Fos ruled in eggs favour over charges help grealty appreciated on what to do next

never-in-doubt

zppp wrote: »

Hence why I stated in their opinion in my post.

So why link to it? Their opinion means nothing, and I disregard anything the OFT do - after their shambolic attempt to come down on the banks with the unfair charges fiasco - it proved they have no backbone and cannot be trusted for the consumer, period.

Point here is that had you read the document you linked me to you'd have seen part 2.19 which is what I am saying! Who cares what the OFT or Judge Waksman thinks, without a signed original agreement a "proper" hearing would always rule in the consumers favour. Always.

BethanyD

Can I respectfully suggest that the best people to comment on the legal aspects of what can or cannot be claimed are the lawyers who specialise in these matters.

The real issue for consumers in the recent past has been believing what Claims Management Companies and well-meaning amateurs have told them.

If you want a legal opinion, go to a lawyer who knows what they are talking about - they will give you a 30 minute consultation free of charge and not ask you for £495 up front for dodgy information.

janey17

Premier wrote: »

I thought you said you had already done that? :huh: :cool:

Hi have thanks. The adjudicator said I could refer this on for a final decision. Would I be wasting my time buidling a case?

dunstonh

janey17 wrote: »

Hi have thanks. The adjudicator said I could refer this on for a final decision. Would I be wasting my time buidling a case?

The ombudsman do not often overrule the adjudicators. It only tends to happen on more complicated individual cases which require a higher knowledge and skills that an adjudicator is unlikely to have.

You can never really assume anything on a complaint but you would expect it to be unlikely that you would have any success in this case with an ombudsman. It's neither complicated or individual.

davidgmmafan

"Hi have thanks. The adjudicator said I could refer this on for a final decision. Would I be wasting my time buidling a case?"

Potentially yes, but it doesn't cost anything other than youe time so if you feel strongly about it why not. You can decide from there if you want to chance court, but that will cost in time and money.

maz1964

hiya all

im subbing as again i learn the law - its a funny thing at times, but i agree true facts will always overide mere opinions, lol

:cool:

laters maz

audrey25

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No, you're confusing fact with fiction here (again!)

What you fail to grasp here is that a true copy, whilst it may be reconstituted, will not stand up in court because it is still the lenders prerogative to prove that the agreement was properly executed. How can they confirm this with a recon? Point here is that nobody has taken the test since the Carey verdict, however that should not sway your thoughts from the facts....

See here for the judgments in full: McGuffick v RBS & Carey v HSBC cases However I have condensed this into manageable bits for people that struggle with facts, like you:

a.1) - McGuffick v RBS - Case & Judgment Breakdown
a.2) -Carey v HSBC - Case & Judgment Breakdown

Hi,
It’s late at night and, suffering from insomnia, I’ve been lurking and reading the posts. The interesting debate here about copies of credit agreements and the two cases has caught my eye and as a lawyer, myself, I cannot resist tiptoeing in on the side of never-in-doubt, whom I assume is also a lawyer. I have read both the cases concerned and his/her summaries which I think give an accurate reflection of the position and the doubt which still remains in this area.

For the benefit of non-lawyers may I summarise even more briefly?:

1. McGufick v RBS principally concerned the meaning of s.71 CCA 1974, especially whether failure to supply a copy of the agreement made the agreement unenforceable (temporarily) or void (totally unenforceable). In most cases, if the copy cannot be supplied at all it will make no difference (in this case the original was lost then found). The judge made a point of saying this was an atypical case and he couldn’t understand why it had been brought as a test case. He stated more than once that he was laying down no general principles. This case would therefore be easily distinguished (i.e. it need not be followed) in another case.

2. Carey v HBSC comprised many cases, most brought it seems in the wave of companies trying to cash in on the ‘unenforceable agreements’ idea. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they did not succeed. The point here is that before the case came into court, the claimants had already conceded that reconstituted copies of agreements would suffice (rather than a photocopy of the original, executed - signed - agreement). That concession only affects the parties involved and has no effect on any other case. It is not a decided issue because it has not yet been fully argued before the courts.

3. Both judgments are High Court judgments. This means these judgments may be appealed with leave to the Court of Appeal or House of Lords who may disagree with the High Court judges’ decision. Even if for practical reasons (e.g. costs) the parties in these cases don’t appeal, other cases may be brought and may reach the higher courts who may well decide differently as there are still a lot of arguable points.

4. Neither case was concerned with an application by a lender to enforce the agreement, so they decide nothing about what the lender has to prove in that case.

The point for the laymen is that nothing is decided except for the actual claimants who claimed in those two cases – and they may even succeed on appeal. Everything is still up for grabs and there are certainly plenty of points in both cases which are still arguable, I think. (If anyone wants to discuss the finer legal points of these two very interesting cases, especially law students, I would be happy to join in on a different thread.)

Janey, from your point of view, I’m not sure where you go next and you may want to take legal advice. I personally wouldn’t want to take a test case to court on the basis of unenforceable agreement at the moment, unless I was owed a lot of money and on legal aid because it is very uncertain. We live in interesting times and I think it won’t be long before we see more definitive judgements coming from the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, so I’d wait and see. This is just a personal view and not legal advice as I don’t know enough about your case.

BigCraigJohn

OP have a read here. Lots of people beaten egg, they seem to be tricker.
Mistermind really knows his eggs

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/82484-me-egg.html

Premier_2

BigCraigJohn wrote: »

OP have a read here. Lots of people beaten egg, they seem to be tricker.
Mistermind really knows his eggs

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/82484-me-egg.html

That thread is from 2007

Only the last post is from 2009, and that from a user that wasn't successful

(Follow the link to their own thread and you'll see there was still no success as little as 2 weeks ago)

dunstonh

BigCraigJohn wrote: »

OP have a read here. Lots of people beaten egg, they seem to be tricker.
Mistermind really knows his eggs

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/82484-me-egg.html

Some beat Egg in the past because they caved in late in the process. However since the December court cases and further OFT clarifications. they lenders are are more willing to tough it out.