Quote:
Pathetic reporting.
Truly disgusting sensationalism from two people who appear to be on the banks pay role judging by the accuracy.
McGuffick HAD an enforceable agreement. The bank couldn't find the required documents in the timescales. McGuffick then through his CMC decided to file for a S142 judgment that the debt was thoroughly unenforceable (for some STUPID reason).
The bank after the case was listed found the required documents and it obviously made the whole thing enforceable again. In agreement between the CMC and the Bank they allowed the case to go forward nonetheless, identifying it as a test case - (remember the Salford Judge's comments about needing a few CCA related Test Cases to clear matters up fully and finally because obviously Wilson v FCT/Hutstanger etc isn't enough, well this piece of joke case was meant to be one of them).
Therefore the case hinged on 'basically' COULD a bank still transmit data to the CRF's during the period of it being temporarily unenforceable because of a S77-79 request.
The DJ followed the Rankine 'precedent' that taking Court action wasn't enforcement, and Flaux also added that he didn't believe adding derogatory info to CRF's was enforcement either.
The case was a complete joke and a complete waste of time. However there are another 5 to go that are listed and starting end of this month, or sometime in November which will actually DEAL with the pertinent issues hopefully. ie no agreement, no signed etc etc etc not whether some idiot goes for S142 like a greyhound because paperwork wasn't found in 12 days.
The quote by the esteemed idiots at the Times:
“Although the [Consumer Credit Act] may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”.
Relates specifically to being unenforceable temporarily via a S78 request, the valid, subsisting contract and obligations under it relates specifically to 3rd party transmittal.
I remember when journalism was meant to be a portrayal truth, education and where words like accuracy, ethics and reliability were drummed into you during training.
Obviously Mssrs Herman and Charles were busy that day.
Quote:
Wonder if my comment will be published
Folks, don't panic, it's shoddy reporting. I would suspect Mr Herman and Mr Charles simply received an RBS press release and then scurried for quotes from those who like attacking CMC's without actually doing any investigation first.
Basically the fact the article states 'proceeded on the basis the agreement was unenforceable' should tell you everything, when in the Judgment Para 3 states:
Quote:
It is not suggested by the claimant that the agreement was in any way improperly executed, so that sections 61, 65 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are not directly in issue.
How any Judge could rule on enforceability WHEN the only section in the Act that deals with enforceability has been accepted by all parties as not applying to the case is for anyone's guess.
All the case looked at was whether transmittal of data to CRF's constituted enforcement. That's what the quote applies to, not that an unenforceable debt is suddenly still repayable. McGuffick's agreement was wholly enforceable, the only error was they didn't send the proper documentation in time, ie a statement of account. He then filed via his CMC to have it rendered unenforceable via S142 which was a stupid decision to take.
Nothing to see other than piss poor journalism.
source:a consumer site
So you can still claim apparently
