High Court Decision on Loophole

[CYNthesys]

High Court decision on debt loophole dashes write off hope for thousands



http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6868968.ece

[QCKate]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

This article completely misinterprets the facts and the ruling in this case - doesnt it??

[ed.]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

Pathetic reporting. Mr Herman and Mr Charles must have missed the NCTJ class on accuracy.

[frisp]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

How can it be unenforceable and the judge still rules 'the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist' what rights can he be referring to?

[Curlyben]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

I would like to clear a few things up here.

1/ The use of the word "loophole" is completely incorrect and misleading. CCA is black and white and that is the biases of unenforceability.
2/ This "test" case was nothing of the sort as the agreement was recovered from the Banks archives, after being misfiled, and found to be completely enforceable.
3/ Bovine reporting of this nature does nothing to engender confidence in the writer or paper that published it.
4/ There are a number of HoL cases that cover enforceability issues in agreements, namely the Wilson series. These new cases are mainly dealing with specific things that Wilson etc haven't touched on. Mostly reporting to CRA's and passing to third parties etc.

[ed.]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

Frisp, the agreement wasn't unenforceable what the case centred on was data transmittal during a period of unenforcability because of failure under a S78 request. After finding the agreement, they didn't supply a statement of account, the CMC went straight for an unenforceability ruling which was daft anyway, so they were ultimately arguing the bank shouldn't have updated CRF's during the intermediate period.

The agreement itself was fully compliant which makes this case a total joke to be honest.

The bit about rights etc continuing are solely applicable to 3rd party agreements and the data transfer, it has nothing to do with the financials despite the poor journalistic effort of the Times.

BTW, my response must have touched a nerve when I referenced their accuracy and whether they followed the case, read the Judgement as 4 hrs on it still hasn't been published.

[Curlyben]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

Psssssssssssssssst: CCA Defaults test case - Legal Beagles

[frisp]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

Ok phew thanks

[charitynjw]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

Hi, all,

Read the Times article - have now hung it in the "wee room" as appropriate.

Does anyone here have contacts with other newspapers? (ie "TIMES DROPS A B*****K, THOUSANDS OF PEEPS SUE FOR NERVOUS SHOCK!!)

[ed.]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

That's exactly where it belongs Charity.

Sadly no other paper would run that, especially as the BBA have today taken the same line and belief.

However the Press Complaints Commission are in receipt of the Times response to my complaint (apparently I'm an idiot who 'misses the point' - for legal purposes they didn't call me an idiot but my honestly held belief is that was the implication) and are in receipt of a 12 page response for full determination on whether or not the Times breached the first Principle.

I shall update when I know more, sorry I thought I'd commented that I'd complained but I can't find a record of it.

[Amethyst]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

The TIMES FINALLY have clarified their quite dodgy reporting on this with an addition

Clarification: We reported that people trying to have credit card and loan debt written off by exploiting a legal loophole under the Consumer Credit Act would have to pay the full amounts they owed, following a landmark court ruling. In fact, this case dealt with the transmittal of data to third-party Credit Reference Agencies in cases where a debt is considered to be "temporarily" unenforceable. The judge did not reach any view on cases where the unenforceability of the agreement is "permanent" or "irredeemable". We are happy to clarify the position.

Cheers Ed.

[ed.]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

Got there finally!

Funny how I missed the point and was accused of working for/being a disgruntled CMC employee, and they've now clarified it eh! lol

[Budgie]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

Well done Ed :cancan:

[wooddar]

Calling all Legal Beagles - High Court Decision on Loophole

HI. Hope you can help

Noticed that there have been some recent test cases.


Won:
1. Bank of Scotland vs Mitchell - 3rd June 2009
Case was won on an appeal that his credit card application didn't contain the prescribed terms and conditions and therefore didnt comply with the Consumer Credit Act. .

Lost:
1. Bank of Scotland vs Mitchell - 3rd June 2009
Judgement against him after delaying payments to his credit card while he waited for the bank to supply specific information that he had requested on a number of occasions.

2. Phillip McGuffick vs RBS Oct 2009
The case was heard on the basis that both sides agreed that the loan was unenforceable and the judge was asked to decide what this meant.
Mr Justice Flaux ruled: “Although the [Consumer Credit Act] may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”.

Does not look good but has there been a test case for the following
1. incorrect terms. e.g. below

Balance Transfers: Monthly simple and Annual Simple not stated
Cash Advances: Monthly simple and Annual Simple not stated

All the rest is compliant

Thoughts would be appreciated
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
By the way Mitchell case was on the basis that the terms of agreement was missing totally not partially missing not sure if that makes a difference


Balance Transfers: Monthly Simple Interest Rate and Annual Simple Interest Rate - BREACH

The interest rate for balance transfers stated on the agreement is incorrect. This is a breach of a prescribed term under Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations 1983 (as amended) and Sections 61 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The simple rates stated do not correlate with the APR or compound rates stated on the actual agreement. Incorrectly stating an interest rate is a prescribed term breach. If it is argued that the APR within the agreement document was in fact stated incorrectly by the lender that this in itself is comprehensive breach under Schedule 1 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regulations

Will this wash is it worth fighting and has there been a test case.

[Curlyben]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

The lack of prescribed terms has been covered in some of the Wilson series in the HoL.