Unenforceable Credit Agreements

Silver_Rocket

loaner wrote: »

If there is no debt, then they should repay the accidental bank error in their favour.

You mean if there's no agreement?

PROLIANT

My point being Mr Rocket is that if there was a loop hole in the law that enabled somebody or a business of some description to take your home off you because of a technicality in a contract, would you feel that was acceptable? I think not sir.

Silver_Rocket

PROLIANT wrote: »

My point being Mr Rocket is that if there was a loop hole in the law that enabled somebody or a business of some description to take your home off you because of a technicality in a contract, would you feel that was acceptable? I think not sir.

It's not a technicality - debt is unenforceable because the credit agreement is either illegal in itself or because the law has been broken by the bank failing to keep a record of it. The banks are breaking the law in these cases.

PROLIANT

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

It's not a technicality - debt is unenforceable because the credit agreement is either illegal in itself or because the law has been broken by the bank failing to keep a record of it. The banks are breaking the law in these cases.

A record can take form of a physical entity like a piece of paper or it could be an entry in a database table, the lender will report account status to a credit reference agency on a monthly basis so if an account was opened in say 2000 by 2006 they do not have to legally keep a record of the original contract, to then dispute the legality of this contract after this time period should be laughed out of court due to the fact you have used this account for x number years and have evidence of it existing on your credit files, to then say "oh what’s this? I don’t recall signing a credit agreement all those years ago" is a very crude get-out clause indeed.

If the account has only been running for say a year or two maybe and the lender cant produce the original contract then you could query their operating practice but still after spending the line of credit, paying it back then deciding once you have maxed out everything and find yourself in hot water to then decide you don’t want to pay it back anymore is a little lame, please explain the last 24 months of status history on you credit files? You have a revolving line of credit which you have been using and to then deny that it was legal for the bank to grant this facility because they can not find a bit paper with your autograph on is just stupid, how many have been successful in using this get-out clause in a court of law?
Not many albeit, any judge worth his professional salt should dismiss this as gross-misconduct on the debtor and fine them on the spot and make them pay all court fee's and pass a CCJ in favour of the creditor to ensure they receive their money which the debtor has agreed to repay, record of the credit agreement or not, just look at the subjects credit files and to lie in court would be character suicide and would be held in contempt.

The moral obligation to do the right thing is to repay the monies lent, if you are going to query a credit agreement or contract then do it before you commit to signing it.

My opinion, and I live my life by certain moral values - most of which I make up anyway.

Silver_Rocket

PROLIANT wrote: »

A record can take form of a physical entity like a piece of paper or it could be an entry in a database table, the lender will report account status to a credit reference agency on a monthly basis so if an account was opened in say 2000 by 2006 they do not have to legally keep a record of the original contract

Absolutely and completely wrong. The lenders MUST supply a true copy of the agreement related to each individual BY LAW and it must contain the correct terms.

PROLIANT wrote: »

To then dispute the legality of this contract after this time period should be laughed out of court due to the fact you have used this account for x number years and have evidence of it existing on your credit files, to then say "oh what’s this? I don’t recall signing a credit agreement all those years ago" is a very crude get-out clause indeed.

You clearly don't understand. No one is claiming they don't remember signing an agreement. They are saying the agreement was unenforceable and illegal.

PROLIANT wrote: »

If the account has only been running for say a year or two maybe and the lender cant produce the original contract then you could query their operating practice but still after spending the line of credit, paying it back then deciding once you have maxed out everything and find yourself in hot water to then decide you don’t want to pay it back anymore is a little lame, please explain the last 24 months of status history on you credit files? You have a revolving line of credit which you have been using and to then deny that it was legal for the bank to grant this facility because they can not find a bit paper with your autograph on is just stupid,

It's not stupid. It's the law.

PROLIANT wrote: »

how many have been successful in using this get-out clause in a court of law?

So many that companies like Barclaycard are now trying tricks such as sending out photocopies of terms and conditions which aren't credit agreements or in some cases blank signing copies which don't relate to the individual account as they must BY LAW.

PROLIANT wrote: »

any judge worth his professional salt should dismiss this as gross-misconduct on the debtor and fine them on the spot and make them pay all court fee's and pass a CCJ in favour of the creditor to ensure they receive their money which the debtor has agreed to repay, record of the credit agreement or not, just look at the subjects credit files and to lie in court would be character suicide and would be held in contempt.

No offence but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about here - I mean honestly. You've clearly not got a clue about how consumer or lending law and the courts work. I don't know if I am more embarrassed for you at saying all of that or worried for the people who are actually thinking you'll give good advice cos you've a high post count. If I thought you were that out your depth I wouldn't have pushed you into a response.

Apologies for that.

PROLIANT

Well maybe I am wrong, I put my hands up but that is my take on things.
The bottom line is people who live the "compensation" culture and steal through loopholes in laws are weak, disturbed and should be penalised to teach them a lesson, people like myself and many others who just get on with it and worry about things like making the right choices in life while maintaining a strong moral back-bone will always suffer because of a minority who just do not care.

I will say that I will indulge in watching those who try and most probably will fail, in screwing financial institutions over a piece of paper - suffer long term for their greed and short sightedness, they fall in the category of the dole scrounger and benefit fraudster, the spineless toad who mugs old ladies, there is no need for this to be going on in today’s society.

Problem is that we have too many people promoting this kind of behaviour and it can only be diagnosed as some kind of mental disorder, the result of many living the high life on credit - the Walter Mitty life style, living in a dream world pretending to be somebody they are not.

Shock horror - reality has struck with great force, now that these people realise that they can’t pretend to be their fictitious character anymore they begin to fail mentally and can’t cope so they resort to unorthodox methods that have a detrimental bearing on society and business as a whole.
It is a sad country that we have become and I hope we can rectify it before it is too late, maybe the current recession will re-educate people and put right some of the mess they have contributed to.

[Deleted User]

I think ive seen enough of this thread, people continiously stating how its acceptable to have their debt (built up through irresponsible spending) written off.

How would feel if youre neighbour broke into your house and stole all of your belongings but you couldnt do anything about it because the Law doesnt have any evidence...oh wait, thats covered on insurance right?:j

Well what about one of your loved ones was murdered but they couldnt prosecute the guilty party due to lack of evidence..sucks right? well thats the LAW.

And yes i can compare the two, because its all about the law, whats right and wrong legally..never mind morally, if you can get away with it then why not. Take what you can whilst you can.

Always remember what goes around comes around, and i hope this is sooner rather than later. :rolleyes:

I would agree also with the previous poster who suggested if this is acceptable they should be never be granted credit facilities again. Its funny, people get charges for missing payments and going overdrawn and missing direct debits, yet they get them all refunded and then do it again..is that really teaching them to learn from mistakes? Same thing here people never learn from mistakes, call it a personal Boom and Bust:rotfl: .

It would be nice to see how many people didnt realise ticking a box on a website counts a signature:D .

Good luck to the Fr33 l0aders, what great role models you are to the future generations:T

Silver_Rocket

PROLIANT wrote: »

Well maybe I am wrong, I put my hands up but that is my take on things.
The bottom line is people who live the "compensation" culture and steal through loopholes in laws are weak, disturbed and should be penalised to teach them a lesson, people like myself and many others who just get on with it and worry about things like making the right choices in life while maintaining a strong moral back-bone will always suffer because of a minority who just do not care.

Good grief......

PROLIANT wrote: »

I will say that I will indulge in watching those who try and most probably will fail, in screwing financial institutions over a piece of paper - suffer long term for their greed and short sightedness, they fall in the category of the dole scrounger and benefit fraudster, the spineless toad who mugs old ladies, there is no need for this to be going on in today’s society.

It's not a "piece of paper" - it's a legal document - which doesn't comply to the law. That last bit about old ladies is emotive nonsense.

PROLIANT wrote: »

Problem is that we have too many people promoting this kind of behaviour and it can only be diagnosed as some kind of mental disorder, the result of many living the high life on credit - the Walter Mitty life style, living in a dream world pretending to be somebody they are not.

Curse people and their damned dreams.

PROLIANT wrote: »

Shock horror - reality has struck with great force, now that these people realise that they can’t pretend to be their fictitious character anymore they begin to fail mentally and can’t cope so they resort to unorthodox methods that have a detrimental bearing on society and business as a whole.

Are you a psychiatrist in your spare time?

PROLIANT wrote: »

It is a sad country that we have become and I hope we can rectify it before it is too late, maybe the current recession will re-educate people and put right some of the mess they have contributed to.

Astounding stuff. You've absolutely no idea how all this is happening.

I'll leave you alone now - you're utterly out your depth.

:beer:

geoffarm

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

Your taxes have been handed over to organisations who have been completely reckless and irresponsible in the way they regulated themselves for a number of years and show little or no sign of taking steps to reform.

SR you forgot to mention the obscene bonuses and the Final Salary Plus schemes awarded to these incompetent senior executives -

ah but to be fair to them they have had to work hard (at concealing their mistakes) and must have had a terribly stressful time deciding between Moet or Lanson for the Office Party, I fully sympathize with them NOT.

Silver_Rocket

geoffarm wrote: »

SR you forgot to mention the obscene bonuses and the Final Salary Plus schemes awarded to these incompetent senior executives -

ah but to be fair to them they have had to work hard (at concealing their mistakes) and must have had a terribly stressful time deciding between Moet or Lanson for the Office Party, I fully sympathize with them NOT.

Fred Goodwin has made £20m out the banking industry,

His last company posted a £28bn loss.

:mad: