We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Debt write-off cases to be suspended by courts, lawyer claims
Comments
-
Guess it must be the creditors that are taking court action rather than consumers trying to get a definitive answer. Any coincidence that MBNA are based in Chester?
So are M&S Financial Services.No Longer works for MBNA as of August 2010 - redundancy money will be nice though.
Proud to be a Friend of Niddy.
no idea what my nerdnumber is - i am now officially nerd 229, no idea on my debt free date0 -
So are M&S Financial Services.
I think you will find that this judgement is squarely aimed at well-known claims management companies and law firms who tell people that they can wipe off their credit card and loan debts, and then charge them £500 up front for the privilege.
Problem is, there is no basis in law for the debt to be deemed unenforceable.
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority and The Ministry of Justice have already warned consumers off these firms and are indeed investigating their practices.
This is good news for the consumers who would otherwise pay these companies an up front fee and frankly anybody who is unwilling to pay a legitimate debt out of malice as opposed to need does little service to us all.
This ruling does not affect PPI claims or indeed those Breach of Contract cases that are dealt with by the more ethical organisations recommended by this website.0 -
Mark_Davis wrote: »I think you will find that this judgement is squarely aimed at well-known claims management companies and law firms who tell people that they can wipe off their credit card and loan debts, and then charge them £500 up front for the privilege.
There hasn't been any judgement. Don't believe everything you read.
Problem is, there is no basis in law for the debt to be deemed unenforceable.
Consumer Credit Act 1974 - year gives a clue in terms of "basis", it doesn't get more established than the house of lords.
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority and The Ministry of Justice have already warned consumers off these firms and are indeed investigating their practices.
No - they have warned about misleading statements and are investigating 10 shoddy legal practices
This is good news for the consumers who would otherwise pay these companies an up front fee and frankly anybody who is unwilling to pay a legitimate debt out of malice as opposed to need does little service to us all.
This ruling does not affect PPI claims or indeed those Breach of Contract cases that are dealt with by the more ethical organisations recommended by this website.
by all means lets have a debate but lets have a meaningful one.:T0 -
common sense prevails at last..It is nice to see the value of your house going up'' Why ?
Unless you are planning to sell up and not live anywhere, I can;t see the advantage.
If you are planning to upsize the new house will cost more.
If you are planning to downsize your new house will cost more than it should
If you are trying to buy your first house its almost impossible.0 -
I am not surprised at the news...i could see it coming anyway and i was kind of expecting it. I have to agree with geoffky...common sense prevails at last!
I do feel for people who are geniunely in crisis and needed serious help - no fault of their own through agressive and bullying tactics from banks and lenders!0 -
diamondtweezer wrote: »by all means lets have a debate but lets have a meaningful one.:T
Indeed, and let it be informed and informative0 -
Maybe some people are getting confused with the Original Post and the correct legal term..... It is not Debt Write Off but in fact Unenforceability....... Two totally different things.
I think the banks have had their way for years and this judge will not win in the high court; Rankine has already paved the way for a successful appeal.
It must be MBNA because they seem to be the main culprits for issuance of dodgy CCA's for the last 20 years!
What goes round - comes round
2010 - year of the troll
Niddy - Over & Out :wave:
0 -
I have read the "leaked" document that the press release refers to. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE.The judge has asked for the implications of a stay to be considered.
The only source that has quoted anything remotely accurate on this, rather than inaccurate sensationalism, was the BBC. Who reported that the courts are looking into this for one reason, how to deal with the large number of similar cases looming. Don't believe the hype - peace.:T0 -
Brilliant idea. Borrow the money and then find away of not paying it back. Even better go bankrupt. Now theres a thought!
This issue is always likely to create controversy. It does not change the fact that the case went against the lender. So I suspect there is a little bit of smoke screeening here.
As a claims man I do not advocate looking at unenforceability as a sole head of claim. It is not a strong enough argument. On the other hand where there are destinct issues prevalent within the agreement where the borrower has been clearly "ripped off" such as in single premium PPI and the agreement happens to be unenforceable, we see it as simply another head of claim to add to our argument for compensation..I am a former Broker, former IFA and former compliance officer, for my sins.
However, I have since seen the light.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards