the supreme court went out of their way i think to point out we still had another line. they drew reference to the robin hood in reverse quote and stated that one third of customers paying for the rest may be unfair but they werent allowed to decide. they had to give the verdict they did or risk the very real chance that the ecj would strike it down when the rich banks bought their appeal......... the point is they shut down a dead end and pointed to the new route. we should now act on this and find other ones such as the cca and enterprise act..........

I know you frustrated but turning on each other wont help.

folks, Im not saying we wont get a refund. I think we are reading to much into the banks win. If you stand back and look at the comments in the judgement the judges have given us all the answer 1 they tell us about the reg to challenge this under 2. they tell us the arguement to use. not the price... the pricing structure 3. and they virtual state they already think they are unfair. now short of raising a banner and marching round with their nickers on a pole shouting it they couldnt do much more!!! they will refund i think... but they want drip drip not a tidal wave........... drip drip means a billion or two a year not 24 at once........

hi folks im back. excuse the lack of capitals but im knackered ... its 1.30 in the morning and i have just got in. i havn't been around for a while and thats because i became very aware that experian were monitoring my posts. however i am here now for reasons i will explain. whilst being away i have used my time wisely. i have recruited a source close to a banks policy unit through a friend of my wife. we shall call him shallow throat in keeping with the tradition of watergate. i have spoken to him tonight and the info is ..well... interesting. Mods..please read this. the info i have gleaned is as follows. 1. why the change of tact? supreme court over rules high court and court of appeal. no appeal to europe. well that is a matter for the government. the supreme court is totally and utterly impartial. so are trains. but if you lay the tracks they have a tendacy to follow them. if we had won the cost would have been enormous. in the region of £24 billion in refunds. now think about that. the government lent hbos £61 billion and there has been outrage. dubai owes £80 billion and the stock market tumbled. this was a matter of 'stability'. if there are to be refunds then they must be'controlled' and not a stampede. 2 that leads us to the ruling. the court rules we get nothing. wrong. the court has ruled but they have left an avenue open, i gues you cant control everything. this allows us to return to the individual claims and not the mass refund. 3.The question now is what todo. to be honest my source says that the banks are as worried as you are. since the judgement the lights have been burning late in canary wharf. the press have sold this as a victory so it will be very difficult for them to start paying out individual claims without being pilloried. but fighting is just as dangerous. what if they lose, which is a very real possibilty. as my source said......just go to the fsa site and look at their interpretation of unfair terms regarding contracts. the inference is that the new route is far far more dangerous to the banks than the old one. what i am saying now is that this has spiraled to the point it became a threat to the stability of some of the banks. the collapse in credit markets changed the whole situation halfway through the test case and that is why we are here. i for one will not give up. we will still win. but we must be careful. since the judgement some of you may have noticed alot more anti remarks on this and other forums. posts on this site and others have been refered to in court in earlier cases. be aware how your remarks may seem at a later date. be aware that you are being baited. it would be handy for us to be portaryed as a bunch of whinging anarchist nutters. lets not give them that chance. during the lull the banks have not sat idol. this site and others are being monitored at a rate that we wouldnt believe. remember folks we are not talking about your £2000 but a poss £24 billion. thats alot of motivation for corruption and skullduggery. cag ..dont give up... you are back in the driving seat now and individuals are less easy to control than civil servants. anyway i feel completely half cut as it took alot of red wine to get that information tonite.

sorry you havnt heard from me for a while. Thanks for al the input here. the fight goes on and we have reached that stage when I have to stop posting details to prevent the enemy knowing the next stage and how not to fall into it. good luck everybody and I wil let you know when the battle is won...

All their arguements are absolutely true... except if you approach this from a different angel. If there default says 'you don't pay your debts' then they are entitled to say that and you have given them permission to say that. Or the judge will except that they would never have lent you the money unless you signed such a declaration and would rule in their favour. However a default doesn't say that. What it says, according to their own definition, is 'you have failed to keep within the terms of your agreement'. now as the default is registered under the CCA the 'agreement' refered to must be the one refered to in the CCA. That is defined as 'a correctly regulated agreement, in the prescribed form signed by both parties'. Now let me see.... is what the default says now sounding true and a statement of fact? I think not... sounds like it's a false statement if the agreement is not a enforcable one. Now false statements are very bad things to say if you publish them and they lower SOMEONES standing in other peoples eyes. Like banks, mobile phone companies...anyone really who does a credit search and thinks you are a defaulter. They become LIBELOUS!!! AND THAT IS EXPENSIVE. Write back to Mr hancock...explain that and then issue court proceedings... thats what I'm doing. Whilst you are at it ask Mr hancock if he will confirm that Experian processes defaults where no enforcable agreement exists and that this is company policy. I asked Millsy that and he has refused to answer the question... so lets give Mr Hancock a chance.

keep it up people.... sounds like the OFT are getting interested......

update.... strange letter back from millsy... still wont answer my question regarding registering defaults without a cca and if this is company policy...just keeps stating he has already answered that when he hasn't. I smell panic....... oh good........

dhi, just a question but is there no way you can counter claim in a possesion hearing?

I don't think I ever suggested it was...the trouble with the DPA is it is enforced by the ICO who has all the sympathy in the world with the CRA's. It is easy for him to rule that anything is reasonable if he feels like it...which he often does because they buy the lunches.The judge often bows to his greater knowledge ignoring his waistline! The defamation act however says that it has to be TRUE!!! now that has nothing to do with the ICO and everything to do with the judge and the facts. It's a whole different world for MIllsy and the happy folks at EXPERIAN. Whats more they have to prove it's true

if that is the case..then we must ask ourselves searching questions. Or in reality them searching questions. good ones would be these 1. If that is the case why does the ICO's own guidance state that they shouldn't register defaults when the info is disputed 2. the same guidelines state that 'a notice of correction may not be enough to protect the CRA's against a claim'. what claim if the ICO isn't intrested?(perhaps this is a hint at the defanation angle) I wouldn't listen much to what Millsy has to say... he has a tendancy to quote the bits he likes and ignore the rest. File a complaint with the ICO.. then if no luck cliam for defamation and kick the C#*p out of them. in defamation actions it is upto them to prove they are telling the truth... thats more fun. Incidently you could include the ICO as a co defndant as he has neglected his duty in have the libelous material removed....

there is a petition on this thread about credit reference agencies I urge you all to sign http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

thanks foolishgirl, Im thinking about writing a letter on these lines, Dear Sir, I am writing to inform you that I am so overwhelmed with writing compalints that I havn't had time to write to you yet, your truely Mr Finlander

but thank you anyway for your input Yourbank. It's greatfully received.

Thats all very well and the change may be happening for you but take a look on this website and see how it is helping your most vulnerable customers. Type in your banks and name and do a search. see what the complaints are and just for one second..only one..believe them. Then ask yourself if you would stand for this. It's not right,fair or the image of bankers most people were brought up with. Bank manager used to be someone you could trust who had your and the banks best intrests in mind. Now it seems just the banks. From professional to spiv in one generation. These people have no choice. No bank account.. no direct debits..higher bills. But look at how they are treated. Like some stupid cash cow that will just keep paying out. I'm sorry but until the change is seen by them ..it doesnt count, its just words on a flip chart or a powerpoint demo. Sorry I know it sounds harsh but banks really have shown people the unacceptable face of capitalism. I think the damage to your profession is going to be very very long lasting. Perhaps another generation... (and i'm a lifelong capitalist!)

It appears the FOS is now getting P*ed off with PPI sellers... BBC NEWS | Business | PPI sales face new restrictions loads and loads of people being fobbed off by companies knowing full well that they are going to lose with FOS but using it as a delaying tactic....

sparkie and C team and the rest of you good people, The wilson v first counties verdict was overturned. The statement made in red above doesn't apply. However it was appealed and i beleive it was lord birkenhead who stated along the lines that parliment intended 127 to deprive the lender of all rights under the CCA but allowed them other avenues to pursue a debt although it wasn't apparant what if any these other avenues could be. the appeal was upheld and is pre-cedent. IN SHORT... THE LENDER LOSES ALL RIGHTS UNDER THE CCA. AS THEY COULDN'T SEE ANY OTHER REMEDY THEN THEY LOSE ALL THE PRINCIPLE SUM. This is important as it effectively gets rid of the proposition that the default marker is a pre-cursor to enforcement. How can it be when enforcement is barred? In an update I still havn't heard back from the ICO. this is either because; 1. they have lost the letter 2. they are hoping I will go away 3. they are overwhelmed with enquiries (usual excuse for gov agencies) 4. They don't know what to reply without dropping themselves or the CRA's in the POOH. I think a reminder letter is going to be sent. For those of you wanting a mass complaint then go to the thread mentioned earlier and SIGN THE PETITION AND SEND THE LETTER AND GET EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO AS WELL.

well pass the word on... get everyone you can

sparkie I disagree, I don't think we need to get paranoid when it comes to the courts. So far they have helped us greatly in defeating banks and as the recent test case shows they are not afriad to do so even when it's going to cost the banks billions in the middle of a credit crunch. However what the courts won't stand , and they have shown this in the past , is a sloppy case. It is not the judges job to argue our case's for us but to decide on the arguements in front of him. I.E. if you dont make the right arguement, or fumble the one you do make, then he will rule against you. thats why we have to stick to basic, simple facts and argue them well. The facts of this thread are just that... 1.CRA's regulated and controled by CCA 2.No enforcable CCA agreement then No default as CCA no longer applicable 3.default does not say 'bad debtor' it says, in their own definition, 'you have failed to keep to the terms of your agreement' 4. definition of agreement in the CCA? 'A properly regulated agreement containing all the prescribed terms signed by both parties' 5. Is a default notice a true statement then? no.

sorry folks but I still don't buy the 'banks are trying their hardest but can make the occassional mistake' line. As far as I can see, and I'm not being cruel I promise, you are fooling yourself. Only this month two more programmes on Tv illustrated the folly of these institutions and the cruellty in which they treat those who bank with them.One programme pointed out that despite the credit crunch and massive losses banks bonuses to staff still went to £6.5 billion pounds!!! I except that most junior staff don't get massive bonus payments but doesn't that just mean that are being had as much as us. The second programme was panoramas one on how the recession is hitting us all. It was a bit glib at times but one point stuck out. A poor middle aged man who couldn't afford his bills anymore,due to infaltion,going through the piles of letters sent to him. It was terrible when he got to the 15th or so letter and said 'look a letter from the bank saying they havn't paid a bill. Thats says it's cost me £50'! Saying we are progressive, understanding and have focus groups at the town hall just doesn't cut it Im afraid. These are real people being destroyed not just bank account numbers. People will only start trusting banks again when they see actions not words and flip charts. One postive is that it appears credit unions are making a strong comeback. Perhaps we will end up back in the days of building societies who shared their profits with all their customers. I hope and think that at the end of this credit crunch the banks, city and the finiancial institutions will find themselves at the wrong end of a government backlash to ensure that this never happens again. Don't mean to sound bitter but I havn't found any bank yet that behaves in a reasonable way.

keep at people;)

uk26, what is a brief summary of your case? is it one involving penalty charges, identity theft CCA agreements etc?

ok..as millsy didn't answer my questions.... attempt no 2... Dear Mr Mills, Re : Your refs ;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Thank you for your recent letter of the 27th August 2008 and it’s interesting contents. At this time I am still awaiting replies to enquiries made to The Information Commissioners office, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and The Queens Bench Division of The High Court. I hope you will appreciate that once these replies are with me I will be contacting you again to discuss the points you have raised in your last two letters. I have noted your comments regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court and the County Court. I must say that as a qualified solicitor I am mystified as to why you have quoted County Courts Act 1984 when this was repealed by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. However we will leave that discussion until my reply from The Queens Bench Division is received. What concerns me more is that you have not answered two of the questions I put to you regarding the Consumer Credit Act and it’s implications. I will again repeat these questions and ask for an unequivocal answer to both if I could. Is it true that; Experian does not require a enforcable Consumer Credit Act agreement in order for one of it’s clients to register a default notice under The Consumer Credit act? That all defaults registered on my and my wifes account are registered in compliance with The Consumer Credit Act? I cannot understand what would be the difficulty in answering these simple questions. It cannot be a matter of ‘company confidentiality’ but a simple matter of adminstration. These questions have not, as you have stated, been answered in your previous correspondence so I would appreciate you doing so now. Can I clarify. I do not want a rambling statement about ‘previous payment history being evidence of an account’ and would ask that you simply limit yourself to answering the questions above. If you refuse to answer these question I would like a detailed explanation of why. I look forward to hearing from you soon. I would also like to state that as of this day your company continues to defame my an my wifes names and would request that you disist immediately, Your truly,

you all remember that millsy quite cleary said that..and i quote ' the county court does not have jurisdiction to hear defamation cases' and then he refered me to part 7 of the civil procedure rules... as so.... PART 7 - HOW TO START PROCEEDINGS – THE CLAIM FORM very interestin ... then he says that this is all confirmed by the county courts act 1984... like so.... Part II Jurisdiction and Transfer of Proceedings Actions of contract and tort 15 General jurisdiction in actions of contract and tort (1)Subject to subsection (2), a county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action founded on contract or tort F1 . . .. (2)A county court shall not, except as in this Act provided, have jurisdiction to hear and determine— F2(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b)any action in which the title to F3 . . . any toll, fair, market or franchise is in question; or ©any action for libel of slander. F4(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annotations: Amendments (Textual) F1Words in s. 15(1) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI F2S. 15(2)(a) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI F3Words in s. 15(2)(b) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI F4S. 15(3) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1S. 15 excluded by Legal Aid Act 1988 (c. 34, SIF 77:1), s. 39(4) S. 15 extended by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(1)(l) Now notice the f2 etc.... says repealed...when you enquire deeper it says repealed by this.... Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. and that is here.... Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41) the most relevent part is.... Transfer of proceedings between courts (1) The following section shall be substituted for section 40 of the [1984 c. 28.] County Courts Act 1984 (transfer of proceedings to county court)— “40 Transfer of proceedings to county court (1) Where the High Court is satisfied that any proceedings before it are required by any provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (8) to be in a county court it shall— (a) order the transfer of the proceedings to a county court; or (b) if the court is satisfied that the person bringing the proceedings knew, or ought to have known, of that requirement, order that they be struck out. (2) Subject to any such provision, the High Court may order the transfer of any proceedings before it to a county court. (3) An order under this section may be made either on the motion of the High Court itself or on the application of any party to the proceedings. (4) Proceedings transferred under this section shall be transferred to such county court as the High Court considers appropriate, having taken into account the convenience of the parties and that of any other persons likely to be affected and the state of business in the courts concerned. Now would you say that there has been an attempt to mislead me?.... I think so... and I think that is a bit naughty........ But..I knew that was happening anyway.... ... when someone is building their own gallows...don't interupt them....

you all remember that millsy quite cleary said that..and i quote ' the county court does not have jurisdiction to hear defamation cases' and then he refered me to part 7 of the civil procedure rules... as so.... PART 7 - HOW TO START PROCEEDINGS – THE CLAIM FORM very interestin ... then he says that this is all confirmed by the county courts act 1984... like so.... Part II Jurisdiction and Transfer of Proceedings Actions of contract and tort 15 General jurisdiction in actions of contract and tort (1)Subject to subsection (2), a county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action founded on contract or tort F1 . . .. (2)A county court shall not, except as in this Act provided, have jurisdiction to hear and determine— F2(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b)any action in which the title to F3 . . . any toll, fair, market or franchise is in question; or ©any action for libel of slander. F4(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annotations: Amendments (Textual) F1Words in s. 15(1) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI F2S. 15(2)(a) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI F3Words in s. 15(2)(b) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI F4S. 15(3) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1S. 15 excluded by Legal Aid Act 1988 (c. 34, SIF 77:1), s. 39(4) S. 15 extended by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(1)(l) Now notice the f2 etc.... says repealed...when you enquire deeper it says repealed by this.... Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. and that is here.... Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41) the most relevent part is.... Transfer of proceedings between courts (1) The following section shall be substituted for section 40 of the [1984 c. 28.] County Courts Act 1984 (transfer of proceedings to county court)— “40 Transfer of proceedings to county court (1) Where the High Court is satisfied that any proceedings before it are required by any provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (8) to be in a county court it shall— (a) order the transfer of the proceedings to a county court; or (b) if the court is satisfied that the person bringing the proceedings knew, or ought to have known, of that requirement, order that they be struck out. (2) Subject to any such provision, the High Court may order the transfer of any proceedings before it to a county court. (3) An order under this section may be made either on the motion of the High Court itself or on the application of any party to the proceedings. (4) Proceedings transferred under this section shall be transferred to such county court as the High Court considers appropriate, having taken into account the convenience of the parties and that of any other persons likely to be affected and the state of business in the courts concerned. Now would you say that there has been an attempt to mislead me?.... I think so... and I think that is a bit naughty........ But..I knew that was happening anyway.... ... when someone is building their own gallows...don't interupt them....