Unenforceable Credit Agreements

epsilondraconis

Would the real Cashpig74, please step forward...

nzseries1

gomer wrote: »

I wuz lisnin on da radio n it sed if u pay £250,0000 da credit peeps can rite off ur debts 4 u. Iz it wurf it coz i owe 2much innit?

I LOL'd. .....

AverageJoe_4

gomer wrote: »

Some of the comments he made to people who did not even speak to him were totally unacceptable and were not called for, like telling people that they don't deserve to have children just because they didn't agree with his opinion. Interesting that you chose not to see his attacks on other people. *wink*

Seriously though, the children thing was not that he didn't agree with "cashpig's" opinion, but to do with the fact that he feels he needs to pay hard earned money to a bank over and above his family and himself purely out of a "principle" when he's not even legally obliged to, I think makes him a total mug and he has misplaced his priorities as a father.

I certainly would not hesitate in weighing the two things up and choosing my family's own welbeing as my first instinctive choice over a huge high street corporate machine, where - let's face it - his debt it a drop in the ocean.

More precisely, if the law states that it can no longer be legally enforced and the contract has not complied with the Act, then the contract is not legal and does not stand, then the money assiociated with that is not considered a legally outstanding debt. So really, he has no debt to pay - hence the "Mug" comment when still paying a bank for no good reason.

IMO,

AverageJoe_4

gomer wrote: »

Some of the comments he made to people who did not even speak to him were totally unacceptable and were not called for, like telling people that they don't deserve to have children just because they didn't agree with his opinion. Interesting that you chose not to see his attacks on other people. *wink*

Seriously though, the children thing was not that he didn't agree with "cashpig's" opinion, but to do with the fact that he feels he needs to pay hard earned money to a bank over and above his family and himself purely out of a "principle" when he's not even legally obliged to, I think makes him a total mug and he has misplaced his priorities as a father.

I certainly would not hesitate in weighing the two things up and choosing my family's own welbeing as my first instinctive choice over a huge high street corporate machine, where - let's face it - his debt it a drop in the ocean.

More precisely, if the law states that it can no longer be legally enforced and the contract has not complied with the Act, then the contract is not legal and does not stand, then the money assiociated with that is not considered a legally outstanding debt. So really, he has no debt to pay - hence the "Mug" comment when still paying a bank for no good reason.

IMO, its actions like that, that encourages banks to hike up rates and charges cos the evidence is that people will pay up and not complain no matter how much they are taken the pi-ss out of. If the banks got a slap for poor workmanship, then perhaps they would be less greedy and souless and act like more responsible high street commercial organisations.

AJ

NickX

I know of cases where CCAs (Consumer Credit Agreements) have been successfully challenged. This has resulted in the Card Providers officially writing the debts off.

It is not a straight forward process, but once the Provider realises that the Debtor knows the law and is aware of their rights, then they will prefer to settle by way of writing the debt off or by way of a "Full and Final" settlement because they know that going to court could cost them more because the CCA is actually unenforceable due to mistakes on their part.

The process requires a high degree of nerve and aggressive negotiation, but if the CCA is unenforceable then they will eventually agree to write the debt off. It would take a certain personality to be able to carry this through or the use of a savvy solicitor.

AverageJoe_4

NickX wrote: »

I know of cases where CCAs (Consumer Credit Agreements) have been successfully challenged. This has resulted in the Card Providers officially writing the debts off.

It is not a straight forward process, but once the Provider realises that the Debtor knows the law and is aware of their rights, then they will prefer to settle by way of writing the debt off or by way of a "Full and Final" settlement because they know that going to court could cost them more because the CCA is actually unenforceable due to mistakes on their part.

The process requires a high degree of nerve and aggressive negotiation, but if the CCA is unenforceable then they will eventually agree to write the debt off. It would take a certain personality to be able to carry this through or the use of a savvy solicitor.

If the client knew the law, then they shouldn't be making any full and final settlement offer - there is no requirement to and if they do the bank would think one of two things:

1 - the client does NOT know his onions and they will exploit that
2 - the client has more money than sense

Yes though, everything else I would agree on - there is a reason why lawyers get paid well - this is good example.

NickX

AverageJoe wrote: »

If the client knew the law, then they shouldn't be making any full and final settlement offer - there is no requirement to

I meant that the Creditor would actually offer a "Full and Final" settlement to close the case.

I agree that if you know the agreement to be flawed then you do not need to accept this and can continue to push them to get the debt 100% written off.

However, depending on your circumstances and the specifics of the offer, it may be beneficial to take the offer. I am thinking if you are challenging multiple agreements and the offer is very low (perhaps 10p in the £1), then if you take the hit and pay that one to close it off you can then spend your resources on getting the others written off.

If you are paying a solicitor, they will be charging for each agreement and it may actually save money to accept an attractive "Full and Final" settlement.

However, everyone's circumstances is going to differ.

AverageJoe_4

i dont get you then mate - if the agreement is flawed, then there is no grey area - it is unenforceable and that makes it "game over". There is no such thing as "push for 100% written off", you dont have to convince the bank to agree to writing it off, is its a flawed agreement, then you win and they cannot no matter how much they jump up and down and stamp their feet - tell u diffent. It becomes effectively "written off" as the debt is no longer valid - they are not allowed to seek further payments...

NickX

AverageJoe wrote: »

i dont get you then mate - if the agreement is flawed, then there is no grey area - it is unenforceable and that makes it "game over". There is no such thing as "push for 100% written off", you dont have to convince the bank to agree to writing it off, is its a flawed agreement, then you win and they cannot no matter how much they jump up and down and stamp their feet - tell u diffent. It becomes effectively "written off" as the debt is no longer valid - they are not allowed to seek further payments...

Well the way I understand the situation is that Unenforceable and Written Off are not the same things.

Yes the debt can be legally unenforcable and the Creditor will probably be aware of this but it will not stop them attempting to claim repayment or indeed selling the debt to a DCA.

For instance Creditors should not sell a debt on to a DCA if it is officially disputed, but they do - and every day of the week.

The DCAs are even worse, they will lie and cheat and threaten to get repayment. All they care about is getting money through the door.

So, what I am saying is that you may know the debt is unenforcable, the Creditor may know that the debt is unenforcable but actually getting them to admit it and go away is a different matter. You really need them to send you a letter stating that they are writing your debt off.

I know you are going to say, unenforcable is unenforcable and they can't do anything about it, but for the poor debtor suffering financial hardship, that is easier said than done in practice. If it were me I would tell them where to go, and I suspect you would too, but not everyone will be as ascertive and when they get nasty DCA's threatening visits and removal of belongings are they going to stand up to them ?

What you really need is written confirmation that the debt is finished. You can then also use that to remove any negative feedback from your Credit File with regard to the debt.

Otherwise its just your opinion of it being unenforcable against theirs and without a legal judgement the situation could just fester.

Hope I've made sense.

AverageJoe_4

NickX wrote: »

Well the way I understand the situation is that Unenforceable and Written Off are not the same things.

Yes the debt can be legally unenforcable and the Creditor will probably be aware of this but it will not stop them attempting to claim repayment or indeed selling the debt to a DCA.

For instance Creditors should not sell a debt on to a DCA if it is officially disputed, but they do - and every day of the week.

The DCAs are even worse, they will lie and cheat and threaten to get repayment. All they care about is getting money through the door.

So, what I am saying is that you may know the debt is unenforcable, the Creditor may know that the debt is unenforcable but actually getting them to admit it and go away is a different matter. You really need them to send you a letter stating that they are writing your debt off.

I know you are going to say, unenforcable is unenforcable and they can't do anything about it, but for the poor debtor suffering financial hardship, that is easier said than done in practice. If it were me I would tell them where to go, and I suspect you would too, but not everyone will be as ascertive and when they get nasty DCA's threatening visits and removal of belongings are they going to stand up to them ?

What you really need is written confirmation that the debt is finished. You can then also use that to remove any negative feedback from your Credit File with regard to the debt.

Otherwise its just your opinion of it being unenforcable against theirs and without a legal judgement the situation could just fester.

Hope I've made sense.

I understand but you're 95% there.

Where an unenforceable agreement is concerned, the client makes a claim - it gets disputed by the lender - standard stuff.

Letters continue to the point where court action is threated cos you (clent) know you are right. DO NOT MAKE A CLAIM FOR UNENFORCEABLILITY UNLESS YOU KNOW YOU ARE LEGALLY CORRECT.

Lender knows he is in the wrong and has 2 choice:

1 - go to court and lose
2 - settle out of court, pay some expenses if appropriate, and acknowledge the flawed agreement.

3 - this acknowldedgement will come in the way of letter from the bank admitting defeat - if there is no such letter, then the case continues to court.

A judge in court cannot look at the case and make up his own mind on it ( I mean assuming that you are correct in your claim against the bank) or unless these are agreements that have been signed from May 2007 onwards. -

This is why I say that you cannot lose if you get your facts right. The banks internal lawyers will be dealing with the case and advising the banking management of how to proceed and sadly (for them haha!!) there is nothing they can do to prevent it, hence the big discussions of late in the public domain on it.

then case closed. There is NO DCA !! There cannot be and if there is, then you ahve every right to sue the bank again and the DCA for harrassment. The debt is no longer valid under the eyes of the law - there is no debt to sell and it gets "written off" the banking accounts and swallowed.

Credit file should be adjusted so that it does not appear as a defaulted loan in the flile by the bank - you'll need to chase that up no doubt.

AJ