Comments on: A charge for credit http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/ Housing law news and comment Wed, 23 May 2012 13:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: NLhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-4175 NL Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:31:48 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-4175 The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal judgment. http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0217_Judgment.pdf Our note to follow. The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal judgment.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0217_Judgment.pdf

Our note to follow.

]]> By: NLhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-4157 NL Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:54:12 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-4157 Thanks Jonathan. Thanks Jonathan.

]]> By: Jonathanhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-4156 Jonathan Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:45:18 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-4156 Hey folks it's D-Day tomorrow.The SC are handing down judgment at 12.30pm apparently. Hope you've got your CCA agreements at the ready!!! Hey folks it’s D-Day tomorrow.The SC are handing down judgment at 12.30pm apparently.

Hope you’ve got your CCA agreements at the ready!!!

]]> By: chiefhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-3656 chief Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:08:40 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-3656 I've now seen the Easter term list and Jonathan was right about that too - 13th May with a panel comprising Walker, Brown, Mance, Clarke & Sir John Dyson SCJ. I believe that abbreviation should be pronounced "skudge". I’ve now seen the Easter term list and Jonathan was right about that too – 13th May with a panel comprising Walker, Brown, Mance, Clarke & Sir John Dyson SCJ. I believe that abbreviation should be pronounced “skudge”.

]]> By: chiefhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-3609 chief Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:26:48 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-3609 Just to confirm what Jonathan says above, the Supreme Court has now given permission to appeal in this case, although I don't know anything about the timetabling. Just to confirm what Jonathan says above, the Supreme Court has now given permission to appeal in this case, although I don’t know anything about the timetabling.

]]> By: simply wonderedhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-3591 simply wondered Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:31:08 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-3591 the key relevance of cca regulated agreements in housing cases is that the court has rather more leeway than under ss36/8 of the 2 aja's. in cca cases the court has discretion to change elements of the contractual agreement (eg interest rate) and make time orders which are not open to it in non-cca regulated mortgage agreements. rather more use if you are representing a defaulting mortgagor. but this is probably a granny-directed egg-sucking class; so apologies. the key relevance of cca regulated agreements in housing cases is that the court has rather more leeway than under ss36/8 of the 2 aja’s. in cca cases the court has discretion to change elements of the contractual agreement (eg interest rate) and make time orders which are not open to it in non-cca regulated mortgage agreements. rather more use if you are representing a defaulting mortgagor.
but this is probably a granny-directed egg-sucking class; so apologies.

]]> By: Jonathanhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-3589 Jonathan Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:02:15 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-3589 Apparently the Walkers have got permission to appeal and it's going ahead on 13th May 2010 so watch this space Apparently the Walkers have got permission to appeal and it’s going ahead on 13th May 2010 so watch this space

]]> By: Jhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-266 J Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:21:25 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-266 The ICLR have a list of permission decisions. I couldn't see it on there. http://www.ukscblog.com/article.asp?id=504 The ICLR have a list of permission decisions. I couldn’t see it on there.

http://www.ukscblog.com/article.asp?id=504

]]> By: Jonathanhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-265 Jonathan Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:42:23 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-265 Does anyone know whether the Walkers have leave to appeal to the Supreme Court? I have a case in the Liverpool County Court currently stayed. thanks Does anyone know whether the Walkers have leave to appeal to the Supreme Court?

I have a case in the Liverpool County Court currently stayed.

thanks

]]> By: interestedhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/a-charge-for-credit/#comment-264 interested Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:06:25 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3650#comment-264 Your 'spirit of debate' is clear - censor contributions and delete them if you dont like them !!! With the greatst respect, I dont believe, at your 3rd para, that you have understood what I have said in my last 'deleted' note - it is mathematically and legalistically 'impossible to charge interst on a charge' - I am stressing this point as a general note rather than in defence of Walker. I do agree that the Judges got the s9(4) issue right - it is the easiest section in the ACT to understand. I am saying that 'statute' (the regulations)was not considered at all by the Court in this case. This judgment now means that all lenders that have not charged interest on charges in the past now effectively can - against the spirit of the ACT and in contravention of the Regulations. Your ‘spirit of debate’ is clear – censor contributions and delete them if you dont like them !!!

With the greatst respect, I dont believe, at your 3rd para, that you have understood what I have said in my last ‘deleted’ note – it is mathematically and legalistically ‘impossible to charge interst on a charge’ – I am stressing this point as a general note rather than in defence of Walker.

I do agree that the Judges got the s9(4) issue right – it is the easiest section in the ACT to understand. I am saying that ‘statute’ (the regulations)was not considered at all by the Court in this case. This judgment now means that all lenders that have not charged interest on charges in the past now effectively can – against the spirit of the ACT and in contravention of the Regulations.

]]>