CONSUMER CREDIT ACTS
Part 2
Examination of Modern Acts that Relate to Consumer Affairs
by Rev David P Griffiths PhD DD
It is important to understand the context of this examination so please read our Introduction in Part 1.
This examination is on the following Acts of Parliament:
1) Administration of Justice Act 1970
2) Consumer Credit Act 1974
3) Protection from Harassment Act 1997
4) Consumer Credit Act 2006
There will be reference to legal practice in relation to Perverting the Course of Justice and in the keeping and honouring of our Protestant Constitutional Acts that are featured on this website.
1) Administration of Justice Act 1970
Under Part V of this administration, Section 40 shows that an offence is committed if one harasses a person with demand for payment if that harassment is calculated to subject the individual or his/her family to alarm, distress or humiliation.
As you will see from the individual cases shown on this website, we put forward we have experienced this while we have been in the process of taking a banking institution to court. Our presentation of harassment is one we ask the nation to consider. We understand the importance of prompt bill paying. What we do not understand is continued harassment particularly early morning when one is either resting or getting the house ready for the day on an account in dispute.
We believe we have experienced calculated harassment that has continued despite of our pleading of a case on its way to court, the calculation we believe being to grind you down.
2) Consumer Credit Act 1974
To be compliant with the 1974 Act lenders must fulfil administrative procedures laid out in Sections 62 & 63. There is clear obligation to keep the paperwork to a given criteria as indeed section 86b relates to notices that have to be given.
Section 88 relates to "default notices" that have to specify the nature of an alleged breach.
All this is crucial in relation to cases presented on this site. Great Britain's law has traditionally been one that embraces the principle of being innocent before one is proven guilty in a Court of Law.
From the cases presented on this site we can show that banking institutions have in our view not practiced the principle presented in the 1974 act which refers to an "alleged" breach rather than an actual. What right therefore has a banking institution got in "defaulting" a client who is taking the institution to court to have a judgment on the validity of the account?
This is surely deciding guilt thus pre-empting a court hearing. We believe we are presenting on this site operations of banking institutions breaking not only modern law but hitting at the heart of a legal system that has always used the principles of Habeas Corpus.
We have one particular case presented on this site that relates to an unfair contract, Section 137 of this act allowing a Court to re-open the credit agreement to do justice between the parties.
We believe this to be particularly important for all those who had unfair contracts imposed where all the advantage is given to one side, the application of law in these incidences being one of the letter rather than the spirit. This comes against the constitutional injunction to apply law with "law and justice in mercy." Apply law this way most certainly does not seem to have been the case with First Plus whose agreements we expose on this site.
We certainly would welcome open court to bring a sensible arrangement but what has to be remembered is the excessive pressure being placed on people by a company that advertised "Life is For Living"!
Sub section (2) relates "credit agreements" to meaning any agreement.
Section 159 gives rights to the individual when it come to false entries on credit files. What is strange in cases presented on this site is the insistence of banking institutions saying how they must keep to their processes of operation. It is as if they are programmed to default anyone at certain time whatever the circumstances of the case.
We put forward that in criminal law a court has to decide whether an individual has a criminal record. This occurs after that individual is found guilty by a court. Under the law of banking institutions it would seem that even when they are being taken to court they can in effect black list an individual for non-payment even when that payment is being held back whilst waiting for a court hearing on an account. We declare this practice to be unconstitutional, there being three options in the 1974 Act for the Credit Reference Agency to adopt.
1) Remove the entry from the file;
2) Amend the entry or
3) Take no action
Declaring defaults on disputed accounts on their way to court we present as illegal.
3) Protection from Harassment Act 1997
This act prohibits harassment of another and we have proof of continued harassment of banking institutions against us at a time when we were taking them to court.
We believe Section 1, sub section 1 of this act can be applied to banking institutions who seemed to be determined to get their own way whatever the cost.
There is an allowance in the act for the victim to take civil proceedings against those causing the harassments and we hold detailed logs of such harassment from banking institutions.
4) Consumer Credit Act 2006
This Act removed the financial limit for the regulation of consumer credit in Section 2, part 16. Section 7 relates to the giving of statements whilst Section 8 puts an onus on the OFT to prepare information sheets on arrears and defaults that give debt management options.
Section 15 refers to the enforceability of regulated agreements, the 1974 act giving discretion on courts whether to enforce an agreement. There is a reference in the 2006 act to the 1974 act Section 127 (3) and (20) to the provision given to a court not to make an enforcement order on a consumer credit or hire agreement.
Section 127(3) of the 1974 act relates to agreements that needed to be signed in a prescribed manner to enable an agreement to be enforceable. It is clear from cases we are presenting on this site that the banking institutions in question were not able to show to solicitors signed documents set out in the prescribed manner of the 1974 act and whilst this was being ascertained the very same banking institutions took enforcement act action against us, individuals who were holding out to see if the institutions could produce such evidence.
We see the enforcement action of the institutions against us at a time when this was going through the legal processes as being illegal.
The 2006 Act also deals with the issue of unfair deals, a court being able to decide whether the relationship of the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement is fair. We believe in the First Plus case the original "agreement" that bears no relation as to how the product was sold is so weighted towards First Plus that the agreement is designed to go on forever!
Section 46 particularly deals with unfairness with a very important statement:
A relationship may be unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following:
+ any of the terms of the agreement or any related agreement;
+ the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;
+ any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (whether occurring before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement.)
The part written in a bold font here is particularly interesting as this relates to the way the law is applied and this is highly correct constitutionally.
We believe that we on this site are presenting enforcement actions that are illegal both by Constitutional and Modern law.
5) Other Related Acts
www.inbrief.co.uk gives an answer to the question, What is perverting the course of justice?
Perverting the course of justice is an English common law crime involving one of a number of actions which are designed to interfere with the administration of justice.......
In order to pervert the course of justice any one of three acts may be carried out: These are:
i) Intimidating or threatening a case witness or juror.
As regards to the cases presented on this site, there clearly has been intimidation against an individual taking an institution to a court hearing. The In Brief website defines intimidation as making threats to harm someone, acts to harm them, physical and financial harm .... etc.
We certainly endured serious intimidation in the cases we present that included threats of financial harm. In the case of MBNA I was told simply that they always win in court. Well, that is no excuse for intimidating an individual taking them to court for a hearing. It was to be the decision of the Judge in this individual case that was to count, and this form of intimidation to back off we present as illegal. We believe this was an example of attempting to pervert the course of justice by intimidating us to back off. Instead we have got stronger!
ii) Intimidating or threatening a judge.
iii) Disposing of or fabricating of evidence.
We also see that the act of changing identity to harass an individual taking another to court as being another example of "Perverting the Course of Justice".
www.thisismoney.co.uk website had a post dated 04 01 08 that related to Mercers Debt Collection Agency. We had the misfortune too in dealing with this agency that the poster declares belongs to Barclaycard. Barclaycard is one of the institutions that really went for us whilst we were on the road to taking them to court.
One of their methods of harassment was to use Mercers with continuous harassment and we believe if it can be proven that Mercers does belongs to Barclays then they will have in effect changed their identity towards a person taking them to court.
This whole system of banking has miserably failed over many years. It is time to return to the local bank manager who knows you, your family as is part of a local community.
The present system simply dhas not worked and we need to return to British law and not allow infiltration in our way of life from European and Global legal systems.
