welshperson3 v blemain finance - 140A Unfair relationship -started court proceedings

[frettful38]

Hi WPS, yes my term says that exact same thing. You and I know that our agreements are full of unfair terms and it would be impossible for any lender to change so many. Mine is unregulated and any term that has to be changed will turn it in to a regulated agreement.

 

Looks like wither way Blemain will have a run for their money.

[caro]

As for asking for a strike out I am the one that started the case,

 

caro it was adjourned last time for lack of information.

 

I have tried everything I can to get information from this company SAR / CPR REQUEST /SECTION 77/78 REQUEST they haven’t complied with there duties under any of them but there is no real penalties when they don’t.

 

They have more to lose if they disclose what they are doing, than any penalty for non-compliance.

 

 

 

 

Then apply to have their defence struck out so that you get judgement by default. Work out a schedule of wasted costs and ask for those too.

[welshperson3]

Just got back from court have to wait for the judge to hand down his judgment could take up to 28 days.

 

Didn’t go as I was expecting but it wasn’t bad.

 

 

Now this claim was stared by myself, and in the application I made to the court was to set aside a suspended possession order and I was claiming that there is an unfair relationship under section 140A of the CCA

 

 

Now when you make an application to set aside there are things that you have to show

Firstly that you have a defence that has a reasonable prospect of successes

 

I did this by showing that the possession claim made by blemain was flawed in that they have not issue a valid default notice judge accepted that the original claim is flawed.

 

But he is of the opinion that they can issue a new one and try again, so I then turn to the unfair relationship.

 

Now at this point I turn to the unfair relationship and tell him about the charges and the way the claimant has behaved in general. And this is were I started to doubt that he knows anything about the rules of CCA or the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs)

 

He was of the belef that as it was in the contract then it is ok for them to do as they please, but I think I have done enough to send him away thinking about this.

 

Now the judge is going to think this over and then decide if he should set aside the possession order.But he is not judging on the unfair relationship!

 

This is the part that gets complicated so I will set it out in the next post .

 

 

Wp3

[welshperson3]

Now I raised the issue of an unfair relationship when I started the claim.

 

But the judge is of the opinion that I first have to set aside the original judgment before he judges this on the unfair relationship.

 

I was of the opinion that if my set aside application should fail then this would not affect the unfair relationship part of the claim.

 

 

Now as the barrister for blemain explained out side court that the reason that this has to be set aside first is that if the original judgment is enforce and then there is another judgment, then the effect could be that there is two judgments on the one agreement and that they would be contradicting each other.

 

Now I am aware that this is the barrister for the opposition, but she was pleasant enough and their seams to be sense in what she said.

 

 

Now if this is set aside then all good and well.

 

But if it is not set aside then surely one cannot be bound by a court order to unfair terms and unfair conduct, with no right of court action to correct the injustice.

 

Now I will be doing a lot of research on this but if any body can point me in the right direction it will be appreciated.

[patrickq1]

caro please empty your inbox ta

patrickq1

[caro]

caro please empty your inbox ta

patrickq1

 

There's a bit of space now.

[frettful38]

Hi WP3, sorry but have been busy yesterday that is why I did not post. Anyways, good to see that you tried your best. I think it is also good that the judge has given you 28 days for a judgment too.

 

I am sure that you must have given him and Blemain a lot to think about. I understand that if things do not go as you want and the sus repo is not set aside then you wanted to appeal. Well let's just wait and see what the judge comes back with first. I will try and find out as much as I can also about this, but until you know where you stand and what order is made it will be a little difficult. Nevertheless no harm on doing our homework just in case.

[welshperson3]

Thanks fretful

 

I think that I have shown the judge that if I am bound by the original judgment then I will continue to be treated unfairly and this in itself is unfair,

But the barrister was pushing hard the out of time issue.

 

Now the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 And the consumer credit act which are there to protect borrowers form unfair terms and practices, were implemented to comply with European directives.

Now if these are not available to me then I am of the opinion that this would be a breach of rights under European law, as there is a responsibility on our government to protect consumers, if this protection is taken away then the government is not complying with their duties.

Consumer rights are there in order to offer protection against unfair service and disreputable traders

The term '' basically means relating to a statute, which in turn is defined as a law enacted by a legislature.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) seek to protect consumers against unfair standard terms in contracts made with traders that diminish common law and statutory rights. An unfair term is not considered legally binding, as it inflicts unreasonable burdens on the consumer. The definition of an unfair term is a term that "…contrary to the requirement of good faith…causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers"

 

Just because there is a judgment on this I cant see how the protection offered under my statutory rights is removed.

wp3

[frettful38]

WP3 I understand and agree with you 100% on this, I understand that you are attempting to get the suspended repos set aside and are currently awaiting for the judge to hand down judgment within 28 days.

 

What I believe your trying to do is mix the original judgment in with unfair terms and conditions and I do not know exactly how to advise on this but will help find the answers and hope others will be able to shed more light on this too. You are trying to get your judgment set aside using the Unfair route. I don't know if anyone has had anything similar but this is a topic and subject that really needs looking in to.

 

Many of us would like to use the unfair route for future cases and as an arguments we have with our bankers & lenders, and I know that you can open previous agreements using this argument too, but trying to get a judgment overturned or set aside is something I need to find out more.

 

Well you have a few days and hopefully we can all get our heads together and find some good answers and points.

[welshperson3]

Sorry fret I think that I have not explained this very well so hope helps

I am not just using the unfair route to get this set aside, even if this is not set aside I want a judgment on whether the agreement is fair

So if we forget the set aside for a moment (as if I never applied for it)

Now I just want a chance to show that this agreement is unfair, so why cant I claim there is an unfair relation ship

Effectively a judgment takes away all your rights under the CCA or any other legislation, ?

Will a court make a declaration on an unfair relationship if I just apply for that?

I have a CCA regulated agreement and I should have all the rights that the CCA are supposed to apply to this agreement.

wp3

[frettful38]

Ahhhh that's better as that is what I thought you should be doing. Not to worry as I know sometimes what we mean to say and what we actually write down can sometimes be quite different.

 

Right, I am OK with that and totally agree with you that the agreement is unfair, as I believe that yours is similar to mine and having read the terms and conditions I can most certainly tell you that many of them are against the OFT guidelines.

 

Have you had your agreement checked out to see if it does comply?

[welshperson3]

No have not had it checked yet but it does have two different interest rates on it one at %17 and one at %11

But the loan is under the CCA 2006 amendments so section 127 doesn’t count if that was what your thinking.

[frettful38]

Oh Blimey WPS you should get it checked as there might some more important info on there. You can scan it minus your personal details. There is a thread below where you could post it up.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?105315-Is-My-Agreement-Enforceable-Useful

[frettful38]

Hi WP3 just been having a read around to see if there was any info that may be of help.

 

Challenging County Court Judgments

 

Identify whether there is any legal merit in raising a challenge to a judgment, to understand the possible

error of law, whether caused by way of an omission or misapplication of the law or facts

 

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A9E4F3E5-1BA0-4AC1-94FE-3CCB4FC46664/0/j_j_2010NIMaster2Final.htm

 

I don't remember but I believe that you mentioned something about dual interest rate applied to your agreement. If you read above article

9] A dual interest rate has been held to be an unfair term within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999: Falco Finance Limited v Gough [1999] CCLR 16

 

Hope this is of some help WP3.?

[welshperson3]

Still waiting from the court for news on my set aside.

 

But still researching the unfair relationship, and I came across this and was wondering if anybody had any info on it.

 

Blemain finance v Thomas, case from Penzance. (Blemain Finance Limited v Sheila May Thomas)

 

I know blemain lost this case and were going to appeal but then dropped the appeal.

 

wp3

[frettful38]

Maybe pt2537 may know more about this, not too sure.

[Ford]

Had two meetings with solicitor he is happy with what i got but he wants a barrister to look things over.

 

Hopefully i will issue court proceedings by the end of February.

Have been researching and working with solicitor for months so as to get it right think I'm there now.

 

going for S140 CCA unfair relationship.

 

If i win I'm sure it will make headlines

 

blamain lost on unfair relationship to peter Bentley, HE WAS FROM BRIDGEND SO AM I.

 

any update? did it make 'headlines'?

[welshperson3]

hi i started a new thred on this the link below

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?272865-sub-prime-lender-(blamain-finance)-140A-Unfair-relationship-started-court-proceedings

 

 

have been to court and am wating for the judge to hand down his judgment, due any day now

[Leakie]

subbind

I hope it goes your way

 

all the best

 

Leakie

[welshperson3]

update

 

I have received (judgment) from the court and i know who won, but i have to go back to court for a directions and costs hearing on Wednesday.

 

in the letter i received from the Court it says "if the party's believe there are any factual issues which are inaccurate would they please inform the court within the next 7 days otherwise the judgment will be handed down on a date to be fixed"

 

as this judgment has not been handed down yet i don't think i am allowed to post it up here, after it is handed down then it becomes public and i can post it up.

 

well i am very happy and looking forward to Wednesday, i think this judgment could help others that have been sent an invalid default notice.

 

WP3

[Gallahad]

Well done WP i look forward to hearing more.

G

[magiciansgirl]

Very interested to hear more about this; good for you!

 

Kind regards,

 

MG

[frettful38]

Excellent news I hope WP3, look forward to hearing further

[patrickq1]

well done WP longtime coming but alas its practicly all over done and almosted dusted ....

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

almosted doh ...almost hehe have to laf at mee sen

patrickq1