Tweet
Here it is
The judgment which was handed down in open Court today before HHJ Chambers QC
The judgment which was handed down in open Court today before HHJ Chambers QC
Loading...
-
I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.
If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .
I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.
You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.Tags: None -
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
Hi pt thanks for posting this.
Now the questions start! If you have had a recent CCJ when there were insufficient days for the remedy of the DN, would this judgement be grounds to apply for a set aside?
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I am ever the optimist!
Thank you -
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
Best place to discuss this one Cym is on the Contracts, Repudication, Recission and whatnot thread in the CCA forum
Looooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddsssssssss of questions there lol. Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum
#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
Thanks, thought it was surprising that there weren't any questions!Comment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
Maybe, the judgement went over their heads?Comment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
Eerily similar to my whole case, loving it!Comment
-
#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
Originally posted by cymruambyth View Post
(at first blush i would say no- it wasnt sufficient) but......
.how long ago was the ccj?
did you defend it?
how far out was the DN?Comment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
This reinforces much of what some of us have been saying about "Carey" i.e. the guff about reconstituted documents, only needing T & Cs is just that guff. Waksman said originals would be required for a court order which is exactly as the Act requires and now bless his little cotton socks, HHJ Chambers has effectively outlawed most of the tactics used by DCAs to bully people into submission.
We have a log of over 800 threatening telephone calls, over 100 in one weekend from barclaycard, 80 or so the next weekend and much in between. Not a shred of a proper document either.
"there is a prima facie for a reaction from the court"
regards
GarlokComment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
Could someone with a legal understanding please highlight for me the part of the judgement that killed MBNA/Link. I cant tell wether or not its s78 non-compliance/ DCA hassle/ or s61 failures. What parts of the judgment are the most important to us?
I note that the bank were defendants too, so presumably a made up recon should have been ok???Comment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
Hi mids,
I am not sufficiently legal minded to give a definitive answer to your question. However I did re-read the judgement yesterday (in fact I downloaded it and printed it off as I find it easier to study that way). If I were to put any analysis to it I would say that it was the cumulative effect of several points, which on their own would not have been fatal. I believe certainly that the (bad) conduct of MBNA/Link was a key factor in their demise. But as many of know from bitter experience this is normal in this disgusting industry. But normal only up till now and it is impossible to change history.
Of course a full transcript would probably throw additional light but we are not party to that. From pt's comments it would seem more was actually said in court.
However it does reinforce my own humble long held opinion that any defence we as mere mortals put together must be as comprehensive as possible and not rely totally on one point of law. The really remarkable thing about this judgement is that Keith Harrison was the claimant. Not usually a recommended course of action plus of course you will note that not much has been made of it (it went against the banks/creditors) yet it is the same ranking as the "Carey v HSBC" case I believe in the courts pecking order.
Just a few personal thoughts, hoping someone else will be along to comment.
regards
Garlok.Comment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
well the judge clearly stated that the DN was bad- and as they did not correct it- it did not permit termination and all that followed............so the counterclaim was dismissed!!Comment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
Hi all,
undoubtedly you will all have seen one of the lead stories on BTYahoo today by Robert Powell of Lovemoney.com and some of the ridiculous comments What a piece of biased ignorant and unresearched pro bank journalism of the very worst kind.
The man obviously can barely read and most of those who posted comments clearly work in the finance industries in "NON JOBS"
regards
Garlok.Comment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
From today's Private Eye.Comment
-
Re: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011
The other piece referred to in the previous article.
Looks like there's big money in misery.Comment
Comment