CCA Claims could be stayed in Cheshire.....updated

[Curlyben]

Here you go.
Interesting stuffs

[Amethyst]

CCA Claims


[/quote]The attachment in Curly's post is a letter from Designated Civil Judge Derek Halbert to all Cheshire CCA Claimants and CMC's. It states they have sought the agreement of Moore-Bick and Justice Andrew Smith to take a few selected cases to test at the commercial court in London, potentially leaving on stay 100,000 cases with regards invalid CCA's.

We should have more information in the morning.

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Claims to be stayed in Cheshire.....possibly

Yep 100% Authentic - just got off phone with court

they have had a few calls lol.

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Claims to be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

Some interesting reading - Legal Beagles

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Claims to be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

Judge freezes credit claims

Judge freezes credit claims

Consumers overwhelmed with debts are unlikely to be able to write-off credit card debt due to unenforceability

James Charles


A judge has frozen more than 100,000 claims by indebted borrowers attempting to write-off credit and loan debt by using a loophole in the law which could make the contracts unenforceable.
In a hearing last Friday in Chester County Court, Judge Derek Halbert announced that all cases have been put on hold pending the outcome of "a few carefully selected" test cases in the Commercial Court in London.
The ruling means that over-indebted borrowers will have to carrying on repaying loans until a judgement is made.
In the meantime, consumers have been warned not to fall for adverts by claims handlers promising to wipe out credit card debt alleging that agreements put in place before April 2007 are potentially unenforceable.

[EXC]

Re: CCA Claims to be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

This is a press release from the Solicitors Regulation Authority who The Times made reference to in todays story on the test cases announcement. and who are to investigate 10 CMCs.

I can't help wondering who will represent the claimants in the test case and moreover who'll fund it. Surely not Basil Rankin of Sue Grabbit & Run ?

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/news/press/2612.article

Solicitors warned about firms that mislead the public about chances of getting debts written off

21 April 2009

Solicitors are being warned not to accept business from introducers which mislead consumers about the prospect of getting loans, credit card and other debts written off.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is issuing the warning following a rash of misleading statements in adverts, especially on the internet, making dubious claims or leaving out important information which might breach consumer protection regulations.
Some of these adverts wrongly suggest that almost all loan or credit card agreements in place before April 2007 are unenforceable under the Consumer Credit Act and can therefore be written off.
SRA Chief Executive Antony Townsend said, "These ads appear to offer an easy way out of difficulty to people who have debts they are struggling to pay. But many credit agreements do meet the legal requirements and, therefore, can't easily be challenged as unenforceable."
"We've noticed a sharp increase in the number of solicitors getting involved in this activity since last autumn. The SRA is currently investigating 10 firms. Any that are found to have breached Rule 1—the core principles—of the Code of Conduct may face the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal."
The SRA is liaising closely with the Claims Management Regulation Monitoring and Compliance Unit at the Ministry of Justice, which regulates introducers. The Head of Claims Management Regulation at the Ministry of Justice, Kevin Rousell, said: "We won't tolerate claims management businesses that set out to mislead consumers and will do our utmost to make the regulatory regime a hostile one for those not willing to follow the rules. Action against solicitors that aren't complying with their Code of Conduct is also essential to ensure regulation is working effectively from both ends and that solicitors do their due diligence, including when dealing directly with consumers."
Citizens Advice has warned that the claims handlers often charge about £500 upfront to check a credit agreement, even though there is no guarantee of success. Where people have several debts, the fees can mount up to several thousands of pounds. People may then be sold a "no win, no fee" agreement to take legal action that can cost them even more.
The SRA advises solicitors to check the advertising of the claims introducers they are dealing with or are approached by. They should avoid accepting business from introducers that make claims like the following:

• "Eighty per cent of credit agreements are unenforceable."
• "Fifty million credit agreements are created every year—at least 25 million are unenforceable."
• "We'll get your credit cards written off within six weeks!" "Fast results guaranteed!"
• "We have a 100 per cent success rate."
• "A positive outcome is guaranteed."
• "We can write off all your outstanding debt, all previous payments could be returned, and you could keep any goods purchased."

Antony Townsend warns: "Dealing with firms which con consumers who are already in debt in that way is indefensible, and would be unacceptable to all conscientious solicitors."

[Guest]

Re: CCA Claims to be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

Antony Townsend warns: "Dealing with firms which con consumers who are already in debt in that way is indefensible, and would be unacceptable to all conscientious solicitors."

Not "all solicitors" then?

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Claims to be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

Update:

a) No decision has been taken as yet whether to continue with claims going through the Court or to stay them pending the outcome of cases in the Commercial Court in London.

(b) Any decision either way will currently only affect cases going through the Courts in Cheshire. It is likely it will be nationwide.

(c) This currently only applies to cases already in the Court system.

(d) This may change in two weeks once cases are submitted for test cases.

[iggy]

Re: CCA Claims to be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

The whole press furore around the judgement seems to have been fired up purely around the Ultimate Law press release. I'm a journalist but it seems the Mail and the Times just regurgitated the press release with no profound knowledge of the case or the consequences.

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Claims to be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

Yes indeed.... someones keen to get other UCA CMCs out the market.

Base your judgments on the actual letter from the court rather than Daniellas press release information.

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Claims could be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

Further to an email received by Admin this letter from Justice Halbert came about because

as a result of a case in the name of Walker at Chester
County Court which was appealed to Judge Derek R Halbert and which the lender,
Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd, lost due to their non-compliance with the
prescribed requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
The issue of the appeal related to a specific technical point about what constitutes
the “total amount for credit”.

[wigeon]

Re: CCA Claims could be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

I have been involved in the filed of financial irregularity cases for over 12 years. The first time they came before the courts where as defensive actions against lenders (90% of whom were sub-prime) seeking repossession of borrower’s houses. The lenders were exploiting the increase in house prices following the last property crash. Lenders saw borrowers who had been in difficulty as a liability, these sorts of lenders do not negotiate, regardless of what the CML OFT and CAB say if you can't pay, your are out.

The courts gave little or no support to these people and neither did the government.
Their response was to limit the ability of the courts to bring in a ruling of unenforceability; a Labour government changed the CCA 74 with CCA 2006 drawing a line under unenforceability as from 6th April 2007.

The position is that unenforceability and the remedy was introduced to stop lenders deceiving borrowers as to the true cost of borrowing. They were allowed to charge interest on the money that was borrowed and not on the charges incurred by someone seeking to borrow money. I worked on the case heard at Chester and it was decided, by HHJ Halbert, that the borrower had been charged interest on a cost of credit (a fee) and the law does not allow this.

The market for unenforceability is very large but not the 80% referred to and this 'indecision' by the judges could seriously disadvantage borrowers.

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Claims could be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

Thank you Wigeon. Out of interest, in the Walker case, did the Judge make any indication of his discussions with Moore-Bick and Smith ?

We have the judgment in the Walker v SPML case but its in VIP at the moment. Your views on it would be appreciated.

[wigeon]

Re: CCA Claims could be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

No response as yet he is off work on compassionate grounds

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA Claims could be stayed in Cheshire.....CONFIRMED

Update from the CMC on 18th May - Consumer Credit Act - Legal Beagles