Phoenix Recoveries vs D Kotecha - Court of Appeal

[Peterbard]

Are you saying there is anything wrong in your view with this Court of Appeal judgment?

 

Check this out:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/English_court_system.png

 

Waksman is the 3rd rung down.

 

Not with you

 

Nice diagram i remember copying it myself years ago good to see it again

[vjohn82]

Seeems pretty plain to me

 

what part of " the creditor does not need acces to the orriginal agreement to produce a compliant copy under section 78" dont you understand

 

Peter

 

That's plain and simple to understand, when it is put like that.

 

Does this mean that such a document, compliant under s.78, is compliant with other sections of the Act which are more important? No.

 

Should a person be taking their creditor to court on any basis which leads to the prospect of having a credit agreement ruled unenforceable? No. This has never been the mantra. The CCA is a defensive mechanism for the debtor as in all circumstances the creditor holds the deck. Such legislation is designed to protect debtors from entering into unfair contracts.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your posts Peter, I really don't.

[Peterbard]

That's plain and simple to understand, when it is put like that.

 

Does this mean that such a document, compliant under s.78, is compliant with other sections of the Act which are more important? No.

 

Should a person be taking their creditor to court on any basis which leads to the prospect of having a credit agreement ruled unenforceable? No. This has never been the mantra. The CCA is a defensive mechanism for the debtor as in all circumstances the creditor holds the deck. Such legislation is designed to protect debtors from entering into unfair contracts.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your posts Peter, I really don't.

I agree that it is a bad idea tol take drebtors to court dont see your point. They do incedently though Egg last year for instance ask Pal

The point is the section 78 copy does not have to have been produced with referbce to the orriginal so how can it be used to provew or disprove the enforceabiulity of it,it cant and since that is the essence os section 127 then permanent unenforceability is out of the quesion.

 

Peter

 

 

Peter

[diddydicky]

You know fine and well there are legally qualified people on here. Maybe they are a minority but given you know different why would you say that ?

 

M1

 

but to be even handed- there are some on here that give the impression that they are legally qualified- but are not- and don't rush to correct anyone else who expresses the mistaken r belief that they are!

[sequenci]

Er Seq,

 

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment

 

It was handed down and appears on Lawtel, on the 26th Jan 2011

 

Sorry matey. It's been hard keeping up with everything today! My bad. Apologies!