MSE News: High Court 'closes debt write-off loophole'

Ames

Right, so what happens if they don't produce anything at all when requested? That still means it's unenforcable right? I don't need to start panicking that they can demand money for debts without any proof at all? I didn't find the article very clear on what the judgement actually meant in real terms.

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

This is interesting, that MSE even use the incorrect lingo such as 'loophole' and 'debt write off' etc - but ultimately, judge Waksman's decision will be appealed - but this will depend on the further cases set to be adjudged in the new year.

I will probably be proved wrong here, but I'm not sure that some of these CMC representing solicitors will have the resources to risk the extra costs of an appeal if it was unsuccessful.

I am also pretty sure that after the event insurers will be pretty reluctant to underwrite many more CCA challenge cases after the case results of the last few months, which must surely leave most CMC business models to be unsustainable? They already appear to be scrapping amongst themselves. I wonder how many up front fees will be returned to consumers on cases that will not now go ahead. The fallout could be spectacular and I hope the MoJ is prepared for the inevitable finger pointing when it all goes t!ts up on their watch.

never-in-doubt

Ames wrote: »

Right, so what happens if they don't produce anything at all when requested? That still means it's unenforcable right? I don't need to start panicking that they can demand money for debts without any proof at all? I didn't find the article very clear on what the judgement actually meant in real terms.

Sure, it remains unenforceable until such time they send a copy - but the crux lies herin, they will just throw any old !!!!!! together and claim it is your CCA - that is what is wrong.

Simples

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

I will probably be proved wrong here, but I'm not sure that some of these CMC representing solicitors will have the resources to risk the extra costs of an appeal if it was unsuccessful.

I am also pretty sure that after the event insurers will be pretty reluctant to underwrite many more CCA challenge cases after the case results of hte last few months.

I know what you're saying but then there is also the possibility of a class action, if that is what is necessary then that is what we will do.

I for one will happily fund £10 - £20k into a worthwhile fund of appeal. This would be done via CAG, on all accounts.

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I know what you're saying but then there is also the possibility of a class action, if that is what is necessary then that is what we will do.

I for one will happily fund £10 - £20k into a worthwhile fund of appeal. This would be done via CAG, on all accounts.

I edited my last post after you quoted it but the point was the same.

I'm unsure how a class action can work in challenging what is likely to become law, or at the very least, legal precedence.

I also dread to think what the final bill for costs is going to be from the Manchester cases - what with all those highly paid lawyers travelling up from London every day :eek:

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

I edited my last post after you quoted it but the point was the same.

I'm unsure how a class action can work in challenging what is likely to become law, or at the very least, legal precedence.

I also dread to think what the final bill for costs is going to be from the Manchester cases - what with all those highly paid lawyers travelling up from London every day :eek:

I know what you mean but precedence isn't law in itself, look at the cases we have won (i.e. Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633) - this was supposed to set the precedence and look what is happening.

Yea, the OFT are bums without a backbone, they proved this with dropping the bank charges reclaim - so really as you suggest, it may be a lost cause.

If needs be i'll sleep with the top barristers in London to get discount :rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl: (joke)

Ames

Right, so they can still take me to court then. Great, getting one debt unenforcable meant I avoided bankruptcy. Although, I do have a letter from the OC saying that the debt I owe is £130, rather than the 4.5k I've been chased for for the last 4 years, so at least I've got a backup plan.

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I know what you mean but precedence isn't law in itself, look at the cases we have won (i.e. Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633) - this was supposed to set the precedence and look what is happening.

Yea, the OFT are bums without a backbone, they proved this with dropping the bank charges reclaim - so really as you suggest, it may be a lost cause.

If needs be i'll sleep with the top barristers in London to get discount :rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl: (joke)

I dont really think that any precedence in Wilson v FCT has been breached to be honest. In that case the agreement was declared unenforceable through the correct application of s127(3). The agreement was flawed because the amount of credit was misstated. End of.

What I think has happened since then is that the bandwagon was well and truly jumped upon by over eager CMC's, thinking that any old technicality was enough to render an agreement void.

The reality is that none of the recent cases have really gone near s127(3).

RBS v McGuffick was about the definition of 'enforcement' in respect of a breach of s77
SPPL v Walker was all about the interpretation of s9, and was so clearly different to Wilson v FCT that the Walker team should have seen it coming a mile off.
SPPL v Heath was all about s18 and multiple agreements
The Manchester cases were generally about the interpretation of s78.

s127(3) lives on (in the case of pre April07 agreements of course) to fight another day. If a lender knows his agreement contains fundamental breaches that would involve s127(3) then he probably wouldnt let a case get to court in the first place. I still maintain my stance that such cases are a lot less common than people think and certainly than what CMC's would have you believe.

I am sure that if another case came to court where a fee had been included in the amoutn of credit (thereby misstating a core term) then Wilson v FCT would be a perfect precedent for the correct decision to rule it as unenforceable. Apart from that, to be honest, I dont see what other precedents there are to take from it.

Very interesting discussion, by the way :beer:

never-in-doubt

Ames wrote: »

Right, so they can still take me to court then. Great, getting one debt unenforcable meant I avoided bankruptcy. Although, I do have a letter from the OC saying that the debt I owe is £130, rather than the 4.5k I've been chased for for the last 4 years, so at least I've got a backup plan.

Is it unenforceable, i.e. has the lender written to you and confirmed they will not puruse the debt but will record it with the CRA's?

Regardless, previous cases will not be affected - but that is those that went via court - I guess all the old closet claims will all of a sudden be sent a random CCA 'claiming' to be a copy of their original......

I'd not worry, they cannot get blood from a stone!

Are you 4 years in or is this recent?

oscar52

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I for one will happily fund £10 - £20k into a worthwhile fund

If its burning a hole in your pocket, my Barclays details are 20 25 XX XXXXXXXX - if you forward this message to two million people, my account details will suddenly appear on your screen.