Unenforceable Credit Agreements

noah271007

aj2703 wrote: »

if you placed the account in dispute then the company cannot default or add charges etc or even sell the debt on...?. Take a look at this link and inparticular posting number 6 http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....html?t=963087 pay particular attention to the bottom half of the letter


"Whilst it is unenforceable, no interest is to be added to the account. No action can be taken against me. No adverse credit references or defaults can be listed against me with Credit Reference Agencies. The account cannot be passed to a Debt Collection Agency. And lastly, I am not obliged to make any further payments to the account. Essentially, the account is ‘held’ as it was on the date of the CCA request expiring (****, 2007)"

THIS IS A POST BY ME IN ANOTHER THREAD. Yes they got greedy noah for trying to get the legal fees written off. The fact still remains they won the claim.

Thanks for that aj2703. Has there been any other successful claims?

Hackneygirl

noah271007 wrote: »

It is very hard for me to hear the ending words like HAS and HAVE and HAD. I always get them confused at times -the reason? I was born profoundly deaf. So grammar is not exactly my strongest subject!!

wow

actually you are pretty amazing, noah and you give straightforward, no- holding back advice without belittling people :kisses3: :wave:

aj2703

noah271007 wrote: »

Thanks for that aj2703. Has there been any other successful claims?

I have to be honest i do not know. My knowledge is very limited to be honest in this area. Fermi and a couple of others are the ones to really be speaking to, they might know of more wins. My guess is that because they won this claim, most companies will not go as far as court just incase they lose too.

chuckley

nemetor wrote: »

You borrowed - now pay it back loser.

LMAO! OWNED!

bert&ernie

noah271007 wrote: »

hi bert&ernie, hope things are well with u? I recall we had a discussion on this in another thread a while back do you remember? Just because there is no CCA doesn't mean the debt have to be written off. If this is the case, then there will be a serious crisis ahead of us.

I'm good thanks, and yes I do remember.

I agree that the absence of an agreement doesn't mean that the debt has to be written-off. It simply means that it cant be legally enforced. Given that very few debts are actually collected using legal enforcement, this shouldn't be a bid deal. I also understand that the CCA2006 changed the law to allow the courts to enforce debts without a valid agreement. In that sense its only likely to remain an issue for a small proportion of revolving accounts (e.g. credit cards - overdrafts are not applicable) acquired before 2007. A loan book will churn over time anyway, as will the majority of credit card accounts.

However, it could still become a major issue for lenders and debt buyers if enough people start to assert their rights and default or frustrate collection activity. The industry is using the exact same playbook as they did for unfair charges - pretend that the issue doesn't exist and only act when forced to.

Its important to note that a lender isn't obliged under section 78 to supply a facsimile of the original signed agreement. They are obliged to send a "true copy" and many lenders will send something other than a facsimile that they assert, usually quite disingenuously, to be such e.g. a blank application form or a set of generic (and usually only current) terms and conditions. In my view this effectively betrays the fact that they don't actually have the original or a facsimile of it, which is a problem for them because they will need this if they want to take you to court.

Its really not difficult to devise processes that ensure you can archive and retrieve important original document or evidence quality facsimiles. Banks that have failed to do this only have themselves to blame. Prudent banks will also have estimated their exposure to this risk and will be provisioning accordingly.

epsilondraconis

aj2703 wrote: »

"Whilst it is unenforceable, no interest is to be added to the account. No action can be taken against me. No adverse credit references or defaults can be listed against me with Credit Reference Agencies. The account cannot be passed to a Debt Collection Agency. And lastly, I am not obliged to make any further payments to the account. Essentially, the account is ‘held’ as it was on the date of the CCA request expiring (****, 2007)"

Great post aj2703.

Does anyone think it matters when the debt is added to the credit card? For example, someone has a credit card with a £10k limit and there is currently no debt on the card. The card holder writes to the credit card company and discovers that no credit card agreement is available. Once the card holder receives this information they spend up to the limit on the card and then send to the credit card company the aforementioned letter indicating that the account is in dispute.

It will be interesting to see what happens in such a case.

Hackneygirl - look no offence eh. I'm no better than anyone else on here - that wasn't my point. Also my point wasn't specifically about punctuation either, it was more of a general moan. Anyway, probably best we leave it there, I didn't mean to have a go...

aj2703

epsilondraconis wrote: »

Great post aj2703.

Does anyone think it matters when the debt is added to the credit card? For example, someone has a credit card with a £10k limit and there is currently no debt on the card. The card holder writes to the credit card company and discovers that no credit card agreement is available. Once the card holder receives this information they spend up to the limit on the card and then send to the credit card company the aforementioned letter indicating that the account is in dispute.

It will be interesting to see what happens in such a case.

Well i suppose that a court would find in favour of the card company. If someone wrote to the card company asking for a copy of the cca the letter would be dated. Almost certainly the credit card company's return letters would be. They would be able to prove in court that prior to the persons request they had no debt and a high limit, but after being told by the card company that on a certain date they sent a letter saying they could not find the agreement the person then suddenly spent on his card and then refused to pay i think would lead to a win for the card company.

epsilondraconis

aj2703 wrote: »

Well i suppose that a court would find in favour of the card company. If someone wrote to the card company asking for a copy of the cca the letter would be dated. Almost certainly the credit card company's return letters would be. They would be able to prove in court that prior to the persons request they had no debt and a high limit, but after being told by the card company that on a certain date they sent a letter saying they could not find the agreement the person then suddenly spent on his card and then refused to pay i think would lead to a win for the card company.

I agree. Therefore it begs the question, if you have a credit card that allows you to transfer money to your current account i.e. egg money, you could transfer to your current account an amount up to your credit card limit and then (a reasonable time later) write the letter to see if a credit card agreement is in place. If there is, you continue stoozing the money in a high interest savings account and makes some extra money on the side; however if there isn't, you send in the 'dispute' letter and potentially make a lot of extra money on the side.

Makes you wonder whether some people would try it.

Edit - I'm obviously not advocating this route - as you all know, I have standards! I just wondered whether it would work.

Hackneygirl

epsilondraconis wrote: »

Hackneygirl - look no offence eh. I'm no better than anyone else on here - that wasn't my point. Also my point wasn't specifically about punctuation either, it was more of a general moan. Anyway, probably best we leave it there, I didn't mean to have a go...

I accept your luke-warm apology - I thought you were really dis-respectful to me as a newish poster but you got more than you bargained for - I have noticed numerous people on here who post without the correct punctuation and they should all feel free to post how they want - next time you have a general moan please don't take it out on me because I will come back at you

:kisses3: sending you a very small light kiss

bert&ernie

aj2703 wrote: »

Well i suppose that a court would find in favour of the card company. If someone wrote to the card company asking for a copy of the cca the letter would be dated. Almost certainly the credit card company's return letters would be. They would be able to prove in court that prior to the persons request they had no debt and a high limit, but after being told by the card company that on a certain date they sent a letter saying they could not find the agreement the person then suddenly spent on his card and then refused to pay i think would lead to a win for the card company.

I think this is interesting. I can see the point you are trying to make, but I cant see how this would make the agreement any more enforceable. Perhaps it could be argued that the cardholder acted fraudulently, but that would imply their was a deception. Its hard to see the bank being deceived, when the cardholder actually draws their attention to the fact that the agreement is unenforceable.

The lender cant have it both ways - by asserting that the agreement is actually enforceable and then crying fraud when if the court deems it not to be so. In my view, if a bank leaves open a line of credit after they become aware that they don't have the requisite documentation to enforce the debt, then they are being exceptionally reckless.