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

lclclclc

it may do so (so this is not a decision i have taken lightly ) but I have a legal team looking at the legality of placing a default on my file, if the company itself have already admitted they would be unable to take me to court to enforce the debt, on what legal basis ?are they able to report me to the CRA's.. I've been reading some interesting articles that relate that back to the banking code, and reporting to CRA's.. creditors under the code I understand, are not able to report, if there is a dispute with the debtor, which of course there is. I have also put them on notice that I intend to litigate as well.

Halloway

Ichimoku wrote: »

"Hello, pot calling kettle.....can you hear me kettle.......over!"

Perhaps you ought to read the last line of my previous post again - you've obviously risen to the challenge of being the first Smart A**e!! Well done

Well at least Tartanterra managed to attain the level of 'smart'. You, on the other hand, are merely an 4rse.

Credit-Crunched

Halloway wrote: »

Well at least Tartanterra managed to attain the level of 'smart'. You, on the other hand, are merely an 4rse.

Brilliant!

Ichimoku

"Why did the bank loan her money in the first place if she had no income? and did she not read the agreements before she signed them?"

Willo65 - She wasn't really given any choice at the time, it was presented as the only option available.

I said she didn't have a job, not that she had no income. She was receiving some money from me but it was a lot less than she had previously earnt whilst in employment. I made the point about the job because the bank sold her PPI knowing this i.e. they mis-sold it.

I really don't see that borrowing money from a family member is in any way analogous to a loan from a bank. It was the bank's mishandling of her account and mis-selling her the loan and PPI in the first place that caused the debt to exist. So, if a family member had caused me to be in serious debt, then perhaps they should be responsible for paying it as well?

Judging by your comments, I take it you believe that the selling of financial products should be completely unregulated, as long as the terms are buried somewhere in the small print? If so, I take it you're too young to remember what went on in financial services when it was less regulated. If you'd unwittingly taken out a dual priced, flat interest rate mortgage with rule of 78 redemption terms in the early 1990s, I think you might have a different view.

I certainly don't think people should avoid their financial responsibilities but that goes for the banks as well. Consumer Credit law was/is very clear, and the banks knew the risks involved in failing to put the correct documentation in place. If the law shouldn't be upheld in this case, what other laws should we just ignore because some people don't agree with it?

di3004

Ichimoku wrote: »

"Why did the bank loan her money in the first place if she had no income? and did she not read the agreements before she signed them?"

Willo65 - She wasn't really given any choice at the time, it was presented as the only option available.

I said she didn't have a job, not that she had no income. She was receiving some money from me but it was a lot less than she had previously earnt whilst in employment. I made the point about the job because the bank sold her PPI knowing this i.e. they mis-sold it.

I really don't see that borrowing money from a family member is in any way analogous to a loan from a bank. It was the bank's mishandling of her account and mis-selling her the loan and PPI in the first place that caused the debt to exist. So, if a family member had caused me to be in serious debt, then perhaps they should be responsible for paying it as well?

Judging by your comments, I take it you believe that the selling of financial products should be completely unregulated, as long as the terms are buried somewhere in the small print? If so, I take it you're too young to remember what went on in financial services when it was less regulated. If you'd unwittingly taken out a dual priced, flat interest rate mortgage with rule of 78 redemption terms in the early 1990s, I think you might have a different view.

I certainly don't think people should avoid their financial responsibilities but that goes for the banks as well. Consumer Credit law was/is very clear, and the banks knew the risks involved in failing to put the correct documentation in place. If the law shouldn't be upheld in this case, what other laws should we just ignore because some people don't agree with it?

Hi there

Sorry to butt in, just to say if you require any help in regards to the PPI there is a reclaiming thread for this, we will do all we can to help.;)
Good luck X

Ichimoku

Halloway and Credit Crunched - thanks for such stimulating contributions to the debate, it's thought provoking stuff.

A word of advice - if you really think those comments are 'smart' and 'brilliant', you really ought to get out more.

willo65

Ichimoko - I don't agree with the mis-selling of any products. And understand your situation is unique. But not paying a loan just because you can get out of it (as the bank mislaid 1 in 12 million loan agreements they have*) is in my view immoral and is in my eyes theft. I would assume that in the first instance the loan did put her account in credit and therefore would have been a soulution had XYZ not occured. If the bank had not suggested the loan and let charges continue would you have blamed the bank for not helping?

As for the charges in the first place it is a total different ball game but if you have no money you don't spend it and don't get charges.

I am not having a go at your personal circumstances because they are unique to you and I understand where you are coming from but the idea in general of wriggling out of an agreement because of a technicality I believe is wrong.

*this is my approximation and does not reflect any actual figures. I have no figures to support this but I think is roughly what I worked out on 3000 branches with 1 loan a day for 6 years.??

Ichimoku

di3004 wrote: »

Hi there

Sorry to butt in, just to say if you require any help in regards to the PPI there is a reclaiming thread for this, we will do all we can to help.;)
Good luck X

Thanks for the advice, I'll definitely check out the thread.

live-life-debt-free

A couple of quotes from the High Court and Court of appeal regarding unexecuted agreements

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633, Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor said:

• The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid

In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said:

• Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.

Ichimoku

willo65 wrote: »

Ichimoko - I don't agree with the mis-selling of any products. And understand your situation is unique. But not paying a loan just because you can get out of it (as the bank mislaid 1 in 12 million loan agreements they have*) is in my view immoral and is in my eyes theft. I would assume that in the first instance the loan did put her account in credit and therefore would have been a soulution had XYZ not occured. If the bank had not suggested the loan and let charges continue would you have blamed the bank for not helping?

As for the charges in the first place it is a total different ball game but if you have no money you don't spend it and don't get charges.

I am not having a go at your personal circumstances because they are unique to you and I understand where you are coming from but the idea in general of wriggling out of an agreement because of a technicality I believe is wrong.

*this is my approximation and does not reflect any actual figures. I have no figures to support this but I think is roughly what I worked out on 3000 branches with 1 loan a day for 6 years.??

Clearly, giving her a loan did put her account in credit, but an agreed overdraft facility would have been a much more suitable option. They refused to do this, maybe because they couldn't sell her single premium PPI on her overdraft? If they can extend credit to her by way of a loan, why can't they extend credit by way of an overdraft? It's because the bank's staff were heavily incentivised to sell personal loans with single premium PPI.

I don't think all bank charges are wrong, but hers seemed to have been applied to exacerbate the problem. And, the amounts they were charging were totally unjustified.

I'm not sure what 'technicality' you're referring to specifically, but if the law didn't exist, there'd be a free-for-all by the banks. Are you saying that the APR being out by 6% is a technicality? How about the PPI has been added in the wrong section, thus completely changing the amount being charged for credit? You obviously don't like the fact that borrowers can avoid a debt when the lender fails to produce a copy of the loan agreement, but what you don't seem to realise is that this provides protection for the borrower and the lender.

When I found out about my other half's situation, I told her that the first thing she needed to do was get a copy of the paperwork from the bank. She called them to request a copy of her loan agreements, and she was told they'd be put in the post (but only after the bank employee tried to find out whether we had a copy ourselves). Several weeks later, after receiving nothing, she did the same again. Eventually, she was told that the bank couldn't get a copy of the agreement at the moment, and they'd send it on when they managed to find it.

This went on for months, and they eventually sent a letter with some figures on it, but certainly not the information contained in a loan agreement. In the end, she sent a formal S77/78 request with the £1.00 fee as well as an SAR request with her £10.00 fee. The loan agreement arrived a couple of weeks later.

I don't believe for a second that the bank couldn't find the agreement, I'm convinced they just didn't want to send it because they knew it could prompt a claim to be made against them. It is against these circumstances that we must be very careful to protect the most vulnerable party i.e. the customer in preference to the bank. I'm sure some people can't believe the banks would act in this manner, but please believe me, they do. I dread to think of how customers would be treated if the current safeguards didn't exist, and even with them in place, the banks can still rip us off - single premium PPI anyone?

By the way, if anyone is still in any doubt that millions of people have been ripped off with PPI, please find a copy of the Competition Commission's report on the subject.