S78 and T&C's

[charitynjw]

Re: S78 and T&C's

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...751210_HOL_113

RENTON COMMITTEE REPORT ON LEGISLATION


"This Report concludes with 121 recommendations and conclusions and, obviously, one must be highly selective. I have had the advantage of reading the written evidence to the Committee of Mr. Francis Bennion. Mr. Bennion was the founder of the Statute Law Society, and was himself a Parliamentary draftsman for some years. Of course, the Statute Law Society has itself published, under 988the chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, some very interesting reports in this field, and I am very glad that we are to hear from my noble and learned friend later. Mr. Bennion took the view that there were four things which mattered most, and I think he was right. First, was the question of textual amendments instead of referential ones; secondly, the Members of both Houses should be treated better in having put before them textual or other documents which would enable them the better to understand the effects of the legislation before them; thirdly, the whole question of the Statute Book, and fourthly, the whole question of responsibility for the Parliamentary Counsel's office."

How times change!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: S78 and T&C's

It was he who devised & inserted s127.3 into the original 1974 Act; he reasoned that, if the contract was to be (almost certainly) unilateral, the lender better get it right re the prescribed terms, or suffer the consequences - uninforceable through the courts.

You would think that those big financial institutions whose core business is precisely consumer credit, who have unlimited re$ource$ and employ tens of thousands of people, would get their agreements right! It's not rocket science, merely a question of having a compliant agreement drafted and then a few thousand copies printed, to be presented to each and every customer for signature. Simples!

The other side is, of course, keeping their copies on file, which should be easy enough, given that scanning technology has been available since the early 90s, and before that there was microfiche.

There are many reasons why they have repeatedly failed on either or both sides, but it all boils down to ARROGANCE, believing to be untouchable and above the law.

Banks concentrated on marketing, having application forms in all shapes and forms, neglecting to ask their clients to sign an agreement once they've applied using the tear-off from the magazine. When they got the customer to sign an agreement, they often misplaced the actual hard copy and didn't keep tabs on the digital copies. Despite their huge re$ource$, financial in$titution$ are always determined to save a few pennies here and there, by freeing up server space and archiving stuff on unreliable media such as DVD-RAM, commonly used in the late 90s/early noughties, these disks often corrupted and became unreadable.

They sent the old hard copies away for archiving off the premises, in an attempt to save space.

This of course has been knocked out of the picture due to the 2006 'amendment', which, I believe, came about due to the flood of claims choking up the court system (cheers for that, BR :fish

Then, to add further insult, the flurry of cases (ie Carey, Wilson, etc), all chipping away at the protection of the consumer at the expense of Big Business.
Call me a cynic, but when the view of an 'expert' (Goode) is preferred over that of the original architect (Bennion), & the latter is denied a right of audience at court, well to me, something smells a wee bit fishy. Or a bit Wakky, maybe?

You just have to look at the huge role the Financial $ector plays in this country's economy to appreciate why legislation always seems to favour that $ector at the expense of everything else. :rant: :rant: :rant:

[Guest]

Re: S78 and T&C's

I think it was Wilson that did in for that particular section. For those not aquanted with this case, it involved an incorrectly placed sum in the total credit of a finance agreement.
This made the total credit figure incorrect and fell foul of section 127(3) of the act, this not only had the effect of making the agreement unenforceable but due to section 106 made the security void, and resulted in goods being returned to the debtor free and clear of any legal requirement to make repayment of the attached loan.

This was only the start of the story as the creditor raised the human rights consequence, in that the failure to give him the right to recover liabilities breached his "rights to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions" under article 1 of the charter.

The high court agreed, much to the bemusement of Francis Bennion, who said in his blog that the section had passed through both houses without, "so much as a raising of an eyebrow" and couldn't understand the fuss.

The matter was referd to the Lords, where they ruled that there was in fact no breach of the HRA and the appeal courts were wrong, the reason being that the section does not disavow any ownership of the goods or money, it merely says that no action in law can be made to recover them.

This is why DCA's quite rightly say they can still pursue unenforceable debts.

However the ruling was unsatisfactory to many, and the sections days were numbered, it was first for the chopping block when the 2006 legislation amendments came into force.

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Don't know if I should laugh or cry.

After sending a letter reminding them that it was a CPUTR request and a simple yes or no would suffice I get a letter back saying "we have answered your question and our client wants us to collect, however as we are at an impasse over the interpretation of the account we are passing it back. It seems they are unable or unwilling to give a yes or no as to do they hold the original
Back to bed

[labman]

Re: S78 and T&C's

But they're passing it back! CPUTR is designed to keep you out of court primarily. At the end of the day, an individual can't take action using it, only people like the OFT and Trading Standards can do that - even then a powerful piece of legislation is attracting woefully inadequate penalties.

If they're passing it back to start the swings and roundabouts again, it has served its primary purpose for you. :beagle:

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Labman, thanks I do appreciate what you are saying and indeed i am pleased it is going back to RBS. I feel it is like banging my head against a brick wall with RBS and CPUTR. How stupid do you have to be to be unable to answer the following question " Do you hold the original copy of the alleged agreement " yes or no.

I am quite happy to start the swings and roundabouts again, keeps me off the streets

[pt2537]

Re: S78 and T&C's

In Court next week with thd same issue. No signed agreement but still going ahead.

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

The outcome of that will be most interesting and I am worried to say quite pivotal I imagine. God forbid, if they win I would think there will be a lot of us facing difficulties

[FlamingParrot]

Re: S78 and T&C's

In Court next week with thd same issue. No signed agreement but still going ahead.

Any news about this?

[pt2537]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Any news about this?

Reserved Judgment. HAnd down anywhen between now and January.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: S78 and T&C's

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Well long overdue update.
This account has no gone to our friends in Hull. Been a few letters including the do not contact me by phone. I think they finally turned over the page as they stopped calling.

Now they have a new incarnation called 2f who have confirmed I live here. God they as so F clever. I don't give a flying F. there you go thats what the 2f stands for

[pt2537]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Well long overdue update.
This account has no gone to our friends in Hull. Been a few letters including the do not contact me by phone. I think they finally turned over the page as they stopped calling.

Now they have a new incarnation called 2f who have confirmed I live here. God they as so F clever. I don't give a flying F. there you go thats what the 2f stands for

well the case was lost sadly. The clients versions of events wasnt believed sadly.

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

I know and having read the judgement I think I would have agreed with the judge. Mind you I have only read the judgement not seen a transcript

Arrow_Global_v_Frost.pdf