Unenforceable Credit Agreements

bert&ernie

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Lets not forget that the credit card companies make money on each transaction from the vendors.

Ah, the interchange fee. Who do you think ultimately pays for that?

adrianelliott

I think I can see what the Laywers approach is:

Basically the Consumer Credit Act 1996 meant that the previous hard to meet "extortionate" test has been replaced with a new test based on an "unfair relationship2. All credit agreements since August 2007 were written in light of the legislation and had to meet this new test, Then lenders were given a year to get their existing agreements in order, before the new unfairness test started to apply to all existing open agreements.

Basically anyone who opened a credit card agreement before 2007 will have been signed up when a looser test existed, but now in 2008 the judges are viewing a stricter test.

It is likely that the banks have not got everything in order, and that older customers may now have cards which would have passed the old test but may now not do so well with the new test.

Heres an article about the unfairness test in its draft version http://www.mfgonline.co.uk/article/Unfair-relationships-between-borrower-and-lender-13914.html, but what obviously matters is the current law on it.

pt2537

normanmark wrote: »

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? Nor do my clients, it would appear that you are of the belief that our clients go out of their way to avoid their debts, this is wrong and so far removed from reality its untrue!!they do not, however they use the law to protect themselves

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.

can i just ask, for those who seem to be of the opinion that it is wrong to use the law to defend yourself, to stop a creditor from taking your home from you when the agreement which they are reliant upon is legally defective AND ITS NOT A TECHNICALITY BTW ITS LAW, those who are taking the moral highground on this

How many of you have reclaimed bank and credit card charges?

seems to me that there are double standards here, its on the one hand to reclaim charges, using the law but its not fair to challenge the credit agreements using the same law

were you not indebted to the bank by way of charges? were those charges not in our opinion unlawful? there is no difference in challenging a credit agreement or reclaiming a penalty charge

Paul_Herring

pt2537 wrote:

can i just ask, for those who seem to be of the opinion that it is wrong to use the law to defend yourself

I, and I'm sure many others on this thread, don't think it's wrong to defend yourself against illegitimate charges, I think it's wrong to use loopholes in this manner to write off money that you legitimately owe.

How many of you have reclaimed bank and credit card charges?

From my high horse, I'll say, not me, because I didn't get any.

pt2537

Paul_Herring wrote: »

I, and I'm sure many others on this thread, don't think it's wrong to defend yourself against illegitimate charges, I think it's wrong to use loopholes in this manner to write off money that you legitimately owe.

From my high horse, I'll say, not me, because I didn't get any.

so its ok to use the law to fight penalty charges which while contained within the contract which you entered into, are unlawful. but if in that same contract there is another clause which is unlawful then its frowned upon to use the law to your advantage, because that is exactly what it boils down to, a clause within the contract which makes the agreement defective

this is getting us no where, in the eyes of most on here you are ok if you want to fight back against a late payment charge but not if the lender has issued you with an extortionate credit bargain or a incorrect agreement cos the amount of credit is wrong and unduly prejudices you,

to pick up on what you are saying, the word legitimately, that is an interesting word.

Lets look at what the Court of Appeal said about this, on the issue of whether you actually have a liability if the lender fails to discharge its obligations and follow the consumer protection law which was after all enacted to protect the consumer

I quote from Sir Andrew Morrit The Vice Chancellor in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2001] 3 All ER 229 in the Court of Appeal

At Para 26

. In
effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift,of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid

Now this judgment is still good law even today.

The courts have no problem in taking this view, Parliament had no problem in taking this view when it passed the act and the parliamentary draftsman himself had no problem with taking this view ( See here http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2003/2003-061-consumer-credit-1974-s127-3.pdf )

funnily enough, Professor Sir Roy Goode Qc who is the most authoritive expert on consumer credit law also has no problem in taking this view

and i have no problem in taking the view that in the correct circumstances where the lender has refused to deal with the debtor in the correct manner and takes an agressive approach where the agreement they are pursuing is defective, then the debtor should be allowed to ask the court to adjudicate on the matter and if the court draws the conclusion that the agreement is unenforceable then so be it

as i said before and will reaffirm, i do not go out to help people who are blatantly trying to avoid their debts , but i do help people who are in genuine trouble and are suffering at the hands of DCAs et al

NickX

pt2537 wrote: »

i do not go out to help people who are blatantly trying to avoid their debts , but i do help people who are in genuine trouble and are suffering at the hands of DCAs et al

I am not a solicitor, but this is very much the viewpoint that I hold with regard to people who are struggling with debts.

normanmark

pt2537 wrote: »

How many of you have reclaimed bank and credit card charges?

seems to me that there are double standards here, its on the one hand to reclaim charges, using the law but its not fair to challenge the credit agreements using the same law

were you not indebted to the bank by way of charges? were those charges not in our opinion unlawful? there is no difference in challenging a credit agreement or reclaiming a penalty charge

Nope, never been charged any form of penalty from my bank. Double standards? You'd have to say that in that i agree with people who reclaim those charges. Which i don't agree with either actually. The people who actually follow the system are the ones who lose out in the long run, when banks decide to charge for their services.

However you'll sing these rights from hell to high water as they're the ones which keep you in business.

PROLIANT

oh i see this stupid thread is still going, I keep getting emails from MSE about it, must unsubscribe asap, just stop for a moment and understand this....pay back what you owe or declare yourself bankcrupt...simple.
Stop living off the backs of others and pushing up APR for everybody, it is simple really, you borrow...you repay.

pt2537

Despite what ever you may think, we do not derive our sole business from this kind of work,

You are right about singing those right, in fact ALL rights which are established via common law Statute law and European law as they are the law of this county

dont shoot me for that, if it troubles you then campaign to your MP, lobby Parliament after all its these people who create the law

At the end of the day, i do a job which helps people, the morals are irrelevant as after all there is no such thing as a moral offence nor can you be punished for breaking the spirit of the law

i can understand your view point, and all the points of view expressed but dont shoot me because i dont agree with them

i have posted the relevent quotes and case law on this thread to support my arguments, at the end of the day its not my fault the courts took that view, its not my fault that the House of Lords upheld those views, its not my fault that Parliament enacted the legislation but when you see the nasty, under hand way that people who are down on their luck and TRYING TO PAY THEIR DEBTS are treated, but the lenders wont accept their offers and just want to obtain a charge over their homes and then an order of possession then i am blooming glad that this law is here and can be relied upon because after all people do fall down on their luck but of course wiuth some of the views expressed im sure that its ok for a young family to be evicted onto the streets and be denied a defence as the credit agreement was defective because they would be viewed as trying to avoid their debts, shocking, absolutely shocking, i have stressed and stressed and stressed that we help people in need, and lets be clear our first approach is not to immediatley write off the debt, infact that falls as a last resort

Since my views are unwelcomed here on this forum, im off back to the CAG

pt2537

PROLIANT wrote: »

oh i see this stupid thread is still going, I keep getting emails from MSE about it, must unsubscribe asap, just stop for a moment and understand this....pay back what you owe or declare yourself bankcrupt...simple.
Stop living off the backs of others and pushing up APR for everybody, it is simple really, you borrow...you repay.

Dont worry, this is my last post on this forum

clearly i am not welcome on here so no need for you to unsubscribe