Campaign to the OFT against unfair CRA practices.

[pt2537]

just one fly in the ointment

 

the Human Rights Act 1998 does not give a right to an effective remedy, the Government left that clause out on purpose as they did not want the courts to have absolute power in deciding matters

 

apart from that the letter looks ok

[pt2537]

It does if you use IE.

Download this: ieSpell - Spell Checker add-on for Internet Explorer. Once installed, click on over in your reply box and ta-DAHHHH!!!

of course, you could just use a decent browser such as Firefox which has a built in spell checker;)

[pt2537]

Ok lets go through this in bullet points to get the finer detail right.

 

Ø The Cca was designed to protect the rights of both lenders and borrowers. It set out a clear framework for the layout of agreements, the prescribed terms and essential information required and the procedure for enforcement by a court.

Ø The act lays out a clear framework for lending and recovering funds. The procedure, in brief is

Ø The layout and prescribed terms of the agreement make the document executed, unexecuted or irredeemably unenforceable.

Ø An unexecuted document can be made enforceable on the order of a court.

Ø In the event of a borrower failing to make payments a lender must issue a default notice under the act. This is a clear indication that the act is intending to be ‘fair’ to both side and offer a chance for the borrower to make amends. The default notice is in effect a notice saying ‘Pay us the arrears, come to some arrangement or we will be forced into court action to recover our money’.

Ø In the event that the default notice is ignored then a default can be registered with a CRA. Now this is the crucial bit. This in my opinion, and that of CAR2403 judge is because the notice is pre-cursor to enforcement. A marker to other lenders that legal action is pending. Now if that is the case then the agreement must be either unexecuted or enforceable. If it is not then it serves no purpose. You can’t have a pre-cursor to something that is an impossibility which is the case with an irredeemably unenforceable agreement.

Ø A pre-cursor would require there to be a realistic chance of success in court. In this situation there clearly is none. If this is the case what purpose does the default maker serve now? It no longer becomes a warning or temp marker, which would make sense. It becomes a punishment in it’s self.

Ø Once on your record it last for six years. The same as a CCJ. There is no right of appeal except to the institution that placed it on there and has a vested interest.

Ø This marker can affect your ability to gain credit, living accommodation and employment. In effect this allows a completely unaccountable section of industry to decide if a citizen of this country is deprived of food, shelter and warmth. The three basics of civilised society.

Ø The only recourse for the citizen is the courts. This method is expensive for people who in all probability are already amongst the poorest and in some case’s the least educated in society. Many simply will not be able to and have to live under the marker.

Ø Why should a normal citizen be expected to take the lender to court to remove a marker when the lender refuses to take the debtor for the original default? What possible reason can a lender have for putting the marker on the record and not taking the debtor to court? If it is expense then the lender should write off the loan. They should not be allowed to place the marker and then not follow up.

Ø This is against natural justice. Someone asked above ‘What is this natural justice?’ It’s a legal philosophy out lined here… Notice that it says UK LAW……..

 

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Jump to: navigation, search

Natural justice is a legal philosophy used in some jurisdictions in the determination of just, or fair, processes in legal proceedings. The concept is very closely related to the principle of natural law (latin: jus naturale) which has been applied as a philosophical and practical principle in the law in several common law jurisdictions, particularly theUKand Australia.[1][2]

According to Roman law certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by a legislator. The assertion in the United States' Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident," expresses some of this sentiment. The rules or principles of natural justice are now regularly applied by the courts in both common law and Roman lawjurisdictions. Natural justice operates on the principles that man is basically good, that a person of good intent should not be harmed, and one should treat others as one would like to be treated.[3]

Natural justice includes the notion of procedural fairness and may incorporate the following guidelines:

• A person accused of a crime, or at risk of some form of loss, should be given adequate notice about the proceedings (including any charges).
  
• A person making a decision should declare any personal interest they may have in the proceedings.
  
• A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith. He therefore can not be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the outcome. This is expressed in the latin maxim, nemo judex in sua causa: "no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause".
  
• Proceedings should be conducted so they are fair to all the parties - expressed in the latin maxim audi alteram partem: "let the other side be heard".
  
• Each party to a proceeding is entitled to ask questions and contradict the evidence of the opposing party.
  
• A decision-maker should take into account relevant considerations and extenuating circumstances, and ignore irrelevant considerations.
  
• Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts.[4]
  

Ø These people have a vested interest. They have no right to charge convict and punish you in the click of a computer mouse then expect you to prove your innocence. This would mean that the CCa would have been crafted with no account of natural justice. Or perhaps it was just assumed that it would be applied. Remember 'According to Roman law certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by a legislator'

Ø If this is a default marker indicating future legal proceedings then there should be a time limit on the markers life. If no legal proceedings are started in a specific period or within a reasonable time the marker should drop off. Not stay on for as long as the CCJ it was after in the first place. The criminal law expects someone who is charged to be brought before a court as soon as possible. This is because the law and ‘Natural Justice’ understand that an indefinite wait for trial or having an accusation hanging over your head for a prolonged period would be unacceptable. But the default marker does exactly that.

Ø If the marker is not a precursor to enforcement then it must be enforcement in its self and banned under the Cca if the agreement is unenforceable…

 

 

 

 

Well that’s a start…………….

 

While Wiki can be a useful tool, to use it to quote legislation and more worryingly Natural Justice is just bonkers

 

can you imagine going into court and hte judge says "What authority are you basing your argument on Mr Finlander"

 

You say "Wikipedia sir" , youd be laughed out of court

 

If you want info on natural justice and constitutional law, look for information from A.V.Dicey or Francis Bennion these are sources i would rely upon

 

just putting my 2P

[pt2537]

pt2537 et al.

 

That was hilarious re wikipedia.

 

Also for lawstatues simply try this link (ever law is here) - very easy to search and filter on CCA; i used it in my complaint against SLC

Home - Statute Law Database

 

 

Im glad it amused, a QC who was my tutor said that exact phrase when a student on the same course as me submitted an essay where all of the authorities he was citing clearly came from Wiki, i nearly wet myself when he came out with that comment

 

statute law is good, but it fails to provide regulations which are made under CCA

 

apart from that it is a cracking resource as is BAILLI British and Irish Legal Information Institute is you need case law

 

fortunately, i supplied many of the CCA regs and they have been uploaded in our statutes library

 

regards

paul

[pt2537]

No, dont be silly, im not saying natural justice doesnt exist,

 

but if you are au fait with the principles of the Rules of Natural Justice , you would know that Dicey is the authority which any practitioner would cite as a solid source

 

all i say is that wiki is an untrustworthy source where legal matters come to the fore

 

i much prefer to use these sources for explanations as they are accurate especially where law is the issue

 

of course, if you really want an authoritative source of the Constitution and Natural Justice i can forward you Halsburys Laws of England ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (VOLUME 1(1) (2001 REISSUE)) that will give you the definition of Natural Justice which is accurate and relied upon and admissible in a court

[pt2537]

Hi BB,

 

i submitted a 30,000 word essay on the Constitution a while ago and it achieved 96% so if you need any help, i am sure i can help:p

[pt2537]

of course, journalism is not something im tooooo au fait with but im a fast learner so im sure i could pick it up quickly, plus i know a few good media lawyers in my contact lists;)