I have un-enforceable loan - but company say they will default me, if I stop paying?

lclclclc

I have a loan, which is unenforceable. I did a Subject Access Request for my CCA, and NatWest replied firstly with just a list of payments due to be made for the rest of the loan, the amount I took out, the date. But, NO APR, NO PPI amounts etc. I wrote back to say that this was unacceptable, and that I wish to see a signed copy of my credit agreement, with all of these details. They then write back to tell me that they have "misfiled and cannot locate my credit agreement". I write back, using templates provided on this website, and some others, informing them that I am refusing to pay this loan anymore,I want a full refund of any amounts paid to date and to return my account back to zero. I receive a letter from them on xmas eve?!, to inform me that under s.77 (4) of CCA, that they would be unable to take steps to recover the debt via court, they would register me as a default with the credit reference agencies.

Can anyone offer me some advice. I have sent a mail to Experian to check whether NatWest are legally able to default me on agreement which is legally unenforceable? I have opened a new bank account with another bank, and I am prepared to not make another payment on this loan - why should I..

Should I raise this matter to FOS, should I speak to CCCS, or my local CAB- or should I speak to a solicitor to take the matter up on my behalf ? I am hesitant to do this, because I have as come as far as this stage, with the help of some of the very helpful people on this website, and my own determination and persistence in writing letters and making phone calls.

any advice appreciated.

petermb_2

Firstly if the loan is unenforceable, then the lender is not entitled to to default you on your credit file. If there is single premium PPI on the account there are other issues where the loan can be challenged. If the lender is agreeing that they cannot enforce the payments and that is what it appears they are doing then the rest is just bluff, hopefully to force you to pay.

ALIBOBSY

There has been alot of debate around this on another site I go on.
Having read the actual legislation it is clear the default is supposed to be a precursor to court action. It was a way of noting the file early that a CCJ was likely to appear against that debt. It was always intended to be a short term thing and should never have become something that ends up on your file for 6 yrs. The banks have systematically abused this and still insist on adding defaults and refusing to remove them even when they have admitted that a debt is unenforcable and they repeatedly refuse to take it to court.
Please remember though the debt doesn't disappear it just becomes unenforcable it still is there and they can write and ask for it, but you can point out its unenforcability etc as you have.

You could and probably should complain to them about this and yes you can forward that eventually to the FOS and perhaps the DP commisioner. I saw people on the other forum get defaults removed by complaining in all three ways, but some companies on some debts just refused to budge and the FOS seem to be coming down on their side more and more.
Others got removal as part of a reduced full and final agreement, the banks seeming to cut their losses. Others took it to court, but you would have to ask the judge to rule on the contract then ask for removal of the default at the same time.

First step is to write back to them pointing out the issues regarding the default and see what they say.

good luck

ali x

iolanthe07

You can understand the bank's point of view, though, can't you? They have lent money in good faith, expecting it to be paid back, and then borrowers find a way of reneging on the deal. I don't have much time for banks as a rule, but I do think people should repay what they've borrowed, even if they have to reschedule the debt because of personal circumstances.

booi666

iolanthe07 wrote: »

You can understand the bank's point of view, though, can't you? They have lent money in good faith,


can the banks prove that they leant you THEIR money though thats my question!!!!!!!!!!!!

enjoyincubus

iolanthe07 wrote: »

You can understand the bank's point of view, though, can't you? They have lent money in good faith, expecting it to be paid back, and then borrowers find a way of reneging on the deal. I don't have much time for banks as a rule, but I do think people should repay what they've borrowed, even if they have to reschedule the debt because of personal circumstances.

I share the same opinion really. Whilst I strongly believe people shouldn't be mis-sold or unfairly taken advantage of, I just worry that if people start getting out of loans on technicalities, that someone will have to pay somewhere along the line.

On the other hand, if a bank doesn't have its own house in order and doesn't keep adequate records or legally correct credit agreements, then that is ultimately their problem not ours.... hmmm tricky one really.

lclclclc

Thank you for the posts, both the encouraging & not so encouraging ones. I'm not really asking for someone to pass judgement on me. I have fought long and hard with the bank concerned,and in the 15 years I have been with them, I have experienced some awful levels of customer service. The action I am taking is the last thing I want to do, but I feel compelled to stand up for myself against this massive corporation. I reduced a massive overdraft i had with them, down to almost nothing.. now I was incredulously told by someone in their call centre, and even someone in their branch, I would have been better off keeping a large overdraft ?!!! my profile on their systems has actually worsened, all because i decided I wanted to be responsible, and have less debt. Banks should be responsible, and be encouraging people to de-leverage themselves given the current financial environment...

Corporations like the one I am fighting against, allow for liabilities such as bad debt every year, they insure themselves against claims such as this,and bank charge reclaims such as this...I understand that some people will say, its the rest of us ( customers of ABC/YYZ bank,that will end up having to pay for this.. but the fact is, that it will never really permeate down to the rest of the customers, because like I have said above, they allow for bad debts in their accounts, and insure themselves with Lloyds of London etc for such things. If anything, this is a positive thing for us consumers.. it'll make the banks, sit up, take notice, and get their houses in order.

jonesMUFCforever

booi666 wrote: »

iolanthe07 wrote: »

You can understand the bank's point of view, though, can't you? They have lent money in good faith,


can the banks prove that they leant you THEIR money though thats my question!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have thought that the credit to your account would have been a little bit of a giveaway!

enjoyincubus

lclclclc wrote: »

Corporations like the one I am fighting against, allow for liabilities such as bad debt every year, they insure themselves against claims such as this,and bank charge reclaims such as this...I understand that some people will say, its the rest of us ( customers of ABC/YYZ bank,that will end up having to pay for this.. but the fact is, that it will never really permeate down to the rest of the customers, because like I have said above, they allow for bad debts in their accounts, and insure themselves with Lloyds of London etc for such things. If anything, this is a positive thing for us consumers.. it'll make the banks, sit up, take notice, and get their houses in order.

Firstly, there is no insurance available to a bank or other lender for non-paying customer that I am aware of. My experience is of risk management, not treasury, but it is not something I have heard of. If banks had insurance for non-paying customers, why would they bother chasing the debt so much? The last resort I am aware of is to sell the arrears to a debt recovery agency, not claiming on the insurance.

Secondly it is true that banks do allow for bad debt each year (its called provisioning). Like all businesses, banks aim to make a profit so this coverage for bad debt has to come from somewhere. Last time I checked, this was from their customers.

APR's have been increasing over the last 12 months for two reasons:

1) Rising cost of funds (i.e. the amount banks pay to lend money from other banks)
2) Increasing bad debts (i.e loans that are being written off)

Put simply, if a bank wants to make 10p profit for every pound it lends out it has to consider how much that pound cost to borrow and how much provision it has to make on average for non-paying customers. In this instance they may charge 20p for every £1 (to ensure the 10p profit), but it arrears levels start to increase this will result in lending stopped to certain sets of 'riskier' customers (financial exclusion) or the price of lending going up (e.g. increasing APR's).

I must state that I am not against people making claims, but I just wanted to point out that it does have an effect.

petermb_2

These technicalities as they are described are enshrined in the Consumer Credit Act. I haev a copy of that act and it is no loophole. No Agreement, no loan.
In fact the act goes further, if a lender fails to provide a copy of an agreement it claims is enforceable it will be commiting an offence if they fail to comply with the request for a copy of that agreement and the failure to comply exceeds 30 days.

AS for you guys who bang on about the claims against lenders costing us all. Why should it? Why dont the banks just make less profit because of it? Why should everyone pay for their mistakes, greed and arrogance?

ILW

Think you will find that if you succeed the debt will be deemed "unenforceable"
This is not the same as settled.
They will not be able to persue you for the money, but it will show as a bad debt on your credit file.
Personally I think you should pay, after all you seemed happy enough to spend the money.