Consumer Credit Support  
Bailiff Advice Online

Go Back   Consumer Credit Support > Consumer Credit Support > Consumer Credit Act
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 13-09-2008, 06:33 AM
Dragonlady's Avatar
Dragonlady Dragonlady is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Proud member of the CFC.
Posts: 10,998
Dragonlady has disabled reputation
Default

The law is moving with the times and this is why people are becoming unstuck sticking to wording of the 1974 Act. Gradually everything in that Act which was put in place to protect the consumer, will be eroded by the Judges interpretation of the Act when it comes to court. As JG says, it is easier to be a defendant than a claimant. You have to be up to date with the latest Act to make sure all your arguments are valid.

Last edited by Dragonlady : 13-09-2008 at 10:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 13-09-2008, 09:47 AM
zubo's Avatar
zubo zubo is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 984
zubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtChubbs View Post
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006...0060014_en.pdf

38. Section 15 repeals sections 127(3) to (5) of the 1974 Act (subsection (5) is consequential on subsection (3)), which means that a court will have the power to determine in its discretion whether agreements are enforceable in accordance with section 127(1) and (2) regardless of the breach in question.
how the f+++ did that get pushed through a parliament in Labour's hands the so called workin class people's party.

We need an immediate parliamentary onslaught to sack the MPs who introduced this and get it rapidly repealed.

Z
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 13-09-2008, 09:50 AM
zubo's Avatar
zubo zubo is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 984
zubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to allzubo is a name known to all
Default

This pile of cra+ actually attacks my human rights because it places me at a distinct disadvantage and makes the Creditor Debtor relationship unfair.

Z
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 13-09-2008, 10:24 AM
Jster$$$'s Avatar
Jster$$$ Jster$$$ is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,165
Jster$$$ will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zubo View Post
This pile of cra+ actually attacks my human rights because it places me at a distinct disadvantage and makes the Creditor Debtor relationship unfair.

Z
So true Zubo

However it has always been as case of the court does what it wants regardless
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 13-09-2008, 01:46 PM
BOUDICCA BOUDICCA is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,144
BOUDICCA will become famous soon enoughBOUDICCA will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jster$$$ View Post
So true Zubo

However it has always been as case of the court does what it wants regardless

Then there is no justice for the consumer;
what is the point of having the consumer credit act;
the whole matter makes a mockery out of the Act...

I thought that Britain was a Sovereign State, not a dictatorship;
Where are our Human Rights? Looks like we do not have any.

BOUDICCA

Last edited by BOUDICCA : 13-09-2008 at 01:47 PM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15-09-2008, 06:45 PM
ALUCARD ALUCARD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,556
ALUCARD will become famous soon enough
Default

The scrapping of s127(3) is a total disgrace.

However, in case anyone reading this is unaware, it is not retrospective. Thankfully, SCHEDULE 3 Transitional Provision and Savings, make it clear this does not apply to Agreements made before this dreadful mistake was allowed, see below:

Quote:
11 The repeal by this Act of—

(a) the words “(subject to subsections (3) and (4))” in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

(b) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

(c) the words “or 127(3)” in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,
has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.
Apologies if you all knew this, but it's vital that people with Agreements made before the CCA 2006 came in are aware s127(3) still applies.

Many duffer Judges don't know this, so I'd advise adding a Copy of SCHEDULE 3 high-lighted in bright luminous Yellow, with a blurdy great Flag and Flashing LEDs to any Court bundle!

Cheers,
ALUCARD
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 30-03-2009, 01:39 PM
millymollymoo's Avatar
millymollymoo millymollymoo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 72
millymollymoo is on a distinguished road
Default

I will say that even with an unenforceable agreement and confirmation that nothing is on the reverse. some creditors are winning judges over with producing compliant seperate documents with all the prescribed terms and swearing on oath that these accompanied what you signed.

That then means that section 127(3) means nowt then as what hope has anyone got against such a reputable bank {my ar*e!)

milly X
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-11-2009, 04:40 PM
maybelline maybelline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 254
maybelline is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALUCARD View Post
The scrapping of s127(3) is a total disgrace.

However, in case anyone reading this is unaware, it is not retrospective. Thankfully, SCHEDULE 3 Transitional Provision and Savings, make it clear this does not apply to Agreements made before this dreadful mistake was allowed, see below:



Apologies if you all knew this, but it's vital that people with Agreements made before the CCA 2006 came in are aware s127(3) still applies.

Many duffer Judges don't know this, so I'd advise adding a Copy of SCHEDULE 3 high-lighted in bright luminous Yellow, with a blurdy great Flag and Flashing LEDs to any Court bundle!

Cheers,
ALUCARD
and if an agreement falls outside the 25K amount because the improper execution of it has upped the amounts, the 127 argument never can be argued?
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 04:12 AM.


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