Please read and Heed

[Hocuspocus]

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.

[peterbard]

Originally Posted by Dragonlady

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

[ian1969uk]

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.

[Dragonlady]

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

[ncf360]

(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!

[Dragonlady]

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.

[Lefty]

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

[zubo]

Originally Posted by Lefty

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

[peterbard]

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

[Perseus]

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