Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[masmit]

surely this will stop judges using their personal opinion & morals,

the consumer credit act is there to protect, not for judges to discard,

[citizenB]

surely this will stop judges using their personal opinion & morals,

the consumer credit act is there to protect, not for judges to discard,

 

 

That could be one good benefit. If there are clear guidelines they they would have to be followed.. wouldnt they ?

[joemay]

subbing

[WelshMam2009]

The letter from Derek R Halbert from Cheshire County Court says that 'the proposal is to select the test cases and then stay all others until the test cases have established the requisite principals'

It then says that representations are invited from all parties in all CCA cases which have commenced in Cheshire but nowhere does it specify that only cases in Cheshire will be stayed.

Elsewhere in the letter it mentions that a number of claims being submitted nationally and an estimate of 100,000 claims being mentioned which sounds a lot for Cheshire alone.

My interpretation is that whilst the test cases will come from those in Cheshire any stay will apply to all cases nationally

 

Suits me fine if it is applied nationally Tricky, just wasn't 100% sure!!

 

Perhaps if anyone outside of this location has their case stayed then they could post on here so that we would have some sort of confirmation.

[fermi]

The BBC have finally noticed.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judges seek hold on debt claims

 

CAG gets a mention.

[blueboy987]

The BBC article is interesting, it gives the impression that it is likely this will be happening and be applied nationally - it looks far bigger than just one judge in Chester and they potentially have a high court judge lined up to hear the test cases already.

 

Most interesting is that it looks like it is the judiciary itself that is pushing for it, due to the volume of cases they are having to deal with. Which suggests the lenders have got nothing to do with it and will quite likely be up in arms about it - as they won't be able to turn to the courts for enforcement for some time.

 

Looks like excellent news, unless I've got it wrong!

[reggie76]

The BBC article is interesting, it gives the impression that it is likely this will be happening and be applied nationally - it looks far bigger than just one judge in Chester and they potentially have a high court judge lined up to hear the test cases already.

 

Most interesting is that it looks like it is the judiciary itself that is pushing for it, due to the volume of cases they are having to deal with. Which suggests the lenders have got nothing to do with it and will quite likely be up in arms about it - as they won't be able to turn to the courts for enforcement for some time.

 

Looks like excellent news, unless I've got it wrong!

 

I agree, the main losers in this are the claim management companies and consumers who are using them. The majority of people on here will be disputing their agreements direct and challenging the creditors to take them to court if they want to pursue the debt rather than the other way around. That's my opinion anyway!

[WelshMam2009]

The majority of people on here will be disputing their agreements direct and challenging the creditors to take them to court if they want to pursue the debt rather than the other way around. That's my opinion anyway!

 

I was also thinking along the same lines and hoping that perhaps this would delay any potential cases brought against me as I would be challenging on the grounds of unenforceability.

[angry cat]

MoneySavingExpert News - Debt write-off cases to be suspended by courts, lawyer claims

 

AC

[blueboy987]

I was also thinking along the same lines and hoping that perhaps this would delay any potential cases brought against me as I would be challenging on the grounds of unenforceability.

 

We'll have to wait and see but its looking like that is likely to be the case - as soon as a court claim for a debt covered by the CCA is issued against you, you'll just file a defence based on unenforceability due to non-compliance with the CCA and the case will have to be stayed pending the test cases.

[Smarterchick]

I have a repossession claim against me that I counterclaimed on as a result of an agreement not complying with the CCA. It's a clear case of not falling in line with the cca requirements in execution - multiple agreement scenario s.18. Now if they put a stay on these or any 'CCA' issue claims what happens then - ? It sits there for 6 months? a year? 2 yrs..? whilst appeals and so on go on...I have a hearing booked for 2 days thrashing this out ( 2 days ) in June thank goodness I have a barrister - maybe I won't be needing him?

[I've got no money]

We're panicking folks - there has been a press release issued by this woman lawyer and the media have picked it up...

 

It may be the case that any test cases will result in appeals but then there is a lot at stake. It doesn't mean that the ultimate result will be a bad one

[WelshMam2009]

We're panicking folks - there has been a press release issued by this woman lawyer and the media have picked it up...

 

It may be the case that any test cases will result in appeals but then there is a lot at stake. It doesn't mean that the ultimate result will be a bad one

 

Agreed...I'm hoping that it might be a good result for all of us!!

 

Quotes from the BBC article...

 

Judges in England and Wales are considering putting on hold up to 100,000 claims for the cancellation of credit card and other consumer debts.

A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office explained that the aim was to find a way of dealing with a very large number of claims.

"It is about the management of these cases in the most efficient manner," he said.

 

"It is apparent that there are a number of claims to be commenced nationally in which the main claim will be for a declaration of the invalidity of a credit agreement for non-compliance with the Consumer Credit Act (CCA)," Judge Halbert said.

 

"Estimates vary but up to 100,000 claims may be involved.

 

""The consensus is that the appropriate course is to refer a few carefully selected cases to the Commercial Court in London on a test basis... and then stay all others until the test cases have established the requisite principles," he added.

 

No deadline has been set for any decision on a test case, which will be decided by Lord Justice Moore-Bick, the deputy head of civil justice.

[I've got no money]

I have a repossession claim against me that I counterclaimed on as a result of an agreement not complying with the CCA. It's a clear case of not falling in line with the cca requirements in execution - multiple agreement scenario s.18. Now if they put a stay on these or any 'CCA' issue claims what happens then - ? It sits there for 6 months? a year? 2 yrs..? whilst appeals and so on go on...I have a hearing booked for 2 days thrashing this out ( 2 days ) in June thank goodness I have a barrister - maybe I won't be needing him?

 

If I were you I would arrange to see your Solicitor and make sure they know what's happening

[Huff&Puff]

our our position is quite clear - if you borrow, you should repay

 

And our position is quite clear also - if you lend, you should comply with your legal requirements

[star_scream]

And our position is quite clear also - if you lend, you should comply with your legal requirements

 

Good answer!

[banker_rhymes_with]

The publicity for this issue is almost all pro-bank and pro-Debt Industry:

 

 

• Every banking group is jumping on the band wagon to have a toot, and you'll note that images of the Debt Industry's favourite rogue debtors the Rankines are being dragged out again and plastered all over the BBC Web Site (again).
  

 

• Where is the counter arguments to point out how dull, greedy and manipulative the banks have been?
  

 

• Where is the counter arguments to ridicule the banks for failing to get their Agreements right despite having several armies of lawyers to ensure they got it right, not to mention The Consumer Credit Act 1974 that gave them a few hints from 1974 onwards.
  

 

• Where is the counter arguments to lampoon the 35% interest rates, the rate ramping and credit limit manipulation that has led people into debt who really did not know what was actually happening to them? People with amazingly little to show for all the money the banks say they have borrowed and say they have spent!
  

 

• Where is the counter arguments to question why so many banks have destroyed so many Agreements, and yet without, apparently, bothering to keep any logical records to verify that copies they are producing are actual copies of the documents they have conveniently destroyed?
  

 

• Why is there no mention of the dreadful, systematic and abusive harassment that all banks are deliberately engaging in? Harassment that is now, apparently, not regarded as serious even when over 700 calls were pointed at a dying man (Mr Leather).
  

 

• Why is there no mention of the Debt Sale business, where banks can balloon a debt by over 40% towards the end, just so they can write that off against tax, and then sell it for hard cash to grubby DCAs for maybe 5%, who then unleash their own unique form of Harassment to chase the whole ballooned debt all over again?
  

 

The real truth is nowhere near as simple as the British Bonehead Banking Association would like people to believe...you Spent it, so you must Pay it back. The reality is: they fell over themselves to lend, made a pooch screw of the agreement, manipulated the balance into orbit out of thin air, and invariably now want far more back than they ever lent or ever had in the first place! Now they are squealing like Vampires caught out in the sun.

 

So far, this is just good publicity for the banks and bad for Consumers. The Courts are highly unlikely to find in favour of the Consumer, the deal has been done. The Government owns a chunk of most of the banks, so the Judicial fix has gone in to start supporting them. Now it will be Government policy to help the banks, because the Government is the banks in many cases.

 

This will not go well unless we can make a big noise to state there is another side to this. Otherwise, anyone challenging a bank, will be called a Rankine and will lose.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[I've got no money]

The publicity for this issue is almost all pro-bank and pro-Debt Industry:

 

 

• Every banking group is jumping on the band wagon to have a toot, and you'll note that images of the Debt Industry's favourite rogue debtors the Rankines are being dragged out again and plastered all over the BBC Web Site (again).
  

• Where is the counter arguments to point out how dull, greedy and manipulative the banks have been?
  

• Where is the counter arguments to ridicule the banks for failing to get their Agreements right despite having several armies of lawyers to ensure they got it right, not to mention The Consumer Credit Act 1974 that gave them a few hints from 1974 onwards.
  

• Where is the counter arguments to lampoon the 35% interest rates, the rate ramping and credit limit manipulation that has led people into debt who really did not know what was actually happening to them? People with amazingly little to show for all the money the banks say they have borrowed and say they have spent!
  

• Where is the counter arguments to question why so many banks have destroyed so many Agreements, and yet without, apparently, bothering to keep any logical records to verify that copies they are producing are actual copies of the documents they have conveniently destroyed?
  

• Why is there no mention of the dreadful, systematic and abusive harassment that all banks are deliberately engaging in? Harassment that is now, apparently, not regarded as serious even when over 700 calls were pointed at a dying man (Mr Leather).
  

• Why is there no mention of the Debt Sale business, where banks can balloon a debt by over 40% towards the end, just so they can write that off against tax, and then sell it for hard cash to grubby DCAs for maybe 5%, who then unleash their own unique form of Harassment to chase the whole ballooned debt all over again?
  

The real truth is nowhere near as simple as the British Bonehead Banking Association would like people to believe...you Spent it, so you must Pay it back. The reality is: they fell over themselves to lend, made a pooch screw of the agreement, manipulated the balance into orbit out of thin air, and invariably now want far more back than they ever lent or ever had in the first place! Now they are squealing like Vampires caught out in the sun.

 

So far, this is just good publicity for the banks and bad for Consumers. The Courts are highly unlikely to find in favour of the Consumer, the deal has been done. The Government owns a chunk of most of the banks, so the Judicial fix has gone in to start supporting them. Now it will be Government policy to help the banks, because the Government is the banks in many cases.

 

This will not go well unless we can make a big noise to state there is another side to this. Otherwise, anyone challenging a bank, will be called a Rankine and will lose.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I think that is right

 

The problem of course is that most journalists are fundamentally lazy - banks employ PR consultants who know this - if you produce a press release that looks nice and has some nice quotes then the press print it as gospel...

 

Perhaps we need to respond with our own Press release or perhaps if there is a firm of Sols that does work for debtors they should respond with a press release.

[the_shadow]

• Where is the counter arguments to point out how dull, greedy and manipulative the banks have been?
  

 

I didnt want to be the one to break it to you but you weren't at the meeting, Mr Brown decided all the banks are nice and fluffy now and his mate Mandelson said we should stop blaming the banks for everything....

 

:D:D:D:D

[angry cat]

Quote:

our our position is quite clear - if you borrow, you should repay"

 

WHAT!!!

 

I paid out massive amounts of PPI premiums for so-called 'Peace of Mind'

Didn't get much 'Peace of Mind' though...all 4 PPI policies were mis-sold.

 

My MBNA alleged debt is made up of useless PPI premiums plus interest, not transactional purchases. In effect, I paid for something that was not available, barred by ingeniously written limitation and exclusion clauses.

 

MBNA have borrowed money, approx £5,000 from me, thus under reciprocity they must repay me.

 

Therefore, that statement works both ways;

if you borrow, you must repay!

 

I am enraged about the implication being bandied about that, ALL so-called debtors are deliquent/runaway spenders. Whose only object in life is to get out of paying back borrowed money.

 

Oh yes, perhaps there are the few that have jumped on the bandwagon. However, it is totally incorrect to make sweeping statements about ALL.

 

Every single case varies.

 

AC

[angry cat]

I didnt want to be the one to break it to you but you weren't at the meeting, Mr Brown decided all the banks are nice and fluffy now and his mate Mandelson said we should stop blaming the banks for everything....

 

:D:D:D:D

 

Well, shadow!

 

I do blame the greedy banks and insurance companies and...

I know that I am not the only one that has been treated so despicably by both.

 

As for the Rankines, I found out about their game some years ago,

not allowed to metion the website and adverts in local free papers.

Shameful exploitation of vulnerable consumers:(

 

AC

[citizenB]

Perhaps BRW should have one of the national papers print his post above. See what response we get from the Bankers and DCAs

[Tricky Dickie]

**EDITED**

 

What I can't understand is why someone who runs a claims management company is so determined to rubbish the concept of unenforceable agreements and also presumably is reading this thread?

 

Its bad enough to have the media who are all owned by big business filling the publics head with rubbish but I would at least have expected a claims tout to support the unenforceability argument.

**EDITED**

 

Fact-quote from Daniella, Times Online

"The ruling by His Honour Judge Halbert is a landmark decision that will have massive implications on cases involving the enforceability of credit agreements.

I must have missed something here because all I have seen from Judge Halbert is a letter which outlines a proposal and invites representations from interested parties.There is no ruling and no decision.

Fact-quote from Ultimate Law website

Daniella Lipszyc – a commercial solicitor who specialises in financial irregularity cases at law firm, Ultimate Law – has urged legal professional to think carefully before accepting claims, insisting that they’re more likely to win on a horse race than receive any costs for pursuing the claim. Even in the unlikely event that the solicitor does succeed in wiping out the consumer’s credit card debt, there’s no entitlement to costs.

Maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong but it is my undrstanding that if a lawyer wins a no win no fee case then the other side has to pick up the costs and also shell out for a success fee the size of which depends upon the circumstances of the case.

Fact-Despite the above statements this still appears on the Ultimate Law website

Ultimate Law is one of the North West’s leading law firms. Based in Altrincham, it provides a range of comprehensive services, specialising in the Financial Irregularity (FI) market, as well as personal injury, employment and corporate law.

· Areas of expertise include mis-sold financial products such as payment protection insurance (PPI) and unenforceable loan agreements, together with the compilation of expert reports in support of financial mis-selling claims.

· The company also provides one of the only FI training programmes aimed specifically at UK legal professionals, including barristers, in addition to solicitors and conveyancers. The course – delivered to legal practices throughout the country – has been granted Continuing Professional Development (CPD) accreditation.

· Ultimate Law was founded by director Daniella Lipszyc, who previously worked in-house for Altrincham-based Financial Claims Service Ltd.

According to Companies House Ultimate Law Limited was incorporated on 27.06.2008 the sole director being Daniella Lipszyc and has yet to file any accounts.

The address for Ultimate Law is given as

Ultimate House

18 The Downs

Altrincham

Cheshire

W14 8SU

When I type in this address to the Royal Mail postcode finder this is what I get

Unfortunately we could not find this address. Please check it. If the address is correct but we still can’t find it, please read the help below to find out what to do.

Daniella used to work for The Financial Claims Service Ltd who live at

18 The Downs

Altrincham

Cheshire

WA14 2PU

End of facts

Edited May 10, 2009 by car2403
Please refer any issues regarding moderation to a site team member

[angry cat]

We all get Cagbotted from time to time.

 

Whatever, you personally think is your opinion, however one has to be aware of the fact that, the lady is a member of the Law Society!

 

AC

[tinkerbell20]

We all get Cagbotted from time to time.

 

Whatever, you personally think is your opinion, however one has to be aware of the fact that, the lady is a member of the Law Society!

 

AC

 

 

I assume that Danielle must have lost a couple of unenforceability claims prior to this stay for her to carry out such an about turn.

 

As Ultimate Law & their clients are seemingly so far the only ones affected it would seem reasonable to suppose that the test cases refer to the ones they have submitted to Chester County Court only and I would suspect s.140 Unfair relationships may well feature as well as the multiple loan arguments that are linked with PPI misselling claims.

 

The multiple loan argument is due to be heard in the Court of Appeal n October (& its legally aided so must be reasonable prospects of success and deemed to be in the public interest) so it would be reasonable to expect all cases following that line to be stayed pending the decision. Ultimate Law are not the instructing solicitors in the Appeal.

 

If you look at the Law Gazette in February she was extolling the virtues of financial misselling claims.

Edited May 8, 2009 by tinkerbell20