Unenforceable Credit Agreements

NickX

Supercharge_Me wrote: »

How would you feel if someone drove into your brand new car and they wernt insured? Legally you cant do anything because its a free (quite literally;) ) society.

You are not correct here. Exactly this happened to me. And you know what I did ?

I called the police because it is illegal to driving without insurance. It is not illegal to challenge a Consumer Credit Agreement.

Because I was in the right and the other driver was not insured, my insurance company compensated me for the damage to my car and pursued the non-insured driver for damages. That is how it works. I was not left out of pocket.

The fact of the matter is that the debtor has a legal right to challenge their CCAs. They can request a copy or query its enforceability. If there is no valid CCA or it has nor been correctly prepared then UK law dictates that the debt cannot be enforced through the courts. That is fact and all the people who are flaming the OP cannot deny this.

This subject really seems to get people's backs up and it does appear that those who are objecting to this practice get so worked up that they accuse the debtors looking to get their debts written off of all sorts of things that could be deemed slanderous. It is NOT theft, it is NOT illegal, it is NOT stealing, it is a practice that is as clear in UK law as being able to challenge a speeding fine if the police do not have valid photographic evidence.

As I have said before I think most of these debts would have been sold on to DCAs for a pittance anyway, so the impact on the banking system is going to be minimal compared to the damage done by the re-packaging of US subprime mortgages.

Mr Proliant, nice to see you on the thread, and your last post was a nice and considered one. Always happy to debate and agree to disagree

FireFox1969

I have read these threads on CCA's and people saying 'you should pay the debt back, most people here arelooking to save money not avoid paying back CC companies and loan companies.

I am sorry but nearly all have tried to claim back bank charges and PPI and credit card charges, but we all know what these establishments are like and they do over charge and you say you have been ripped off. then someone comes along and says is my CC or loan enforcable because i have not signed an agreement. Then a few come out and say face your responcabilities and pay them. Well i say face yours and except the bank charges and PPI and anything else that comes with you bank and card.

If anyone would like to know there are many failings on Credit agreements and i have pushed the lot through and won them. i have also done PPI and bank and CC charges.

People should remember this site is to help not slate. if anyone needs to know more on CCA then mail me i will guide you, not bring you down and make you feel bad.

Double standards people, double standards:mad:

Gooka

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

Not one person has challenged any of my points in any effective manner.

1. The banks are not using taxpayers money for it's intended purpose to get the lending markets moving and keep business afloat saving jobs.
2. The banks have been ripping people off for years and refuse to return money owed to customers from illegal charges.
3. They continue to offer customers a raw deal in order to maintain and indeed to increase already obscene profits year on year. Make no mistake - the losses they have made recently will be clawed back by all kinds of underhand tricks in the next few years - the shareholders demand it.

Proliant - where's your backbone? You're accusing people of greed yet your advocating bowing, scrapping and tugging the forelock to people like Sir Fred Goodwin - a multi, multi millionaire who will not suffer one iota of struggle while the people in the company he utterly mismanaged to the point of criminal wrecklessness face the dole and losing their home. There are hundreds of thousands of people who face the same fate as the result of the system you arguing in favour of legitimising.

These bankers are living off the fat because they have mortgaged our lives up to the eyeballs. They've had politicians in this country mesmerised by money, the admen have people believing that your life is worth less if you don't have the latest flatscreen TV or designer label. They've preyed on peoples insecurities.

If this country had any backbone at all there would be a revolt.

Actually, banks took govt funds because govt changed the capital ratio they were required to have by law... overnight. They can't lend more cause then they'd not have the capital ratio.

Plus, the likes of Northern Rock no longer lend at all. How can other banks pick up the slack when circa 50% of lenders have now left the market entirely?

Don't get me wrong - mistakes have been made by the banks, but they're getting a bad wrap here.

nigel9

Forgpet all this moralistic nonsense and it is nonsense.
Fact is: if an agreement is unenforacable then the individual responsible is perfectly entitled to make their own decision without being subjected to the pious and righteous ravings of the individuals who seem to think that life is cuddly and good all round.
They lent, it they screwed up when you take into account how these organisations have messed everyones life all round and every taxpayaer is facing a bill of £40 already (possibly, the numbers change depending on what paper you read)
Screw em, if you can walk away from it do it. You will pay through taxation for the 40 years anyway. Let the moral muppets do their own thing and check ot the CAG site they are more realistic

nigel9

Thats £40k not £40 if only

PROLIANT

nigel9 wrote: »

Forgpet all this moralistic nonsense and it is nonsense.
Fact is: if an agreement is unenforacable then the individual responsible is perfectly entitled to make their own decision without being subjected to the pious and righteous ravings of the individuals who seem to think that life is cuddly and good all round.
They lent, it they screwed up when you take into account how these organisations have messed everyones life all round and every taxpayaer is facing a bill of £40 already (possibly, the numbers change depending on what paper you read)
Screw em, if you can walk away from it do it. You will pay through taxation for the 40 years anyway. Let the moral muppets do their own thing and check ot the CAG site they are more realistic

So if you "lent" your mate £1000 and he decided you were a c0ck and did not want to pay you back then that would be acceptable?

bert&ernie

PROLIANT wrote: »

So if you "lent" your mate £1000 and he decided you were a c0ck and did not want to pay you back then that would be acceptable?

We've been through this before - the bank is NOT your mate. Its quite possible that it thinks its customers are adult male chickens though.

Silver_Rocket

Gooka wrote: »

Actually, banks took govt funds because govt changed the capital ratio they were required to have by law... overnight. They can't lend more cause then they'd not have the capital ratio.

Plus, the likes of Northern Rock no longer lend at all. How can other banks pick up the slack when circa 50% of lenders have now left the market entirely?

Don't get me wrong - mistakes have been made by the banks, but they're getting a bad wrap here.

Errr...they've left the market because their capital ratios were so low that they were technically insolvent. This is what the whole bailout is about - the banks have mismanaged, lied and defrauded themselves and each other into insolvency. The condition of propping up these people was that they would start lending again.

They banks are getting a bad rap!?!

druss

Northern Rock were and are still lending, they were just being a lot more picky of who to lend to and had a policy to shed some mortgages from their books to repay the government loan.

This has now stopped and are no longer actively trying to get their customers to switch to other lenders.

The point about capital adeqacy is correct the government told the fsa to stabilise the banking system the fsa whacked up capital adequacy requirements which in my opinion has rocked the allready shakey ground even more as banks tighten what they lend and so accelerated the downward spiral.

My overall amazement is the banks lent billions out on long term loans via mortgages and then were allowed to finance them by borrowing on short term loans of 3 to 6 months because it was cheaper!

Surely one of the over paid idiots at the banks or the fsa could predict that there was allways going to be good times and bad?

ie if short term funding dries up how will this system cope?

Again profit ahead of all, morals, customers, common sense.

My uncle is an old fashioned bank manager and retired many years ago, he is now a debt counselling volunteer for the citazens advice bereau.

He is disgusted with how the banks have behaved, how they continue to behave and how they treat their customers particually with regard to mis selling and blatant flouting of rules to increase profit.

Silver_Rocket

druss wrote: »

My uncle is an old fashioned bank manager and retired many years ago, he is now a debt counselling volunteer for the citazens advice bereau.

He is disgusted with how the banks have behaved, how they continue to behave and how they treat their customers particually with regard to mis selling and blatant flouting of rules to increase profit.

My father had 30 years in the bank and took early retirement partly because they were cutting costs at the time and made him an offer he couldn't refuse but mostly because his role as a high street manager was quickly being changed from being someone who gave people and businesses advice about how to keep a level ship to sell, sell, sell, sell.

This was at the tail end of the last downturn. Since then they have given more and more that people can't afford continually cutting their actual amount of capital in relation to the amount being lent out.