CCA ruling?

[shell]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c6ddd3e-006b ... ail=y.html

[PAG Editor]

Shell I can't view that - can you copy the article please.

I'm guessing though, does it mention Carey? If so viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4159

[shell]

Banks face loans write-off after ruling
By Andrew Bounds, North of England Correspondent

Published: January 13 2010 23:38 | Last updated: January 13 2010 23:38

Lenders could have to write off millions of pounds in loans to customers who have not been provided with proper terms and conditions after a High Court ruling clarified when such debts are unenforceable.

New draft guidance is to be circulated to lenders by the Office of Fair Trading this month along the lines of Judge David Waksman’s December ruling after a slew of consumer claims.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Municipal banks fail to fill funding gaps - Jan-07.Editorial Comment: death without disruption - Dec-17.Myners outlines plan for living wills - Dec-16.Myners to boost protection of bank clients - Dec-15.Darling lines up assault on bonuses - Dec-06.Banks face tougher rules on pay disclosure - Nov-30..The judge found that lenders could not enforce debts unless they could provide a “true copy” of an original agreement, according to the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.

The issue is at the heart of thousands of pending cases and should lead to many being settled out of court now the principle is established.

Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel Client Review, a Manchester-based claims company that brought the test case, has called on banks to end their resistance and settle cases after the deadline for an appeal passed. He predicted up to a million claims in 2010 and said his company had 250,000 clients on its books.

Lenders will no longer be able to stall by saying they cannot find the agreement, or create a new one with the correct terms and conditions, Mr Wright says.

“This is a major victory for consumers and will open the floodgates. All the loopholes that lenders have been using to avoid redress have been removed by the High Court. Where a bank or credit card company is in breach of Section 78 of the act the agreement is legally unenforceable,” he said.

Under sections 77-79 of the act, lenders must supply a “true copy” of the original signed loan agreement within 12 days of the borrower asking for it. If they do not then the debt is unenforceable until the copy can be provided.

The draft OFT guidance says that during that time, a lender cannot write to a debtor demanding payment or threatening legal action.

“The creditor or owner should make it clear in communications to the debtor that the debt is in fact unenforceable,” it says.

The OFT and Judge Waksman have backed lenders’ right to provide an accurate copy, rather than the original agreement, and to change the terms of a loan provided they keep customers informed.

The British Bankers’ Association welcomed the judge’s ruling, but would not comment on the OFT guidance until it saw it.

[PAG Editor]

Yup that's Carey chuck. In short it's what we already knew anyway although I still disgaree with part of it, but it did clear up categorically that original terms need including as lenders always said current terms were enough.

[shell]

Thanks.

shell.

[tearitopeices]

The OFT and Judge Waksman have backed lenders’ right to provide an accurate copy, rather than the original agreement, and to change the terms of a loan provided they keep customers informed.

The British Bankers’ Association welcomed the judge’s ruling, but would not comment on the OFT guidance until it saw it.

And they just keep giving them side doors to slither out of

AGAIN

[PAG Editor]

Not quite Gorang, check out the link there was a fair bit of chat about this. What the press didn't make clear was this related to S77-79 requests only where the requirement was a 'true' copy. Some of us disagreed with the application of SI 1557 as it related to that, and I still don't think it is entirely appropriate for it for copy requests but that's by the by now.

All this sorted out was the requirements of a true copy and how it can be created, or not as the case may be.

As said in some regards it's good news for us, because lenders were hiding behind the current terms are enough argument but Waksman threw this out completely and now if lenders do not have the original terms prior to variation it is remains a default of the request and they cannot enforce ie there is a caste iron defence in Court should they file.

In lots of ways the Carey et al case was more favourable to us, than it was lenders on the face of it.