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
  #11  
Old 30-11-2007, 05:37 PM
Hocuspocus's Avatar
Hocuspocus Hocuspocus is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,253
Hocuspocus has a spectacular aura aboutHocuspocus has a spectacular aura about
Default

I was hoping there would be more law coming in that would state they have to show the agreement on their first visit, fancy having to wait till court. .

Its crazy allowing any person the opportunity to knock on a door and ask for money with no proof that they are owed it.
__________________
I will not be on the internet after the end of January 2009, so will not be around as much as usuall.
Anyone who wants to email me still go ahead but i won't be checking daily, more like weekly up the library.

" the cages we live in are often of our own making"

time for a life style change
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-12-2007, 10:42 AM
peterbard's Avatar
peterbard peterbard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 312
peterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonlady View Post
Peter,

You and I have recently seen an agreement signed June 2006, this is worrying even though it says it an Agreement using CCA 1974..These are the ones I am worried about.
Hi

Yes but the revokeation of section 127(3-5) did not apply untill April 2007 and is not retrospective.
As i said this is quite clearly stated within the new legislation

Best regards
peter
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-12-2007, 11:22 PM
ian1969uk ian1969uk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 337
ian1969uk will become famous soon enough
Default

I agree with Peter, it doesn't matter what the FOS are saying, the transitionary arrangements are clear that the revokation of S127 is not retrospective.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-12-2007, 08:38 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

I posted this wanting people to be aware of the new rulings in the future.

Any POC's will have to be carefully worded, so the defendant's (if you are the claimant) and the Judge is aware of what might be pulled by the Dark side trying to confuse a less savvy claimant.

All we need is one to slip through and the media will have field day as will the Dark Side
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16-12-2007, 09:24 AM
ncf360 ncf360 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bermuda triangle - or so it appears when trying to get claims through in a timely fashion
Posts: 79
ncf360 is on a distinguished road
Default

(I appreciate I am compounding the issue by posting, but...)

I think (as its a sticky and supposed to inform) this thread needs to be cleaned up, cutting out the back and forth posts and making very clear the fact that irrespective of what the FOS say, revocation of S127 3-5 is NOT retro and only applies to post April 07 agreements clear in the first post (I also think whoever got that from them should take them to task about misinformation that could costs people thousands)

There is a danger that this will frighten off less experienced people at the first few posts in the thread

None of the above is meant to offend or upset anybody!

Last edited by ncf360 : 16-12-2007 at 09:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 16-12-2007, 10:13 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

NCF

Sorry to rebut your post, but several of us were in Court the other day and the Judge ignored what you are stating. This is why we developing new tactics and we have asked for the POC's to be run past us to check that there is no loophole.

The Judge even chose to ignore the Banking Code

and making very clear the fact that irrespective of what the FOS say, revocation of S127 3-5 is NOT retro and only applies to post April 07 agreements clear in the first post (I also think whoever got that from them should take them to task about misinformation that could costs people thousands)

It was Me who got it from the very top and we are waiting clarification that this is the case, until this happens, it stays the way it is.

After last Thursday week and the way the Judge responded anything can happen.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 16-12-2007, 11:27 AM
Lefty Lefty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here there & everywhere
Posts: 1,531
Lefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of light
Default

A county court judge can use his extensive discretion but he cannot circumvent Parliament.

The problems are that those that do circumvent the legislation are not challenged as their peverse rulings are usually against a non funded litigant who cannot afford to appeal
__________________
Regards
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16-12-2007, 11:48 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 Lefty View Post
A county court judge can use his extensive discretion but he cannot circumvent Parliament.

The problems are that those that do circumvent the legislation are not challenged as their peverse rulings are usually against a non funded litigant who cannot afford to appeal
Lefty

Do you really need to be represented (the expense I assume) if you wish to appeal on circumvention of a point of law?

I know it is fraught with likely failure, however on a point of principle.. surely you can appeal and put your argument forward without cost?? but what of the other side's costs?

alternatively, is there any process simply to appeal a ruling/order the judge has made without all the paraphernalia and interested parties??? ie a setaside of the order based upon the argument of circumvention of the law... I guess you should put forward these at court, but if you are a lip then you do need time out to consider and re-assemble your argument.

Z
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 17-12-2007, 10:11 AM
peterbard's Avatar
peterbard peterbard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 312
peterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to all
Default

Hi

It is importannt to note that a judge cannot overide a point of law,the only time that a ruiling can be used to influence a hearing is on a matter of interpretation.
The transitory provisions required by the cca 2006 are set down within the regulations in plain terms and not open to interpretation any judge ruling otherwise would be subject to appeal as they would be going against legislation.

The alteration of the act to de********ise sections of it would also require new legilation to be passed by the house, up to date no such legilation exists and has not to my knowledge even been presentied to the house for considration so how they say it wil be introcuced in April next year seems to be a completer nosense.

Best regards
Peter
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 17-12-2007, 02:08 PM
Perseus's Avatar
Perseus Perseus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In Pergatory!
Posts: 2,017
Perseus is a name known to allPerseus is a name known to allPerseus is a name known to allPerseus is a name known to allPerseus is a name known to allPerseus is a name known to all
Default

So, reading between the lines of this thread, and sorry for extending this debate further (which ncf, I agree WILL be needed to be cleaned up after a consensus has been reached);
What is being said here is - in legislative terms is undeniable.
s127 3-5 is NOT retrospective
Therefore, the contention is that in the above, 1 Judge has appeared to not take notice of it in Rhia's case. This does not set precedent, nor a standard method of process.

We must not lose sight of the facts.
The issue that the DJ ignored the impact of s127, is very unfortunate, but must be challenged in appeal.
Clarity may or may not be sought, and to have absolute confirmation from TS/OFT/n.e.other will be supportive, but as the legislation stands at the moment - s127 and the cca2006 supports itself unconditionally without interpretation or arguement.

Whilst all efforts to clarify, endorse and justify are fantastic - and certainly re-inforce what we are all attempting to do here (ie persuade creditors to abide by statute/legislation and common law etc), as mentioned by Peter above - this section of legislation cannot be challenged, contended or debated by anyone other than those able to make legislation in the first place. Certainly not a DJ!

Zubos point is very relevant.
As a l.i.p. - we are not able to address matters like this without reference to, or research into matters brought up.
In this arguement, s127 3-5 is one we have heard of, but as a lip - are we expected to recollect immediately without years of training?
In this siutation, maybe we could research a possibility of a l.i.p. requesting a recess, or a time period within proceedings in which to consider arguements or matters, in order that the contents or matters arising in a case may not prejudice the outcome through ignorance or naievity? That must be worth researching?

Regards to all
Pers
__________________
Any advice or guidance given by Perseus or Consumer Credit Support is provided without prejudice, and is based on personal experience only. Please seek professional legal assistance to clarify your particular case. Thank you.

If we've helped in recovering bank charges, please help us keep this site alive for others by donating.

sedit qui timuit ne non succederet.
He who feared he would not succeed, sat still.
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 03:05 AM.


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