebody close the door behind me

Dont worry DB we are more than capable of dealing with the MIB.

 

Nice to see you back BTW

[dannyboy660]

Thanks ODC, you are a true CAG hero of the old school.

 

I've been reading through some of the old threads and I'm very frustrated by the ones that don't seem to reach a conclusion - but I suspect that the majority will be a case of "no news is good news".

 

Go get 'em.