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

lclclclc

thank you tartanterra , I understand what you are saying, and I did apologise for my attitude towards the other posters, way back in Jan..

dunstonh

Whilst I can see both sides of the issue, and frankly, find the banks attitude to data protection appalling:eek: ,

I worked for a bank back in the late 80s to early 90s. When data protection rules came in there was a general misunderstanding (with hindsight) over what could be kept and what couldn't. The FSA (as it is now but SIB/PIA back then) also gave guidence that said 6 years was the timescale to keep docs.

Basically, anything older than 6 years (with a few exceptions) was destroyed. It was only years later that this was confirmed not to be the requirement. However, the damage had already been done.

Plus, for decades, this stuff had been filed never to be required to see the light of day again. Over time, complacency set in and the filing was treated as very low priority. The filing rooms were often over filled and papers falling out and then periodically a lorry would come along and clear it all to put it in a warehouse.

Now you are getting people putting in fraudulent claims on the hope that the bank will have lost the paperwork. The banks only have themselves to blame but I do hold some sympathy with them as I do remember the briefings on data that were given out at the time.

conar686

dunstonh wrote: »

Now you are getting people putting in fraudulent claims on the hope that the bank will have lost the paperwork. The banks only have themselves to blame but I do hold some sympathy with them as I do remember the briefings on data that were given out at the time.

I don't think there is owt fraudulent about requesting contractual documentation, if the other party can not produce said when the law says they must then surely this is their fault and as such they should be expected to pay.

As the FOS, OFT and trading standards take no action on these 'social crimes' then the only recourse is for the 'affected' consumer to with hold payment and thus penalise these institutions that way.

Fraudulent indeed

dunstonh

I don't think there is owt fraudulent about requesting contractual documentation, if the other party can not produce said when the law says they must then surely this is their fault and as such they should be expected to pay.

Most of the claims are try it on in the hope you get lucky. PPI claims seem to be heavy in numbers of fraudulent complaints with people being encouraged to lie in template letters.

As the FOS, OFT and trading standards take no action on these 'social crimes' then the only recourse is for the 'affected' consumer to with hold payment and thus penalise these institutions that way.

They are aware of the abuse of the system though. The Conservatives have proposed ending the ability to make complaints free of charge or looking at ways to reduce try-it-on and fraudulent claims.

People with genuine complaints are being held up months, even years because of the numbers of people who are abusing a system that was never designed to be used this way.

conar686

dunstonh wrote: »

Most of the claims are try it on in the hope you get lucky. PPI claims seem to be heavy in numbers of fraudulent complaints with people being encouraged to lie in template letters.



They are aware of the abuse of the system though. The Conservatives have proposed ending the ability to make complaints free of charge or looking at ways to reduce try-it-on and fraudulent claims.

People with genuine complaints are being held up months, even years because of the numbers of people who are abusing a system that was never designed to be used this way.

Sport

In my view your in the wrong forum try one of the DCAs.

I find your comments 'of lying on template letters' insulting to all of us who have made a claim.

We are perfectly within our rights to request contractual documentation and if the finance industry can't get its act together they should not profit from contracts that are not properly executed.

As for the conservatives levying a charge how will that stop people with legitimate rights to claim, it won't, all it may do is put off the poor in society from getting justice.

dunstonh

I find your comments 'of lying on template letters' insulting to all of us who have made a claim.

Thats because you have jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to 100% of people when I havent said that. I have no problem with genuine claims. However, I think it is clear from the posts in this forum that a large number are from people who are trying it on.

As for the conservatives levying a charge how will that stop people with legitimate rights to claim, it won't, all it may do is put off the poor in society from getting justice.

The aim is to stop try-it-on complaints. If you have a genuine complaint, you wouldnt care about paying it as you would be confident of getting it back if the complaint was upheld. If you were trying it on you would be less likely to complain. Its a hypothetical thing as it was just one of the things mentioned by the Conservatives as a way to reduce fraudulent claims. They have to get in to power and then decide if they really want to look at it or not and then decide what they are going to do.

My concern longer term is that the more fraudulent claims that are made, the more likely that those with genuine complaints will end up losing out as there will come a point that changes will have to be made.

darich

dunstonh wrote: »

So why does the FSA insist on insurance to be taken out to cover redress payments in mis-sale cases?

a mis-sale case is not the same as a loan not being paid - 2 different things. Your 2k policy is because as an IFA you can mis-advise someone who could then presumably pursue you for costs.

But as an IFA I doubt very much that you lend people sums of money in an offical capacity like a bank.

So your policy is completely different to the one referred to.

As far as the OP is concerned - I think he's wrong to think that an insurance company (lloyds has been mentioned) will simply pay out, a rainy day fund plundered or divedends reduced and no one pays for it.
If lloyds pay out then just about every ins co in the country that is underwritten by lloyds will be affected since lloyds will look to recoup that money either for shareholders, the boss, or the next person who reneges on a loan.
The rainy day fund will be reduced and require to be replenished for the next crash or next loan that is reneged on so to replenish it, premiums are increased, staff bonuses reduced, or staff laid off in efficiency drives.
Reduced dividends means lower income for those with shares and reduction in bank profits (hence lower dividend). Lower profits mean the bank is making less money and more susceptible to takeover, folding, increased loan rates/decreased savings rates or asking for governement help. Since many banks have recently been funded by the government and are largley publicly owned, it is the tax payer who suffers both in the initial buyout and in the banks reduced profitability.

I realise the above is extreme and won't be the result of one loan being cancelled but it's to show that ultimately, the customers pay for it.

The op has also said in a few posts that he's doing it because of the poor service, being ripped off etc but then in another post says he's doing it "because i want to". Both different reasons. It's also wrong to think that mislaying/losing a piece of paper is equivalent to the cancellation of a loan of several thousand pounds (assumed amount since you said it's been paid for years with years still to go).

Legally the OP may be in the right and may well "get off" with paying the loan, but morally it's very wrong as I've pointed out above - many others will pay for this in many different ways. Also, if everyone did as the op then the recesssion would be deeper/extended since the banks would be even worse off than they are and everyone else would be required to pay more.

Personally i think it's wrong but i'm not really looking to get into an arguement as has happened several times in this thread already!!!

willo65

Just some maths, If the bank in question has approx 3000 branches (Googled, not enough time to get accurate number) and say they do a minimum of 1 loan per branch per day then thats over 1m cca per year x that by say 7 years for loans lasting this long is around 7m cca's so i think it is understandable that 1 or 2 may have been filed incorrectly etc etc.

In regards to the original issue I do strongly believe that if you borrowed the money in good faith then you should pay it back, you had it and spent it.

If you borrowed £1k from a friend or relative would you also refuse to pay on the basis there is no cca?

dunstonh

a mis-sale case is not the same as a loan not being paid - 2 different things. Your 2k policy is because as an IFA you can mis-advise someone who could then presumably pursue you for costs.

But as an IFA I doubt very much that you lend people sums of money in an offical capacity like a bank.

So your policy is completely different to the one referred to.

Sorry. I must have misread the post higher up then. I thought it was referring to insurance to cover mis-selling.

Indeed post #70, which is one I responded to said:
I am sorry but you do not know what you are talking baout, it is ILLEGAL (fsa, fsma2000 and EU regulations) for banks to take insurances to pay out fines and compo relating to mis-selling.

That is exactly what IFAs and adviser firms have to have by law. Yet that poster is saying it is illegal.

Personally i think it's wrong but i'm not really looking to get into an arguement as has happened several times in this thread already!!!

Yes, there are some very sensitive people in this forum. Perhaps the truth hurts.

conar686

dunstonh wrote: »

Thats because you have jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to 100% of people when I havent said that. I have no problem with genuine claims. However, I think it is clear from the posts in this forum that a large number are from people who are trying it on.



The aim is to stop try-it-on complaints. If you have a genuine complaint, you wouldnt care about paying it as you would be confident of getting it back if the complaint was upheld. If you were trying it on you would be less likely to complain. Its a hypothetical thing as it was just one of the things mentioned by the Conservatives as a way to reduce fraudulent claims. They have to get in to power and then decide if they really want to look at it or not and then decide what they are going to do.

My concern longer term is that the more fraudulent claims that are made, the more likely that those with genuine complaints will end up losing out as there will come a point that changes will have to be made.

I understood clearly what your were saying and merely pointed out that your delivery of the message could have been better qualified.