CCA Defaults test case

[Amethyst]

think it was meant to be heard today ? anyone heard anything ?

[Curlyben]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

Yes it starts today in the high court.
Dealing with the OC ability to default and pass debts onto third parties while the "agreement" is found to be "lacking" either terms or physical being..

This information was sent by a solicitor specialising in unenforceability claims to all his clients.
I will post any updates.

*Re: General update on court proceedings*

I am taking this opportunity to write to you and all clients that have instructed my firm to challenge the enforceability of various types of finance agreements that have been entered into with various lenders.

The main purpose of writing is to confirm the progress of a number of claims through the courts that will hopefully in the near future result in lenders accepting that they cannot enforce finance agreements if they do not comply with the requirements of the Consumers Credit Act 1974.

The first major case will be heard in the High Court on 23rd September 2009. The main argument to be decided by the court is whether lenders can continue to enforce and pursue debts by the use of debt recovery agencies, telephone, letter and report non-payment to credit reference agencies even though they have not complied with the Consumer Credit Act. This is a fundamental and very important issue in respect of your claim, but as of yet there is no legal authority that is sufficient to stop lenders reporting non payment to credit reference agencies and using debt recovery agencies etc. Consequently, even when it is established that a finance agreement does not comply with the Consumer Credit Act, lenders believe that they are legally and legitimately entitled to take whatever action is necessary to force their borrowers to make payments.

When acting for you I have two main objectives. Firstly, I require your lender to accept that your finance agreement does not comply with the Consumer Credit Act and as a consequence you are not required to make any future repayments. Secondly, I require your lender to inform credit reference agencies that you are not required to make any future repayments which will then stop any attempts to record adverse credit entries and other forms of enforcement such as debt recovery agencies. At the moment lenders are not agreeing to anything and they will not agree until such a time as they are forced to by the court after a favourable decision in favour of borrowers.

In addition to the above, I am conducting two cases that are to be heard in Chester County Court on 23rd October 2009 when the court will also deal with several other claims on behalf of borrowers. Although I cannot be certain, I am fairly confident that these claims are some of the first to be dealt with by the County Court to obtain an order that you do not have to continue making payments and that your lender cannot continue to pursue repayment.

Although the law remains untested in a number of the significant issues to be resolved by the court, I continue to be confident that the desired end result will be obtained and, as you will gather from the above, there will in the very near future be more certainty and clarification in respect of claims of this nature, which will then hopefully provide the necessary legal basis to continue and conclude the preparation of your claim to be commenced through the courts when I have established that you finance agreement is unenforceable if I have not already done so.

I confirm that I will write again to all clients after the forthcoming hearing on 23rd September to confirm the outcome and the process to commence claims through the courts, although the court process may have already started for some clients.

I hope that the above provides you with some understanding of what is to take place in the court and I will continue to act on your best interest to achieve the desired end result.

I have prepared this letter as a standard letter to send to all of my clients. On that basis, I will continue to write to you directly and specifically in respect of you individual claim as and when the particular need arises.

As I have sent this letter to all of my clients, I respectfully request that you do not telephone to discuss the content of this letter as the potential volume of calls will be difficult to manage and will cause my staff to be distracted from undertaking the legal processes required to pursue client claims. I hope you understand.

[MIKE770]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

Bump

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

Ta Curls, we'll hear from one of the cmcs no doubt.

[Main man]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

From OTR

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2009/2386.html

[Mochamoo]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

Anyone fancy explaining that to me lol?

[Curlyben]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

I will once I've read it all through a few times

Well it looks like the have chosen a really carp case for a test.
Yes the bank failed under s77(1) in supplying the agreement within the 12 working days, but later it turned up.
This was after the debtor had started proceedings for a s142 declaration.
The agreement was found to be compliant as well.

This really is about how the bank used and passed the debtors data to 2 DCA's and the CRA's

[Main man]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

looks like the banks are able to report information to the CRA regardless of any default of section 77/78 or any unenforceable agreement??


See Rankine gets a mention as well...

[Budgie]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

Yawn !

All seems pretty clear to me.

A test case that wasn't really a test case.

[ROBSTER]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

Yawn !

All seems pretty clear to me.

A test case that wasn't really a test case.

Watch the banks & credit cards jump on the podium & quote it as a victory,

Who will be the first entity to quote it ?

Fancy a sweep stake?

[Curlyben]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

Well having reread the judgement, it's basically a complete waste of time and NOT what we were expecting them to look into at all.

I was hoping that it would cover enforcement action and CRA reporting on non-compliant or non-existent agreements, after all that's what we're really looking for here.

No matter there's a few more to come.

[MIKE770]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

Going around in circles seems to me??? certainly not what we were led to believe i.e. full area covered. So we wait and see what happens next.

[ed.]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

So in basic the only unenforceable thing about the agreement was failure to supply under S77 timescales.....they had however since found the required stuff, ergo it was enforceable again but both parties held off so the case could take place.

Congratulations to them though, great judgment against everyone on the issue of enforcement, and rights conferred that the banks will jump on in any similar case now. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot, on top of the Rankine's beautifully getting 'taking Court action is not enforcement' on the books.

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

What the heck was this doing in court anyway - what exactly was it testing ? Who paid the costs or was the claimant pushing it forwards simply for the CRA reporting whilst in default of 77 ? which was deemed legal/acceptable by the Judge.

Suppose in that respect its a useful test case (for the FI's) .

If I'd been bringing the case I'd have pulled out when enforceable agreement arrived and tried for wasted costs due to the length of time it took them to 'find' it.

The rest was a non starter IMO.

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Defaults test case

There has reportedly been a further case in a county court in south shields regarding MBNA and prescribed terms being absent from the credit agreement resulting in a wiping of outstanding debt - will let you know further as soon as we have more information.

(so far this appears to be a seperate case to MBNA v Thouris which we reported a few weeks back)