Banks win partial High Court victory on credit cards

EarthBoy · 31 December 2009 at 2:37PM

Exactly how old are you? You sound like a schoolboy having a tantrum because he can't get his own way.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

.. You started with 'which some of the people trying to wangle out of their debts were claiming' - but now you're saying CMC's?

The people trying to wangle out of their debts and the claims companies are effectively the same thing. They are trying to evade their debts whether they do it themselves, or whether they have the companies do it for them.

oscar52 · 31 December 2009 at 2:45PM

I very much doubt any [STRIKE]reputable[/STRIKE] credit card compnay wil want to go down the road of "if you used it without sigining an agreement its fraud". - They were happy to take payments prior to taking advantage and whacking the interest rates up. ''

If they took payments and were aware that an agreement was not in place (and the cardholder was commiting fraud) does that not make the CC company an "accessory to defraud a company"?

Also Earthboy, while I agree some people are trying to wriggle out of debts (and I dont want to go down that road - there are other threads) some are just attempting to get a fairer deal.

PS
If you cant beat the companies - join them. Anyone that posts below me agrees to pay me the sum of £35. This will inevitably (sp?) leadto a further charge of £35 for "unarranged borrowing"

smifff_2 · 31 December 2009 at 3:53PM

oscar52 wrote: »

I very much doubt any [STRIKE]reputable[/STRIKE] credit card compnay wil want to go down the road of "if you used it without sigining an agreement its fraud". - They were happy to take payments prior to taking advantage and whacking the interest rates up. ''

If they took payments and were aware that an agreement was not in place (and the cardholder was commiting fraud) does that not make the CC company an "accessory to defraud a company"?

Also Earthboy, while I agree some people are trying to wriggle out of debts (and I dont want to go down that road - there are other threads) some are just attempting to get a fairer deal.

PS
If you cant beat the companies - join them. Anyone that posts below me agrees to pay me the sum of £35. This will inevitably (sp?) leadto a further charge of £35 for "unarranged borrowing"

Dear Oscar52,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

I hereby formally request a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement, pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to any account you deem to be mine, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide. I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit (12 + 2 days). You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request; the provisions of s.77 will apply.

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties. Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

Attached is payment in the sum of £1.00, which is the statutory fee - Note that these funds are not to be used for any other purpose.

If you are unable to comply fully and properly with this request, you should confirm this in writing at the earliest opportunity, and certainly within the statutory time limit for compliance, and return the fee and then remove the incorrect entry from your systems.

I do, expect the main actions to be dealt with, as matter of course, and look forward to hearing from you within the prescribed timescales quoted.

Yours faithfully
Smifff

never-in-doubt · 31 December 2009 at 4:08PM

EarthBoy wrote: »

Exactly how old are you? You sound like a schoolboy having a tantrum because he can't get his own way.

Eh? I am correcting your mis-advice. Age has nothing to do with it, knowledge does on the other hand

EarthBoy wrote: »

The people trying to wangle out of their debts and the claims companies are effectively the same thing. They are trying to evade their debts whether they do it themselves, or whether they have the companies do it for them.

No they are not the same thing, the CMC's are doing it to profiteer using a debtor against a lender whilst the debtor that want's a freebie (i.e. the won't payers) are trying to use whatever means necessary to avoid repayment.

Now fraud, as you put it, would be valid in the case of someone applying for credit using false details OR in order to benefit themselves (i.e. deceiptful pretence). Using and making repayments to an account for a sustained period, then trying to 'find a way' not to pay would not classify as fraud.

At the end of the day you're now twisting things - you never once mentioned (in your OP) what you now claim to be stating therefore have realised i've corrected you and instead of saying, ok - you have turned defensive.

Giving incorrect advice in this matter could have grave consequences for someone - if you're unsure of the facts then it'd be best not to post your 'incorrect opinion'.

I think it is you having the 'tantrum' because you've been corrected. Instead of biting, simply look at where I spend most my time and the other 2 posters here (Brock/Fermi) and you'll see that collectively we do understand this judgement. There was no need to turn this personal, you could have simply left it as was.

EarthBoy · 31 December 2009 at 6:50PM

Your words are so much waffle. Have you really got a point to make, or do you just want to shout me down?

The debtors don't want to pay and the CMCs are encouraging them, so, to all intents and purposes, they are the same.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

At the end of the day you're now twisting things - you never once mentioned (in your OP) what you now claim to be stating therefore have realised i've corrected you and instead of saying, ok - you have turned defensive.
.

What are you blabbering on about here? What am I supposed to have twisted, and what is it that I'm now claiming that I never mentioned before?

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Giving incorrect advice in this matter could have grave consequences for someone - if you're unsure of the facts then it'd be best not to post your 'incorrect opinion'.
.

I quite agree, so stop doing it.

never-in-doubt · 31 December 2009 at 8:30PM

EarthBoy wrote: »

I quite agree, so stop doing it.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

adrianelliott · 31 December 2009 at 10:12PM

So lets suppose you had a an agreement with a lender, and they sent a 'reconstituted' copy which did not contain the prescribed terms. Does this mean there is still a good chance of the debt being unenforceable?

To me it looks like this judgement is going to put pressure on lenders to cheat and stick extra words in which weren't in the original copy.

Could be interesting to see how this develops. I can see a lender mass forging loads of agreements, and then getting caught out by someone who had the foresight to hold an original copy. I wonder what would happen to the lender in such circumstances?

Or have I got this all wrong?

1984ReturnsForReal_2 · 31 December 2009 at 11:07PM

adrianelliott wrote: »

To me it looks like this judgement is going to put pressure on lenders to cheat and stick extra words in which weren't in the original copy.

Could be interesting to see how this develops. I can see a lender mass forging loads of agreements, and then getting caught out by someone who had the foresight to hold an original copy. I wonder what would happen to the lender in such circumstances?

Or have I got this all wrong?

If they do that they will go to jail.

never-in-doubt · 1 January 2010 at 4:05AM

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

If they do that they will go to jail.

They do it daily and don't go to jail - we already know the courts bend over and take it raw from the lenders - maybe the old boy network means they still take back-handers

fermi · 1 January 2010 at 7:31AM

adrianelliott wrote: »

To me it looks like this judgement is going to put pressure on lenders to cheat and stick extra words in which weren't in the original copy.

Could be interesting to see how this develops. I can see a lender mass forging loads of agreements, and then getting caught out by someone who had the foresight to hold an original copy. I wonder what would happen to the lender in such circumstances?

They have already been at it for years.:rolleyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/feb/02/banks.consumeraffairs

^^^^ Re-constituted documents nothing like the original, and different even in type of loan and essential terms.

Banks win partial High Court victory on credit cards

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free