www.ruinedbynatwest.com

                       SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Have you seen the plethora of TV and tabloid adverts in the UK that commence along the lines, "Fed up juggling all those monthly credit card and small loans' bills? Do you need additional cash? .....Then why not take out a new secured consolidation loan, halve those painful monthly outgoings and treat yourself to that new car/kitchen/holiday or whatever else that you've been promising yourself............."

If you have, or if you have entered into any such agreement which both refinanced existing borrowings and which also provided an additional credit, you may well find the following of interest because the ruling in the above case has diminished your legal rights as provided by the Consumer Credit Act (1974) ("The Act"), described in its 'blurb' as "An Enactment for the Protection of Debtors". The majority of existing loans  refinanced within such consolidation agreements are regulated (protected) by the Act, and remain regulated by the Act when refinanced by or within any new agreement, but for the decision in this immediate case. Where such new loans are secured against the family home, thousands who fall into difficulty are therefore now set to lose their home following the ruling in this case. The Court of Appeal has brought about the exact opposite to Parliament's intention where it is now the Credit Trader who is protected in the situation where the non-documentation of Consumer Credit Agreements features in similar fact cases.

In one swoop, the Court of Appeal has taken away Parliament's requirement for that which the Office of Fair Trading call "truth in lending", ie the documentation of contractual terms that both effect and affect loans which Section 8 of the 1974 Act define as  'Consumer Credit Agreements' (or Regulated Agreements). Consequently :-

Following the ruling in National Westminster Bank PLC- V- Story & Pallister, many Billions of GB Pounds' Sterling (estimated by Consumer Credit Agencies at about 200 - 300 billions, but probably considerably more) are now subsequently further secured for the Credit Industry, free of similar legal challenges based upon the Consumer Credit Act which demands the documentation of contractual terms that affect protected agreements regulated by the Act. The effect of the ruling, in practical terms is that similar, formerly protected, agreements are now capable of being legally rated as so-called 'Triple-A' rated (money-market  tradeable), securities on the loan books of the Debt Consolidation Industry in the UK.

However, as parties to the dispute, the Defendants here strive to have the decision reopened because, notwithstanding the ruling in Natwest V Story & Pallister, the Act provides a perfect defence to a claim brought by a credit trader in the situation where the non documentation of refinancing terms that affect existing regulated agreements features in similar cases.  However, here the Court found no reliable evidence as to the refinancing terms that were agreed, because the refinancing terms were not documented by the Bank as required by the Act.  A "Catch- 22" situation  passes into UK case law; an absurd decision, defying logic, is now binding on the lower Courts.

In reality, contrary to the Court's ruling, such consolidation Agreements are defined by Section 18 of the 1974 Act as "Multiple Agreements" because the existing agreements to be refinanced are already regulated by Section 8 of the Act;  ie the Section directs the Court to hold that the replacement Agreement is to remain a protected agreement because the agreements being refinanced are themselves regulated by the Act. In short, the Court is shown, beyond reasonable doubt, (ie the criminal standard), to act unlawfully because Section 173 of the Act forbids "contracting-out" of the Act's formalities and the Rule of Law provides that the provision is to apply to a ruling of the Court in exactly the same manner as it is to apply to the contracting parties.

The true basis of this case is significant because the Court is forbidden by the Bill of Rights Act (1689) to defeat Primary Legislation enacted by Parliament within our Democratic Process ("The Rule of Law"). Whereas the Judges are appointed by Royal Decree ie, they are not elected, the terms of the Judicial Oath requires each Judge to formally declare allegiance to the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. The Authorities therefore strive to reassure us at every available opportunity that The Common Law can never be allowed to defeat the Statute. Here, however, the Judges have done exactly that; Section 8 of the Act ["Regulated Agreements"] shows to the criminal burden of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt") that the Judgment is seen to favour the Credit Industry over our family, the general Consumer and the Rule of Law itself, because 3 existing Regulated Agreements were here "replaced" by a new Multiple Agreement as defined by Section 18.

In National Westminster Bank PLC V Story & Pallister, the Court of Appeal has  created a strong division within the legal community, because the Court ignores and now (when formally asked to reopen), refuses to formally determine that the protection afforded by Section 8 of the 1974 Act to the existing agreements is to remain. Indeed, the Court has never formally ruled on the Section 8 point, and, although the bank's Leading Counsel, Mr Andrew Smith QC admitted the point in the High Court, (the Judge had to ask him 3 times before he red-facedly affirmed the point), the Section 8 point never saw the light of day in either the High Court's Judgment, or indeed in the Judgment of the Court of Appeal. Deeming the Section 8 point as "significant", the Act's draftsman, Mr Francis Bennion, has spoken out against the ruling (follow the link below).

Now an old case, Natwest V Story & Pallister remains the leading case regarding this important area of moneylending law. The Court's Common Law reasoning has created division within the legal community because the Rule of Law demands clarity and certainty in law; the effect of Section 8 in this case, ignored by the Court, is determinative. The Court is well aware of this............ 

The line up of critics against the ruling is formidable - for example, the Parliamentary Draftsman who wrote the Act, Mr Francis Bennion, (who also wrote The Sex Discrimination Act and very, very, much else), has openly declared that the Court's decision here is "wholly mistaken" and "incorrect", yet the Court has flatly refused to publicly and objectively determine his detailed and informed criticisms of the Judgment, "..certain obiter dicta.." within which Mr Bennion opines,  "show an uncertain Judicial grasp" of the intended working of this Primary Legislation.

(http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) http://www.francisbennion.com/doc/fb/1999/029/addendumtomultiagreements.htm#pt2) 

Watch this space:-  

Further applications to the Court(s) to reopen the case are in the pipeline.

Please register your support (or otherwise) ! (email address below).  Responses may well be posted.

The First Defendant, Anthony John Story, I am a former Principal Lecturer with International Computers Ltd;  My father, Anthony Walter Story, was a highly respected police forensic detective who eg served under Commander Leonard ("Nipper") Read on the hand-picked team of about 20 specialist officers that investigated, apprehended and successfully convicted the infamous Kray brothers. Affectionately known as "Anf" by his colleagues, (radio call sign "Charlie Sierra 33"), Tony Story gave evidence before Sir Melford Stevenson at their Old Bailey trial. I mention this family history only because it was my father, when told of the threats, unpleasantness and general delay of Natwest, who alerted me to the influence and power that could well feature in this case, "Big 'uns only threaten when frightened, Lad - they've been caught, red-handed". "It's in the paperwork, or rather, the lack of it".

His view was shockingly endorsed by Mr Peter Smith QC (a Consumer Credit Expert) who told me, in front of my solicitor, Philip Siddons, and Junior Counsel, Mr Nigel Burroughs, a week before the trial at first instance (Bristol Mercantile Court) in May 1997, "It's all about Money - a lot of Money", and his considered advice to us all was that the Court would find for the Bank because, "A ruling against the bank could prove potentially disastrous for Natwest". "The Judge will fudge". "Truth and Justice will be early casualties in this case". He was referring to His Honour Judge Raymond Jack QC of the Bristol Mercantile Court, who was similarly aware that the OFT and Bank of England awaited his decision before being empowered to instigate investigations to determine the extent of the practice at Natwest. We had supplied the Court with evidence that the bank branch involved (Street, Somerset) operated a policy of non-documentation essentially because Head Office instructions were at fault - it was rejected by HHJ Jack QC. Mr peter Smith QC is now a High Court Judge himself.

Needless to say, the terms of the bank's Consumer Credit Licence required the bank to both recognise Regulated Agreements and to comply with the Act, generally  - it must be said that the bank's ruthless determination toward our family, the Court and the Rule of Law tells all...............................

We submit that Section 8 of the 1974 Act shows the truth of this case; that our family, the general Consumer and the Rule of Law itself have all suffered a terrible Injustice at the hands of the Court of Appeal and a powerful and determined bank.

Ruinedbynatwest,

Anthony John Story