Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

[pt2537]

A bit of a coincidence.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...merrights.html

This next week is going to be one hell of a week for consumers im hoping. There will be some news which i will be breaking next week, cant say anything more at this stage as im bound until judgment, but mark my words there will be a sad bank indeed out there.

[Amethyst]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Small piece on this blog too :- http://assetlandscamgroup.wordpress....e-28-jan-2014/

[jon1965]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Was there really :scared:

That in itself would have flagged up an "uh oh" moment for me.

That would have been enough for me to say "my brain hurts"

I do think it is a fantastic result for common sense

[pt2537]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

And am I right in saying that there was a contractual provision preventing the investors from contacting the planning authorities themselves?

Yes sir you are correct. The investors were forbidden from doing so under threat of breach of contract actions

[PlanB]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

And am I right in saying that there was a contractual provision preventing the investors from contacting the planning authorities themselves?

Was there really :scared:

That in itself would have flagged up an "uh oh" moment for me.

[jon1965]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

The way they reported it makes this Tilley bloke sound like a criminal

[pt2537]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Seems to be on here now. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2014/1.html

And here http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article...raft-of-claims

And also will be in the Mirror, Lexis Nexis are also going to host an article on this area of law too and the case, BBC and other organizations are looking at it too

[Nibbler]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Seems to be on here now. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2014/1.html

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

There seems to be the issue of the absurdity of the existence of a credit agreement without the goods being supplied keeps coming up as the main issue despite it not being allowed, yet the section 75 issue keeps being pursued.

[EXC]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

And am I right in saying that there was a contractual provision preventing the investors from contacting the planning authorities themselves?

[pt2537]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Not sure if this old Mirror article has been posted.

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigat...refu.html#more



I wonder how many contracts MBNA can lay their hands on which guarantee profitability and planning permission?

Hi Exc

Haha the Mirror gave evidence in this case tooo, they did an investigation etc.

The Hayden James literature promised they would obtain planning and it guarantees profit too, when they knew it wasn't the case. Most of the people scammed will have their order forms and papers, that's what im seeing currently anyhow,

[EXC]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Not sure if this old Mirror article has been posted.

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigat...refu.html#more

We treat each case on its individual merits, as we did in this case, but unfortunately Mrs Malouf did not have full contracts for either plot or any written guarantees on the profitability of the land or the granting of planning permission.

I wonder how many contracts MBNA can lay their hands on which guarantee profitability and planning permission?

[Amethyst]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Thing with Carl's lot was the company that the credit card payments went through was allegedly owned by a.n.other so although in reality Carl was the controlling mind of all the companies, on paper he wasn't. Had LIL been owned by a different person on paper than liposuction ltd... or whatever they were called... then would the judgment have been the same?

[Tools]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Absolutely well done PT and all involved with the case, an excellent and well deserved Judgement.

Some very interesting points and interpretations raised, much food for thought in other areas.

Para 33 & 34. for example.

33 A secondary point is taken in relation to the LIL transaction that, because LIL had no merchant facility and the merchant facility possessed by Linographic LTD was used to take the payment, the "supplier" for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act was Linographic LTD not LIL and hence the false representations were not made by the "supplier" and sections 56 and 75 do not apply

34 In my view, this is a false point. Mr Morris was a director of both companies. As such his was the "controlling mind" for each company ( see TESCO v NATTRASS [1972] AC153). He was the author of the fraud. It follows that when he used Linographic LTD to take the payment, Linographic LTD became a party to the fraud so "the supplier" did make the representations relied on.

Mr Carl Wright springs instantly to mind as well as any other CMC up front fees paid by credit card to any related "controlling mind" offshoot companies.

Think I may look into TESCO V NATTRASS in relation to something else too, PT, was << that case purely CCA related too?

[ncf355]

Re: Section 75 &amp; Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Just finally read the judgment

Congratulations to you and the team Paul, I'm sure you have contributed massively to a wronged lady being in a much better mental state

And good grief, were the defendants clutching at straws or what!!?