West 28th Street Limited

[shampoo]

I meant everyone seemingly involved, no one actually seems to have a clue what is right what is wrong, what is legal what is not, what is a CCA, what is a loan and what isn't. Somewhere out there is the truth I think the problem all round is there is no legal precedence or legal procedure. As I said no sod anywhere seems to have anything better than really good advice and documentation.

You’re right … its complex as it involves multiple jurisdictions and multiple entities and the law hasn’t been fully tested in those exact locations.

But its been conceded as it stands that the loans are unenforceable and require FCA approval and approval from a court … which according to whopper street they’re going to try and achieve.

What it has bought is another ~12 months whilst all that plays out … my guess is that this will fizzle out if people refuse to pay voluntarily as it requires significant cash flow to keep the show on the road.

Judging by W28th accounts I’m not sure the cash flow exists … all theoretical of course.

 

[Wtaf]

Thanks. I called them and they said 6 years max because of GDPR

Someone at your bank doesn't know what they are talking about. You can view 6 years yourself online but you'll have to call or go into the bank to request older statements which they will need to print off and mail out to you. I got all mine very recently.

 

[lillybean]

Question...If FCA validation were ultimately refused in respect of alleged agreements, what alternative causes of action, if any, could West 28th Street realistically pursue to recover the alleged principal outside enforcement of the credit agreements? Feels like we need to stay one step ahead of these MFs.

Also... what do we think are the numbers of folks being targeted, I imagine there are many folks who are not aware of this forum, nor part of any legal groups. I can only imagine the despair these folks must be feeling and likely easy targets.

 

[coveredname]

If I were advising West 28th after the FCA statement, I’d be telling them that pushing on is going to be costly and a bad bet.

Look at the sums. On claims of this size, issue and hearing fees alone come to roughly £800 a claim. On the small claims track, the winner gets back very little of its legal costs. So every claim that’s defended costs them money, win or lose.

Then there’s the FCA. It has said publicly that its agreement to validation is “by no means guaranteed”, and that if validation is needed and refused, “the debt would remain unenforceable”. If a court decides validation is needed, a claim can’t succeed without it. Any lender, and any funder behind them, has to price that in.

And it only works if people pay voluntarily. The more people who calmly dispute in writing and don’t pay, the worse the economics get.

All just my opinion, of course.

 

[shampoo]

Question...If FCA validation were ultimately refused in respect of alleged agreements, what alternative causes of action, if any, could West 28th Street realistically pursue to recover the alleged principal outside enforcement of the credit agreements? Feels like we need to stay one step ahead of these MFs.

They would remain unenforceable … they do get an opportunity to appeal if it doesn’t initially go their way.

That’s step 1

They would still need to get through step 2 at court.

 

[coveredname]

Question...If FCA validation were ultimately refused in respect of alleged agreements, what alternative causes of action, if any, could West 28th Street realistically pursue to recover the alleged principal outside enforcement of the credit agreements? Feels like we need to stay one step ahead of these MFs.

Probably best not to brainstorm their options in public. We know who reads this thread.

Short answer: courts are generally unwilling to let a lender recover by the back door what statute has made unenforceable. See Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384. The real fight is more likely to be over whether validation is needed at all.

Anyone wanting more detail should take advice privately.

 

[WJK]

Someone at your bank doesn't know what they are talking about. You can view 6 years yourself online but you'll have to call or go into the bank to request older statements which they will need to print off and mail out to you. I got all mine very recently.

I have all my bank statements going back to 2013 so it’s doable.

 

[eek]

Probably best not to brainstorm their options in public. We know who reads this thread.

Short answer: courts are generally unwilling to let a lender recover by the back door what statute has made unenforceable. See Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384. The real fight is more likely to be over whether validation is needed at all.

Anyone wanting more detail should take advice privately.

Says someone who clearly has more spare money than a lot of people posting here.

 

[Wtaf]

Question...If FCA validation were ultimately refused in respect of alleged agreements, what alternative causes of action, if any, could West 28th Street realistically pursue to recover the alleged principal outside enforcement of the credit agreements? Feels like we need to stay one step ahead of these MFs.

Also... what do we think are the numbers of folks being targeted, I imagine there are many folks who are not aware of this forum, nor part of any legal groups. I can only imagine the despair these folks must be feeling and likely easy targets.

When you google West 28th it soon brings you to this forum.

 

[coveredname]

Says someone who clearly has more spare money than a lot of people posting here.

Fair point, and not what I meant. I wasn’t suggesting anyone pays a solicitor. Plenty of people won’t have the money, and the sums often don’t justify it.

I meant: don’t post your own specifics here and inadvertently help the other side. Free routes exist. Citizens Advice, LCAG, and legal helplines that come with union or professional body membership or home insurance are all worth checking.