Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

[julian]

Previously it was discussed that a CCJ can be awarded where a pre-2007 CCA is not avalaible, but cannot be enforced.

It was also considered that Charging Orders are not Enforcement except when there is also a payment agreement. Equally Statutory Demands are not Enforcement.

However, many threads state that a CCJ trumps a CCA. This seems to be at odds with the preceding enforcement 'rules'.

So if a CCA is/was not available for a pre-2007 CC, but the creditor was successful at Summary Judgement without a CCA (forthwith), what else can they do to make your life a misery?

[mystery1]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

It only matters if the cca existed at inception.

Anyone who thinks you need the actual cca to prove on the balance of probability that it did exist is going to find out the hard way in court. I urge everyone to not follow the sheep and think for themselves or it will end up in tears. If you follow the sheep you'll end up as mutton on a dinner plate.

A CCJ trumps CCA unless you set aside or appeal it. You should argue before you lose, not afterwards.

M1

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

Anyone who thinks you need the actual cca to prove on the balance of probability that it did exist is going to find out the hard way in court. I urge everyone to not follow the sheep and think for themselves or it will end up in tears. If you follow the sheep you'll end up as mutton on a dinner plate.

Totally agree, we don't herd sheep into such a false illusion here either - what we do say is that the bank can produce a recon, great, but that is only of any use if there ever was an agreement. You do clarify that in your first sentence which is how we believe things to be, i.e. the CCA must have existed at inception because the bank cannot recreate a document that never existed - that's fraud!

[mystery1]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

False evidence happens. That's why you need to know roughly what is true and not and it's unlikely someone helping will know they're telling lies as they weren't there. A defendant has to have input in their own case. See Wegmuller for example.

For an example of false evidence see http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean Para 54

"

1. A similar peripheral dispute developed over the point in the script at which the question would be asked. Ms Cooke again accepted in cross-examination that the question should have been asked at the initial stage of the script when questions were being asked about the risks the customer wished to insure. She again sought to falsify her evidence in a second witness statement which Central wish to put in on this appeal. She says Central would not have asked the question at that stage because it would not at that stage have concluded that the customer was suitable for a loan or known what PPI was available in connection with the loan to be offered."

I've not heard anyone say she's in trouble which is an injustice if factual.

M1

[julian]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

For wont of a better explanation, what is a CCJ?

Is it any outcome of any court appearance that is not dismissed by the judge?

a) a claim made against you, after which you go to court and argue the toss with the judge and the claimant
b) a claim made against you, after which you go to court and argue the toss with the judge and the claimant where the claimant has not provided any documentation and the judge 'helps' you by sparing the cost of the the SJ and a later trial as they have no documentation.

Or is it any claim that results in an entry on the Trustonline records?

[julian]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

Not being a sheep, I am looking for clarity.

The 'agreement at inception ' principle does not seem to match well with the 'dispute where CCA and Ts&Cs are not provided' . Unless the creditor provides a pile of money to you without constraints there is always an agreement of sorts., but the terms of the agreement or their execution could cause it to be voided.

So is there any argument at all in the non-provision of the CCA and the Ts&Cs for a card taken before 2007? Is a CCA required for enforcement?

Is a Court Order the same as a CCJ?

[cymruambyth]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

A CCJ is the result of court action, both uncontested and defended and lost. It is a county court judgement, so it is a court order. It takes precedence as it is a legally binding judgement. The vagaries of the legal system are such that even without a legally enforceable CCA judgement can be given against you, so to try and argue this after a judgement has been ebntered will be costly and fail.

[PriorityOne]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

Not being a sheep, I am looking for clarity.

The 'agreement at inception ' principle does not seem to match well with the 'dispute where CCA and Ts&Cs are not provided' . Unless the creditor provides a pile of money to you without constraints there is always an agreement of sorts., but the terms of the agreement or their execution could cause it to be voided.

So is there any argument at all in the non-provision of the CCA and the Ts&Cs for a card taken before 2007? Is a CCA required for enforcement?

Is a Court Order the same as a CCJ?

Whether there's a CCA or not, once you are at the mercy of a Judge's decision, it becomes a lottery anyway; depending on who you get on the day. Best to stay out of court wherever possible, in my opinion.

[julian]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

So a valid CCA is NOT required for CCJ.

But is a valid pre 2007 CCA agreement required for enforcement of the CCJ? Know(legal precedent), almost positive (sometimes seen), guess.

Nice never to see court, but even death does not deter some nasty sols from picking your bones clean, believing you can get blood from a stone.

[cymruambyth]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

So a valid CCA is NOT required for CCJ. correct

But is a valid pre 2007 CCA agreement required for enforcement of the CCJ? Know(legal precedent), almost positive (sometimes seen), guess. no. You have answered your own question. If a valid CCA isn't required for a CCJ, then it isn't required for its enforcement.

Nice never to see court, but even death does not deter some nasty sols from picking your bones clean, believing you can get blood from a stone.

I have answered in red, once the CCJ is awarded, this takes precedent over anything else which is why the CCA is no longer taken in to account.

[mystery1]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

Not being a sheep, I am looking for clarity.

The 'agreement at inception ' principle does not seem to match well with the 'dispute where CCA and Ts&Cs are not provided' . Unless the creditor provides a pile of money to you without constraints there is always an agreement of sorts., but the terms of the agreement or their execution could cause it to be voided.

So is there any argument at all in the non-provision of the CCA and the Ts&Cs for a card taken before 2007? Is a CCA required for enforcement?

Is a Court Order the same as a CCJ?

Well some people confuse s127(3) and s77-79. Utterly different animals. S127(3) is irredeemably unenforceable if it applies and there are no requirements to produce a copy later. S77-79 is always temporarily unenforceable and there are copy requirements.

CCJ = county court judgement. A court order is, well, a court order.

M1

[julian]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

So where the piece of paper says

before DJ nnnn the claimant represented by x and the defendant represented by y

the court orders the defendant to pay the sum of ££££ forthwith

Is this a Court Order or a CCJ or both?

As M1's post does not indicate time, am I correct in assuming that S127(3) does not stop the claim automatically so a CCJ can be awarded. However, if it is irredeemably unenforceable, how can that erroneous CCJ be enforceable?

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

So where the piece of paper says

before DJ nnnn the claimant represented by x and the defendant represented by y

the court orders the defendant to pay the sum of ££££ forthwith

CCJ and it gives 14 days to pay but @ which time you should there and then offer instalments or you have to get it varied within that time as I remember

Is this a Court Order or a CCJ or both?

As M1's post does not indicate time, am I correct in assuming that S127(3) does not stop the claim automatically so a CCJ can be awarded. However, if it is irredeemably unenforceable, how can that erroneous CCJ be enforceable?

CCJ and it gives 14 days to pay but @ which time you should there and then offer instalments or you have to get it varied within that time as I remember

[cymruambyth]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

You have 28 days to pay, if done within this time it isn't recorded.

it is a CCJ. Not all DJs are up to speed with Consumer Credit law and they believe the claimants..... In theory what you are saying is correct but unfortunately it doesn't always work out like that. I have dealt with 2 DJs, one dismissed the case, one didn't and said that whilst I had good knowledge and argued my case well, tough!

[mystery1]

Re: Enforcement without pre 2007 CCA

So where the piece of paper says

before DJ nnnn the claimant represented by x and the defendant represented by y

the court orders the defendant to pay the sum of ££££ forthwith

Is this a Court Order or a CCJ or both?

As M1's post does not indicate time, am I correct in assuming that S127(3) does not stop the claim automatically so a CCJ can be awarded. However, if it is irredeemably unenforceable, how can that erroneous CCJ be enforceable?

It is both a judgement and an order.

Nothing stops a claim automatically, you have to argue your case. Judges, at all levels, do not know all the laws it is up to each side to present the law and evidence in such a way as to make the judge decide their own case and interpretation is correct.

Look at it this way, If s127(3) should apply, how would a Judge know if you don't tell them ? The claimant certainly won't tell them.

M1