What is "enforcement" re: Rankine Judgment?

[Jerry Dandrige]

I have been reading the Rankine Judgment over and over and do not get it.

 

The Judge did not consider the commencement of proceedings as "enforcement" so what the hell is "enforcement" ???

 

At what state in the proceedings, if any, is it "enforcement" ?

 

Is the judge saying they can get a CCJ against someone but it cannot be enforced?

 

Isn't acquiring a CCJ in itself "enforcement" ?

 

I just don't get it, he goes on to say you can apply for an injunction to stop the "enforcement" so at what stage would you do this ?

 

It all seems unreconcilable with the Wilson judgment.

 

It also seems madness that proceedings could commence and continue but not be enforced in the end.... so why should they be allowed to continue... a waste of time...

[blind-as-a-bat]

I may be wrong but i dont believe the creditors where trying to enforce the alledged debts on the rankines as they had no valid CCA, but the rankines took them to court to try get compensation i think, im still trying to fgure out that bit, why was it in court :?

 

But like i said i may have got the wrong end of the stick altogether:oops:

[FunkyFox]

Hi, I can't answer your question but you may find the answers you seek on this thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/147432-high-court-judgement-rankines.html

 

I think the general view is that there a number of bad points made in the Rankine judgement. There are also some fundemantal errors, which are pointed out in the thread above. From what I have read the issue of enforcement is one of them. Again as far as I can tell the judgments in higher courts 'trump' that of the high court so its relevance is questionable also. If someone can confirm that it would be useful.

 

I think its another 'black mark' against the industry solicitors that they seem to sending sending this out like confetti to defendants without explanation as to its relevance in any particular case. I know when I received it from a claimant it put the fear of god in me (and still does to a point) until I realised it was totally irrelevant in my case and the solictor would have known that too. It was just an attempt to intimidate me into backing down I think.

 

Anyway, have a read of the above and the linked thread too. I am sure others will be along to answer too.

 

All the best, FF

[Jerry Dandrige]

I may be wrong but i dont believe the creditors where trying to enforce the alledged debts on the rankines as they had no valid CCA, but the rankines took them to court to try get compensation i think, im still trying to fgure out that bit, why was it in court :?

 

But like i said i may have got the wrong end of the stick altogether:oops:

 

I think there were 5 defendants altogether only one of them was seeking to enforce or at least claiming against them, Tesco I think it was.

 

The judge didn't consider Tesco suing as "enforcement" madness in my opinion. If taking someone to court for breach of contract isn't enforcing it, what in god's name is?

 

The High Court Judge's ruling can't just be dismissed, the creditors are going to quote it and County Court Judges are probably going to accept it.

 

So does anybody have any idea what this Judge considered "enforcement" to be if not commencing proceedings/suing.

[johndeevoy]

It would depend entirely on what Tesco had specified in their claim. I havent read the thread yet so I cannot add anything further. I'll maybe get a look at this soon and add some comments.

[Docman]

Jerry

 

You are correct in that there were a total of five actions rolled into one case before the Judge. As far as I am aware, four were brought by Mr & Mrs Rankine and only one brought by a credit card company.(Tesco)

 

Many people have commented that the Rankine case is 'bad law'. I'm not a lawyer but I do know that in order to bring their case, Tesco would have had to have served a default notice as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The format of a default notice is clearly set out in the regulations. These make it very clear that even just issuing a default notice is 'enforcement'. To me that means 'enforcement' starts before you even get to court, let alone a judge deciding a case.

 

To be fair to the judge, having read the judgement, I think by the time he got to this point, he had just had more than enough of the Rankines, and probably reacted in a very 'human' way!

[excel1]

And just to point out that the house of lords is a far more binding body than a high court, section 127(3) if it aint got prescribed terms then its not enforceable, having looked at the rankine's people i dont think there arguements were using case law that had gone to HoL.

[rosierose]

These make it very clear that even just issuing a default notice is 'enforcement'.

 

I know I'm being lazy here, but can you quote the reg's on this for me please?

[B3rty]

Rankines were also using s.142 not 127(3), it would appear they brought that in as an after thought..

 

Look at Pauls post in 22 for references to other case law from higher courts that would be used to counter this argument

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/140032-hsbc-county-court-claim-2.html