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

booi666

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

booi666 wrote: »

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

I think you need to look deep into the way banks lend money before a comment like this is posted,you mite be surprised on where the money actually comes from!!!!!!!!!!

maz1964

hiya all and a lucky 2009 to all

im subbing to this as im in the same dilemma - is it a moral or a legal issue

from what ive learnt in the past year, im becoming more astute and while i wish to pay my debts im finding the threats the below the belt tactics of the banks after legal requests for my cca which is what the law states i can reasonably request with my 1.00 to be disgraceful.

So fire with fire is my new 2009 resolution, they couldnt be bothered to help me when i was off ill and now im better ive learnt and still learning about my rights, they have treated me i now realise with contempt, arrogance, and pure lies.

So while in the business world a contract is deemed to be served and produced legally to be valid, so thus should also any loans, credit agreements be so in the financial world.

whilst i agree that if its unenforceable the loan will still be shown as still owing and yes they will attack your credit files legally and inlegally with the defaults, like others have said, getting to a point of getting charges offset against the debt owing, and coming to a full and final settlement and getting all adverse credit off your files and showing as settled will at least clear your files up. If this is not possible then court i feel is going to be the last resort and they would have to provide the original credit agreement in court to even get anywhere, like you have already an unenforceable debt they may sell it on and on and on, but your files will be shredded to pieces, if you dont intend to get more credit in the next 6 years after your last payment and after the default date then that s okay why worry, but if you are worried and some jobs now check credit files, then it is a worry and you need to do everything to protect yourself

good luck, im on another forum, anything i can find will post here for you or you can go and register direct if not already on cag

take care all, i understand totally what others have all said, but morally i was at that stage 1 year ago, but after the treatment i have had, i really am more clinical in my approach from now on.

Contracts are broken in the real world all the time because they are not legal, the banks we trusted should have their house and legal paperwork in order too.

I stand corrected if i have quoted something wrong but this is MY experience and that is what i do stand by, others you may not believe me but until you go through the experience - until then listen and learn.

laters maz1964

x;)

conar686

Section 85 states that a copy of the executed agreement should be provided, not a copy of an improperly executed agreement. If there is no properly executed agreement then the debt cannot be enforced QED Semantics I know but the law is the law
“executed agreement ” means a document, signed by or on behalf of the parties, embodying the terms of a regulated agreement, or such of them as have been reduced to writing;
The case law on this is quite clear, no agreement no loan

Sir Andrew Morrits Judgment in the Court of Appeal in the Wilson FCT case

“In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift,of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

MORPH3US

!!!!!! is this all about? Has Martin written an article on this that I could read to understand what you are all talking about better.

conar686

MORPH3US wrote: »

!!!!!! is this all about? Has Martin written an article on this that I could read to understand what you are all talking about better.

Whats confusing you old horse

withabix

Just pay back what you borrowed.

Stop trying to steal from the rest of us.

I sincerely hope that the OP fails in their attempt to avoid paying what they owe and ends up with the worst credit rating possible.

lclclclc

again, thanks for everyones contribution..not to labour on the point to much, but with reference to banks insuring themselves against such losses.. they do..I know what I am talking about.. I have a friend who is an insurance underwriter @ Lloyds of London, and the PPI and unenforceable loan thing, is what they foresaw a couple of years back - and subsequently insured/re-insured themselves, anticipating a a huge amount of claims..so..if the claims start coming in, they are insured to a degree, and if they dont start to see a lot of claims - or they are stopped at court or test case level, then all they have lost is the premium they paid. So they have insurances, but they still have a bottom line to protect, and still employ these companies to chase debt. I think a figure that was quoted to me on the insurance underwriting for PPI was something like, up to £200m across all major high street banks.

The only people who could be affected by the action that we are taking, is shareholders, the banks bottom line and profits are not as good, they dont get paid a good dividend...hmmm...so thats another can of worms, shareholders, most likely the government..they need to obviously see profits for their preference shares to be exercised..but then again the government are probably looking at their stakes as a 3,4,5 year investment..so without creating a whole different argument - this wont really affect shareholder ( taxpayer ) value in the short or long term, as all this will blow over in the next year or so, in terms of PPI reclaim and unenforceable loans..and the amounts paid by the banks in term of compensation, cancellation of loans, will not permeate and reach the taxpayer/consumer in a way, that we can actually see. i think the government have bigger things to worry about.

I work in financial services myself, and I understand it is important to be prudent, and have a sensible and fiscal attitude.. but for me personally, this is more about justice.. I am only doing what many thousands before me have done... again I go back to the current environment, its all about self preservation - you need to do whatever you need to do to ensure you survive - sounds a bit dramatic, but I am not taking any chances, and aside from me fighting the enforceability of the loan, I am working damn hard to get out of all other debt, and also to keep a roof over my head. This is just business - as someone quite rightly said above. I have the bit between my teeth, and I wont let this go..they have made a mistake, and i intend to hold them accountable for it.

lclclclc

withabix wrote: »

Just pay back what you borrowed.

Stop trying to steal from the rest of us.

I sincerely hope that the OP fails in their attempt to avoid paying what they owe and ends up with the worst credit rating possible.

entitled to your opinion, but people like you, just make me more determined!!

Hippocampus

You might like to have a read of the latest guidance from the Information Commisioner's Office regarding the recording of defaults. Available here...

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

In particular, take note of this definition...

The term ‘default’, when recorded on a credit reference file should be used to refer to a situation when "the lender in a standard business relationship with the individual decides the relationship has broken down".

In other words, it's not necessarily the fact that you are a poor risk that defines whether or not you have a "default" recorded, but that is however how it is interpreted in your file. Unfair, innit?

But do take a full read through. It might help you to form your complaint to the ICO.

fermi

I always though this bit was interesting.

Accuracy of a lender’s default records

39 Records

Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an agreement exists and to support filing a default. We would also expect a lender to be able to produce evidence to justify a default record they had placed on a credit reference file. Not having any supporting records may indicate a breach of the data protection principle requiring personal data to be adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purpose for which it is processed. A record that a notice of an intention to file a default was sent, if not a copy of the notice itself, will help lenders to comply with this requirement.

But as always, depends on how you interpret that. :rolleyes::rolleyes: