Unenforceable Credit Agreements

normanmark

The easiest way to do it, instead of going through the rigma of loopholes and solicitors just simply pay off the money you've spent.

Seems like this simple idea of paying back what you owe is somewhat distant these days.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

I think the proof is in the eating - let us know of some successful claims and I might believe it - otherwise I may be cynical but I see it as a fee grabbing scheme for desperate people.

I'm scheptical of this but doesn't it give you proof in the BBC video on this site? http://www.libertycreditclearservices.co.uk/ as per Doubleespressos' post.

pt2537

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Have they been "wronged" simply because the lender couldn't find a piece of paper with a signature on it, or are there some other wrongs?

No sorry but there are often lots of otehr factors which build up the case, its not merely about the company losing the agreement although that would provide a full defence in law

I dont wish to offend anyone but i probably will.

the comments on this thread amaze me, they are so judgmental and wholly unfair, i live in the real world not some fluffy conjectured world where nothing ever goes wrong

I will give you an example

one of my clients at her witts end, being called 15 times a day and being threatened with her home repossessed, her childrens toys taken away from them,Bailiffs visits etc real nasty stuff, anyway

when we looked at the case, it turned out, she has fallen into difficulty due to the death of her partner, her income dropped, she contacted her creditors who she offered a reasonable payment and no before anyone says it was a fair sum not a pound a month!!!! the lenders rather than accept her offer, sold the debt to a well known company whom proceeded to make all kind of demands which were unreasonable, demands for payments of £200 per month above what she offered you get the picture anyway, real nasty stuff

soi we looked at the situation, firstly the Assignment was flawed and defective and the amount assigned was wrongly stated so was the date

next, we found the agreement was fundamentally flawed due to many errors, and there were charges which fell as penalties at common law( how many of you have reclaimed bank charges?????) and also there was PPI, missold and non optional which meant the anmount of credit was wrongly stated

so we didnt as many will think try to get her out of the debt, we wrote to the company making them an offer to resolve the situation, alas their response was a simple go away were gonna repossess her house instead

so we sued and the judge ruled the agreement was unenforceable and void as a result, further more the judge ordered the return of the monies paid under the agreement to the DCA as a remedy and we didnt ask for that!!

i feel that everyone is entitled to a defence, i do not help people go out and loan money and get out of paying, i refuse such request however if someone like that lady walks through my door with a debt which they are being harrassed for and after trying to resolve it amicably the DCA still plays silly beggers what other option do we have but to go to court and let the judge decide????????

The law is there, it is clear and you me and everyone else is entitled to use the law to protect themselves and thats a fact, i just hope you never have to see the grief and distress these awaful companies cause out there to fair and reasonable members of society, after all everyone falls down on their luck one time or another dont they

Regards

Paul

pt2537

normanmark wrote: »

The easiest way to do it, instead of going through the rigma of loopholes and solicitors just simply pay off the money you've spent.

Seems like this simple idea of paying back what you owe is somewhat distant these days.

ah yes wouldnt it be nice if no one ever got into trouble and everyone had enough money to pay their debts

I cant help shaking my head in despair at this kind of comment.

im sure you may have a good job which pays you good money, but what happens if god forbid, your employer goes bust and all of a sudden you dont have the money to pay your debts. you try to fall back on your PPI but its been mis-sold and wont payout and thus renders your agreement unenforceable as a result

now you have a dilemma dont you, lose your house and keep the moral highground or use the law as its there and for you to use and refer to the supporting case law to help you defend your home and stop the lenders whom were once your friend and bending over backwards to offer you money but are now really nasty beggers

which one would you chose

as i have said before, i dont go out of my way to help blatant debt avoiders but there are genuine cases where people have suffered through no fault of their own

it is those which i try to help, much of my work is on the CAG on a pro bono basis

sorry if this causes offence but i feel that this needs to be said

Mozette

pt2537 wrote: »

I dont wish to offend anyone but i probably will.

the comments on this thread amaze me, they are so judgmental and wholly unfair, i live in the real world not some fluffy conjectured world where nothing ever goes wrong

I will give you an example

Regards

Paul

Edited your post there. I don't think anyone would object in the sort of circumstances you describe, but when, as it appears to be, that people just want a way out of paying money they spent but just want to wriggle out of, well...
Who the Hell do they think will end up paying for it. I think it is scroungers most of us object to, not people who have got into difficulties when dreadful things have happened.

Paul_Herring

pt2537 wrote: »

which one would you chose

False dichotomy.

I choose neither (indeed I chose neither in the past when unemployed.)

normanmark

pt2537 wrote: »

ah yes wouldnt it be nice if no one ever got into trouble and everyone had enough money to pay their debts

I cant help shaking my head in despair at this kind of comment.

sorry if this causes offence but i feel that this needs to be said

I do take offense really, as its just excuses really to open up this loop hole. I expected better from someone who is a solicitor.

What is wrong for someone paying their debt as they should? I only use credit for purposes of buying everyday things and paying it off as standard at the end of the month. If i lose my job? Well i haven't really got myself into that situation yet, nor do i work for a company as im self employed. I don't accumulate debt for the sake of it. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

The fact you're shaking your head at the somewhat basic concept of paying back what you've accumulated certainly speaks volumes, but then i'm not surprised from a solicitor.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

normanmark wrote: »

What is wrong for someone paying their debt as they should? I only use credit for purposes of buying everyday things and paying it off as standard at the end of the month. If i lose my job? Well i haven't really got myself into that situation yet, nor do i work for a company as im self employed. I don't accumulate debt for the sake of it. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

The fact you're shaking your head at the somewhat basic concept of paying back what you've accumulated certainly speaks volumes, but then i'm not surprised from a solicitor.

Would you still say the same about somebody who is claiming when they find out that the payments don't correspond with the interest rate and APR somebody was quoted when taking out the finance. Or the people who were ripped off through unsuitable PPI policies?

NickX

pt2537 wrote: »

ah yes wouldnt it be nice if no one ever got into trouble and everyone had enough money to pay their debts

I cant help shaking my head in despair at this kind of comment.

Hi pt2437,

This conversation comes up on these boards regularly and I wholly agree with you that the way the consumers struggling with debts and other financial pressures are treated is most unfair. The corporations have the weight of whole legal departments behind them, the consumer has nothing like this.

The law exists for a reason and if the lender has not behaved according to the law of the land then they should be brought to account over it.

However, I have also been shot down for expressing such views. There is a strong "you borrowed it, you pay it back" type mentaility on these boards. Sometimes I wonder if these boards are to assist the consumer or the corporation ?

Put it this way, Companies wouldn't think twice about using legal loopholes to get more money out of the customer, why shouldn't the customer have the same power ?

Let me get this straight, I do not support anyone who borrows money with the intention of not paying it off. This is fraud.

But for people who are fighting financial pressure, then I do not see why they shouldn't use every weapon at their disposal provided that it is legal.

I am interested to hear more of the details of the processes involved, so thanks for posting.

NickX

pt2537 wrote: »

the lenders rather than accept her offer, sold the debt to a well known company whom proceeded to make all kind of demands which were unreasonable, demands for payments of £200 per month above what she offered you get the picture anyway, real nasty stuff

I think that if the creditor knows that the CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) is legally flawed, then they are more likely to sell the debt on to a DCA (Debt Collection Agency) for a fraction of the amount outstanding just so that they something back for the debt.

The DCA's are really unscrupulous people and will threaten all sorts to get repayment. They really don't have a great deal of rights but they will threaten visits, repossession, even the threat of going to prison. They will call multiple times a day and attempt to embarress people into paying them. I'm generalising here, but some DCA's will employ heavies and ex-criminals to extortion money from people. IMO they really are lowlifes.