Consumer Credit Support  
Bailiff Advice Online

Go Back   Consumer Credit Support > Consumer Credit Support > OFT Test Case
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 15-05-2010, 01:55 AM
The Terminator's Avatar
The Terminator The Terminator is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Getting in a DCA's face
Posts: 1,940
The Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to all
Default

Thanks Nattie I've had a good read of what you've posted and although I understand a majority of it could the T&C part of it be applied to Credit Cards as one term always comes up and I quote:

If you die any outstanding balance must be paid imeaditley.So would this be an unfair term literally making any agreement unenforceable or whoever it was sold too wouldn't be able to collect which again would make it unenforceable.You can't enforce something on someone who doesn't exist.Isn't it about time that the banks T&C were scruitinized under UTCC(1999) this would then bring everything under the same umbrella.

Term
__________________
The real evil is not the payment of money, but the secrecy attending it (Chitty L.J. in the case of Shipway v Broadwood [1899] 1 QB 369, 373). .

The courts shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner

Moneylending transactions as a class give rise to significant social problems.

Astalavista baby and I'll be back
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 15-05-2010, 08:39 AM
nattie nattie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 368
nattie will become famous soon enoughnattie will become famous soon enough
Default

I agree with you Term. The opinion has lead to LB effectively giving up at the moment on historical bank charges claims because further to this was an opinion on how successful a claim would be in court which would have lead to what some call GLO's or class action and that has come back at less than 50%. I am hoping that Govan Law Centre do persuade the Scottish courts that there is still a case. Unfortunately, in the clamour for a decision, the judges in the Supreme Court could have referred it to the ECJ and I hope that in time a judge will refer it to the ECJ for an opinion on the scope of UTCCR 1999.
To be honest, you have to read it a few times before you get a sense that things like, direct payments, money laudering regulations etc.,etc, give the bank a dominant position. We have no opt out clauses in contracts(barclays is an automatic opt in rather than customer opt in).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-10-2010, 09:26 AM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Some more of my rambliings about this............why don't we all look at the law of Estopell with a view to using it to prevent creditors from reconstructing credit agreements.........I am certain there is quite a bit of mileage in this to by pass Wacksman ruling .....just a thought.

Furthermore:
I had a credit agreement with the BOS long finished now about 3 years.........but each time I asked for full true copy of it ( I had the original) they sent me two others that were absolutely and utterly different from each other and the first one (original) and stated each time that they were my original credit agreement, which proves Wacksman ruling rubbish......the true copies he said could be accepted can be reconstructed from a different one, which isn't the debtors real one..............when I have more time I'll post copies of these "TRUE" agreements .........it proves the Banks are conning the Courts.
The three are completely different

If Estopell is used in conjuction with section 140B (9) of the Consumer Credit Act Unfair Relationhip......it could be said that it is unfair that a creditor could pick and choose which one of their credit agreements they can reconstruct to suit their purposes........there are many computaions that could arise from this approach.
Misrepresenation, Forgery,Fraud,just because they are a bank and big hitters does not mean they would stoop so low because we all know they can and do............that's why quite a few of are in Jail now and there are quite a few more that should be.
sparkie

Last edited by sparkie1723 : 02-10-2010 at 09:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-10-2010, 09:53 AM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Also Worth a read everyone if it hasn't been posted before it it has I apologise for posting it again

sparkie

Court of Justice of the European Union
PRESS RELEASE No 52/10
Luxembourg, 3 June 2010
Press and Information
Judgment in Case C-484/08
Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)
National legislation may authorise judicial review as to the unfairness of contractual terms which are drafted in plain, intelligible language
Member States may adopt, throughout the area covered by the Directive on unfair terms, rules which are stricter than those provided for in that directive
The Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts1 is applicable, in principle, to all contract terms which have not been individually negotiated. However, the Directive provides for two exceptions with regard to the assessment as to the unfairness of contractual terms. Thus, that assessment may not relate to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods to be supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as those terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language.
The Spanish legislation which transposed that directive into national law did not incorporate those exceptions. That legislation allows national courts to assess the unfairness of a term which relates to the main subject-matter of the contract, even in the case where that term was drawn up in advance by the seller or supplier in plain, intelligible language.
Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid (Caja de Madrid), a Spanish lending institution, concluded with its clients mortgage loan agreements which provided for a variable nominal interest rate which was to be altered from time to time in accordance with the agreed reference index. In addition, those agreements contained a term, drafted in advance, which provided that the rate of interest payable by the borrower was to be rounded up, with effect from the first revision, to the next quarter of a percentage point every time the variation in the rate exceeded 0.25%.
On 28 July 2000, a Spanish association of users of banking services (Ausbanc) brought an action in the Spanish courts seeking, in particular, to require Caja de Madrid to annul the rounding-up term in those loan agreements and to prohibit its use in the future.
The Tribunal Supremo (Spanish Supreme Court), which is required to deliver final judgment in this case, asks the Court of Justice, in essence, whether the Directive on unfair terms precludes a Member State from providing in its legal system, for the benefit of consumers, for an assessment as to the unfairness of contractual terms which relate to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods to be supplied in exchange, on the other hand, even in the case where those terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language.
The Court points out, first, that the system of protection introduced by the Directive is based on the idea that the consumer is in a weak position vis-ŕ-vis the seller or supplier, as regards both his bargaining power and his level of knowledge. This leads to the consumer agreeing to terms drawn up in advance by the seller or supplier without being able to influence the content of those terms.
Next, the Court finds that the Directive carried out only a partial and minimum harmonisation of national legislation concerning unfair terms, while recognising that Member States have the option of affording consumers a higher level of protection than that for which the Directive provides.
1 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
www.curia.europa.eu
The Court thus finds that Member States may retain or adopt, throughout the area covered by the Directive, rules which are stricter than those provided for by the Directive itself, on condition that they are designed to afford consumers a higher level of protection.
In authorising the possibility of a comprehensive judicial review as to the unfairness of all the terms provided for in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, the Spanish legislation makes it possible for consumers to be afforded a higher level of effective protection than that established by the Directive.
Consequently, the Court finds that the Directive does not preclude national legislation which authorises judicial review as to the unfairness of contractual terms which relate to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods to be supplied in exchange, on the other hand, even in the case where those terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice on the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the national dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Press contact: Christopher Fretwell �� (+352) 4303 3355

Last edited by sparkie1723 : 02-10-2010 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Consumer Credit Support