Unenforceable Credit Agreements

gomer · 9 March 2009 at 9:54AM

aj2703 wrote: »

That wouldn't happen as i'd make sure the paperwork was correct before i signed. Just like the banks should have.

Precisely, so why can't people make sure all the paperwork is correct when they first take out a credit agreement?

gomer · 9 March 2009 at 9:57AM

aj2703 wrote: »

It maybe. But then they have how many lawyers and various advisors at their disposal..?. A contract is a contract however you look at it. If you are nieave enough not to make sure your part of the contract is watertight. Then more fool you if you are later in a position to regret it.

Which surely includes people who take out a credit agreement & were naive enough not to make sure it was enforcable before they spent the money?

never-in-doubt · 9 March 2009 at 10:06AM

jonnyb wrote: »

I understand about cifas, but what is a "hidden" cifas record ? Hidden from which people / organisations ?

If UK26 wins, don't you think lenders will take a much tougher stance, so people will find it harder to get any credit ?

My opinion has always been that a dispute over data lies with the lender, not the CRA. The CRA does not have the power to change any of the data. If the notice of correction has not helped then what else can they do?

I noticed UK26 cited 5 different credit records in his claim; If I were a lender then I could understand 1 or maybe 2 disputes, but 5 ?

I'll watch the outcome with interest now that I know about it - thanks for highlighting the issue.

Have a look page 6 of Vanquis thread for most answers regards to hidden cifas. I can't be bothered explainin it all again!

The CRA do have the power, after all - now think about this, if they post info about you that is not correct, who would you sue for libel?

The lender? Why, all they have done is tell the cra to update their systems
The CRA? Yes - because they have a duty to ensure that the info they make publicly available is 100% accurate.

Therefore if the lender refuses to remove a default, say for example cos you did have the debt and didnt pay it, they you'd threaten the CRA to remove the data and they will say no it has to be the lender.

This is where you then use the laws to your advantage by telling the CRA to stop processing your data, they will again refuse to do this so you move on to threats surrounding their responsibility under the DPA guidelines managed by the ICO. This is where the CRA comes unstuck as they always do things wrong and in the case of UK26, you'll find it was more a case of the CRA incorrectly linking his wife to someone with similar details.

The CRA seem to think they can just carry on providing this info cos a lender told them to but that is wrong! Like me saying to you that Sutton has BO and you go posting it all over the forum, you'd be liable for libel, not me as I only told you that it was true, you were the one who wrote it and made it public.

Do you follow....?

Data Protection laws are clear, the CRA has to ensure that the info they provide must be accurate and if we query it then they must act. Obviously they hide behind the curtain saying "we only do what the lender tells us" and this is UK26's arguement, the lenders are wrong! As a result the CRA is wrong, as a result the DPA rules are wrong, so are the ICO rules that protect us.

Basically the whole system needs a shake up and to be honest, i'd say it was time to kiss bye-bye to Experian. When they go down the pan the others will follow soon enough.... When UK wins, it will open the floodgates for over 20m Brits who state that the CRA hold incorrect info about them, by the way in that instance the lender wouldnt be sued it would be the CRA as they are providing the incorrect data which is causing you pain, suffering or financial loss as a result of their actions.

Robert_Sterling_3 · 9 March 2009 at 10:17AM

I agree with everybody.

nzseries1 · 9 March 2009 at 10:49AM

I agree with nobody. Not even myself.

Whitey_McFlighty · 9 March 2009 at 10:52AM

Hi there, I wonder if anyone can help me?

I've recently come across a potential loop hole that claims to wipe out your entire credit card debt if you were issued with your card prior to 1996 (ish?)

Unfourtunately, I don't know the full details but it's something like a certain law was abolished & replaced with a new law. The service provided by the card provider prior to the change in the law has been deemed inappropriate & therefore void?

I've done a little investigation & found a few companies offering to do this procedure for you. Initial payment varies between £450-£950 (refunded if claim is unsuccessful) &, if successful, a further 25%-30% charge on the total monies redeemed!!!!!:eek:

All companies are claiming above 90% success rate & one company is claiming 100% success....too good to be true?

Obviously, I'm very wary of this. I can't find anything relating to this on Martin's site, which concerns me even more as to the validity of such extravagant claims! Have I missed something?

Nevertheless, I've discussed this with two friends of my brother who have both tried the scheme, WON, & are extremely happy!:T

Has anyone tried this scheme?
Won or lost?
Can I do it myself & save on the extortionate costs?

Any help would be really appreciated.

Whitey (Newbie!)

nzseries1 · 9 March 2009 at 11:05AM

Please see these threads, where this has been discussed extensively:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1541837
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1536759
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1542305
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1400177

But first, read this BBC story on the subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7894840.stm

You've opened up a can of worms by asking this. Please prepare yourself for an onslaught of people's personal opinions on the topic :-)

nzseries1 · 9 March 2009 at 11:07AM

Claim: Wipe out you're entire CC Debt! Answer: Too good to be true?!

I'd like to start with my opinion... "you're" means you are.
The word you want here is "your", meaning belonging to you.

orangetrader · 9 March 2009 at 11:20AM

I would suggest you do another search, there are companies out there who do not charge for the inital assessment - I found at least 2 (torston, simply claims etc...). Think very carefully about handing over money to a company who insists on money upfront to do a check. The reputable ones will do a free assessment and then offer their service on a 100% refund basis if they can't get the debt written off (also watch out for companies who offer refund but will then deduct an "admin" charge - read the small print!) Aside from that, yes in some cases the debt can be written off due to non-compliance of the consumer credit act. Are the figures quoted by some of these companies accurate? that remains to be seen.

Whitey_McFlighty · 9 March 2009 at 11:26AM

Many thanks, I wasn't expecting a grammar lesson (or is that gramma?) but an added bonus!

A company has carried out a free assessment & my case has come up as 'A' which I understand means I'm in with a shout. The figures

Unenforceable Credit Agreements

Comments

Categories

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