Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[Baggio]

got some info this week from a top barrister in the field.

 

will post up his views soon.

[Baggio]

just as an aside before my write up

 

cartel were the claims managemnt company behind MJP soliciitors that lost the mcduff case.

[angry cat]

Cartel; interesting!

[letitbeme]

Have just seen two new CMC's starting up in Liverpool, they used to be estate agency’s last time I looked.

[Baggio]

right, i am led to believe that one of the cases at the comm court in london is going in an extremely positve manner for "our side" i.e the consumer side

 

i have to be careful in what info i give, but the agreement in question is most definately totally flawed with 3 prescribed term breaches.

 

the bank are again trying to use the defence of reporting to cras as not enforcement, but the arguments put forward by our side are destroying them and it seems 99% certain that the ruling will confirm that mcduff case was just that... a duff

 

and that if a lender is in default and then produces a flawed agreement or just terms and conditions... reporting them to cras is enforcement as is selling the account to a 3rd party.

 

stick that in your twisted mcduff case and smoke it.

 

you, and by you... i mean the Guests looking in... have always been on a loser.

 

and you have known it.

 

let the floodgates burst open with claims.

[angry cat]

In the meantime some members are having to deal with this sort of Cack from TS:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/178150-new-boy-8.html

 

Post 146.

 

AC

[Blondie40]

right, i am led to believe that one of the cases at the comm court in london is going in an extremely positve manner for "our side" i.e the consumer side

 

i have to be careful in what info i give, but the agreement in question is most definately totally flawed with 3 prescribed term breaches.

 

the bank are again trying to use the defence of reporting to cras as not enforcement, but the arguments put forward by our side are destroying them and it seems 99% certain that the ruling will confirm that mcduff case was just that... a duff

 

and that if a lender is in default and then produces a flawed agreement or just terms and conditions... reporting them to cras is enforcement as is selling the account to a 3rd party.

 

stick that in your twisted mcduff case and smoke it.

 

you, and by you... i mean the Guests looking in... have always been on a loser.

 

and you have known it.

 

let the floodgates burst open with claims.

 

Baggio

 

Many thanks for your update, I can understand the need to be careful at this stage.

 

B40

[saddler68]

right, i am led to believe that one of the cases at the comm court in london is going in an extremely positve manner for "our side" i.e the consumer side

 

i have to be careful in what info i give, but the agreement in question is most definately totally flawed with 3 prescribed term breaches.

 

the bank are again trying to use the defence of reporting to cras as not enforcement, but the arguments put forward by our side are destroying them and it seems 99% certain that the ruling will confirm that mcduff case was just that... a duff

 

and that if a lender is in default and then produces a flawed agreement or just terms and conditions... reporting them to cras is enforcement as is selling the account to a 3rd party.

 

stick that in your twisted mcduff case and smoke it.

 

you, and by you... i mean the Guests looking in... have always been on a loser.

 

and you have known it.

 

let the floodgates burst open with claims.

 

Lets hope the Judge sees it that way.

[Baggio]

Lets hope the Judge sees it that way.

 

if you catch a murderer... with dna evidence, the weapon, video evidence of the offence.... the judges can see whatever they want

 

not even the heaviest brown paper bag can shun the law of the land.

[saddler68]

You are right. There have never been any cases of the guilty walking free have there?

[Baggio]

You are right. There have never been any cases of the guilty walking free have there?

 

did i say that?

 

where the guilt is totally overriding.. i doubt it

 

miscarriages of justice due to a lack of real evidence are a different matter.

 

trust me, not even the largest brown paper bag will allow this to go against the consumer, the evidence and the LAW is overwhelmingly against the lenders on this occassion.

 

the mcduff case was a totally different matter, why cartel allowed that case to go forward is beyond most in the industry.

 

they done well to cover their connection to it.

[saddler68]

did i say that?

 

where the guilt is totally overriding.. i doubt it

 

miscarriages of justice due to a lack of real evidence are a different matter.

 

trust me, not even the largest brown paper bag will allow this to go against the consumer, the evidence and the LAW is overwhelmingly against the lenders on this occassion.

 

the mcduff case was a totally different matter, why cartel allowed that case to go forward is beyond most in the industry.

 

they done well to cover their connection to it.

 

OK Baggio, point taken. Keep us informed.

[Baggio]

will do mate

[Tricky Dickie]

This is the arguement submitted by the barrister in a case brought by some bank or other against a Mr Mitchell in the Leeds County Court and he was defended by CMC barrister who tried to argue that the fact that the agreement did not clearly state the credit limit rendered the agreement unenforceable.

Apparently Judge Langan reserved judgement yesterday but should hand it down in the next couple of weeks.

Whichever way it goes the other side is very likely to appeal but if the judgement is found to be against the lender it could have very significant implications

 

One of the prescribed terms within Schedule 6 of the Agreement Regulations is a term stating “the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or a statement that there is no credit limit”.It should be noted that the creditor has the option of choosing one of the three means of complying with the requirements of Schedule 6.In the present case the Claimant has most definitely not stated the credit limit within the credit agreement;it has not stated there is no credit limit.

That leaves only the option of stating”the manner in which the credit limit will be determined”.We are concerned therefore with the manner of determination.

It is submitted that the words” We set a credit limit and can change it.We will notify you of the limit and any changes” does not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 6.

The statement is meaningless in relation to how the credit limit will be set.

A determination is an ascertainment or fixing and the reference to “the manner” requires reference to some sort of methodology.

The claimant will no doubt respond that there are millions of credit agreements which use similar rubric and that the use of such phraseology has become an industry standard.But that misses the point .Parliament was quite specific in its requirements and as was found in Wilson v First County Trust there is no room fortolerance or deviation from the strict requirements of Schedule 6.If this case opens up floodgates then so be it.

What do the legal eagles on here think?

[Axiom99]

will do mate

 

Any more news about the London case?

btw you look the spitting image of Owen Hargreaves

[frettful38]

has anyone had any dealings with cartel client review as they are a CMC and have contacted me, and are telling me some very good news and I really don't know if it is too good to be true.

[pedross]

Any more news about the London case?

btw you look the spitting image of Owen Hargreaves

 

I look forward to any news as well.

Edited November 10, 2009 by pedross
Changed to avoid hijacking the thread.

[angry cat]

has anyone had any dealings with Cartal Client review as they are a CMC and have contacted me, and are telling me some very good news and I really don't know if it is too good to be true.

 

Something to do with this, perhaps?

 

Case Law Update - Rosling King Blog Archive Banking Update: September 2009

[Baggio]

Any more news about the London case?

btw you look the spitting image of Owen Hargreaves

lol

 

nothing new on the western front

 

its the end of this month that we get a number of rulings/updates

 

followed by the obvious appeals... tbf this could drag on for many many months.

[frettful38]

Something to do with this, perhaps?

 

Case Law Update - Rosling King Blog Archive Banking Update: September 2009

 

 

Thank you angry vat for that important piece of information. I did not take out any ppi but my loan will be fought on the grounds of unfair relationship. I was given a loan whilst I was on Income Support and on anti-depressants. My OH was self employed with no accounts, so if he failed to make payments how the hell would I have been able to, when my lender and broker were fully aware that I would not be able to meet the payments, yet they still loaned both of us the money.

 

I am waiting for some one from Client Cartel Review to get back to me and confirm if I have a case or not. I will be expected to pay a fee of £495 which is refundable if my case does not succeed, but the information I gave to the solicitor yesterday shocked her and she said that it would be very unlikely that I would lose my case. She is going for unenforcebility and said my case is very very strong.

 

I ain't got a clue what's going to happen but she said that my case is more likely to be settled before court as the lender does not want to go to court or cause ay bad publicity. Lets see what happens hey

[BoristheBlade]

Hello Fret,

 

 

I appreciate this is not on topic for this thread and using cmc's is frowned upon by many on here but I am using Cartel.

 

I can only give you my experience of them.

 

It sounds to me like you have had your visit from the Cartel Rep who sells you the process.

 

This is my first gripe. At that point I was informed the process would take approx 9-12 months. 12 months being the mortgage cases. I am now over 12 months and all I have had is questionnaires to fill out for 7 out of the 10 items I submitted with little or no feedback whatsoever on all but one of these case's to date.

I accept that in the early days there may have been a quicker turn around and as banks get wise to the systems it may add time. All they had to do was write to tell me and I would have been more patient however, not a word.

 

I then took the Cartel reps advice to put the cost of these claims on a card that would be paid off having been through their assessment procedure based on the likelihood of success.

 

Gripe two I am paying interest on that amount and have done so for over a year without an end in sight. My friend who put me in touch with Cartel in the first instance has had contact with them stating that although Cartel thought they had a case on two of his mortgages in fact they feel the case is not strong enough, even though it went for assessment. If this happens with the account I have placed the fees on I am in a position to have to pay it off having left it stood with interest for over a year.

 

As already mentioned I have had little feedback except for one case where they informed me that it was at the point of proceeding to court. However the solictors CCLS are awaiting for the outcome of a case due in court before proceeding. If I had not pushed for this information I would be still left in the dark. Even then the information provided was only just enough to keep me off the phone.

 

Mentioning the phone gripe 3, if you wish to speak to anyone regarding your cases you can phone them. After ending up leaving a recorded message with a promise of a call back you never receive one. I have done this numerous times with the same result. Nothing.

 

Gripe 4 questionnaires. You will get these through the post probably your second piece of contact with them since an acknowledgement letter you receive at the outset. Again previously mentioned but I still have not received anything at all for three items I submitted over a year ago. The questionnaires ask you to repeat information already provided or what is contained within the original documents. You will be doing the work for a company you have paid up front to employ and will be be claiming legal expenses at the back end from whichever credit company. In essence paid twice for work you have done for them.

 

Gripe 5,Lost documents. Fortunately I have scanned all the documents I have sent them. I was requested to pass onto them some original agreement documents which I did. Eight months later I was asked again for the same items. I pointed out to them that they had already been sent. To date I still do not know if they have been found after numerous phone calls many of which have gone unanswered. Considering the importance of such documents in a case based on their contents I am genuinely concerned.

 

So to summarise, if you want to use a company that makes promises of success to find out a year later it is not the case. Be left in the dark for months on end frustrated at the lack of contact from them or opportunity to speak to someone about the progress of something you have paid £500 in advance for then use Cartel.

 

Why am I still with them??( I can see you asking )

 

Because I have been committed to them for over a year now in the hope I get a result on at least one case to get my money back.

There may be other reputable CMC's to look at or use these guys to have a go yourself. Something I should have done however daunting it may seem.

Edited November 10, 2009 by BoristheBlade

[angry cat]

Thank you angry vat for that important piece of information. I did not take out any ppi but my loan will be fought on the grounds of unfair relationship. I was given a loan whilst I was on Income Support and on anti-depressants. My OH was self employed with no accounts, so if he failed to make payments how the hell would I have been able to, when my lender and broker were fully aware that I would not be able to meet the payments, yet they still loaned both of us the money.

 

I am waiting for some one from Client Cartel Review to get back to me and confirm if I have a case or not. I will be expected to pay a fee of £495 which is refundable if my case does not succeed, but the information I gave to the solicitor yesterday shocked her and she said that it would be very unlikely that I would lose my case. She is going for unenforcebility and said my case is very very strong.

 

I ain't got a clue what's going to happen but she said that my case is more likely to be settled before court as the lender does not want to go to court or cause ay bad publicity. Lets see what happens hey

 

Thats interesting!

Who is/was the lender?

[Baggio]

read, read, and read some more

 

cartelclientreview.co.uk

[middenmess]

read, read, and read some more

 

cartelclientreview.co.uk

 

 

:shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock::shock:

 

 

How do they get away with it?

[bozalt]

Way to go David Jack!