Unenforceable Credit Agreements

Mutton_Geoff

I'm so sad, even put my pet niggle in my sig :rotfl:

Whitey_McFlighty

Thanks everyone for your input, seems to have turned in to an English language lesson but nevertheless nzseries1 I'll follow those links certainly & let you know. Many thanks!

Apologies to Andy, maybe if he finds newbie threads so boring, he should avoid them instead of wasting everyone's time replying!

_Andy_

Whitey_McFlighty wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your input, seems to have turned in to an English language lesson but nevertheless nzseries1 I'll follow those links certainly & let you know. Many thanks!

Apologies to Andy, maybe if he finds newbie threads so boring, he should avoid them instead of wasting everyone's time replying!

How witty. My point is that there must be 10-12 threads created every week on the same subject. If you'd had used the search facility you'd have found plenty of them.

garthdp

_Andy_ wrote: »

How witty. My point is that there must be 10-12 threads created every week on the same subject. If you'd had used the search facility you'd have found plenty of them.

so don't look at them if it bothers you so much.:rolleyes:

Cashpig74

_Andy_ wrote: »

How witty. My point is that there must be 10-12 threads created every week on the same subject. If you'd had used the search facility you'd have found plenty of them.

Maybe some ppl have better things to do than spend their lives on a forum ANDY and just want a quick answer.

Besides, new people are less likely to familiarise themselves with all the facilities, and will jump in to posting threads for instant responses.

We all do.

Get over it.

epsilondraconis

nzseries1 wrote: »

I was watching Gladiators last night, and heard this shocking language:

Contestant: Which gladiator did that?
Host: It was Raven what done that. :mad:

Sorry for totally derailing the thread, OP :-)

I'm not sure which is the most shocking, the poor use of grammar, or the fact that you've admitted in open forum that you watch the Gladiators!

druss

epsilondraconis wrote: »

I'm not sure which is the most shocking, the poor use of grammar, or the fact that you've admitted in open forum that you watch the Gladiators!

lol

:rotfl:

ralmfao

druss

Hi June

The overall idea is not a scam

Section 127-3 of the Consumer Credit Act states:-
The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

Quote

" I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable. "


- Francis Bennion draughtsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974



HOWEVER

Some of the companies offering this service may not be being honest with you.

The only agreements that qualify are ones taken prior to april 2007, after this date the consumer credit act changed and the above section removed.


Shop around! there are many companies who charge lower fees, they will recover costs from the lenders solicitors if succesful and have an insurance if unsuccessful.

In theory you can try to do it yourself, try the consumer action group, although in my humble opinion is that you will need a solicitor of some description to do it properly, whether this is a solicitor appointed by a claims management firm or a solicitor you employ doesnt really matter.

Just work out the cost involved

Hope this helps . good luck

regards D

never-in-doubt

june.gibbs wrote: »

Just been offered this service for £640 flat fee. The agent never mentioned the April 2007 date and my cards were started AFTER this date. Finding the £640 would be a hardship for me and I am worried about it being a scam and losing the money I can ill afford.

Do not pay a company, you do it yourself. Again, read up this thread and look for my link to CAG.

never-in-doubt

druss wrote: »

Hi June

The overall idea is not a scam

Section 127-3 of the Consumer Credit Act states:-
The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

Quote

" I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable. "


- Francis Bennion draughtsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Thanks for this - i've added it to the very disputed thread, if thats ok with you? Found here: #173 / http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1541119&page=9