Any Comments from Martin Lewis Re: getting loans written off?

AMILLIONDOLLARS

CAG ? sorry full name please

AMD

fermi

AMILLIONDOLLARS wrote: »

CAG ? sorry full name please

AMD

Look at bookie's signature.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

silly me!!!!

AMD

bookworm1363

Sorry yes, Consumer Action Group. Thanks, Fermi. (note to self: must stop assuming people can read my mind, lol)

petermb_2

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Peter, thanks for a lot of the info you have given, but I think that you'll find there have been plenty of successes on CAG and they most certainly weren't gagged, lol.

I would however strongly advise against paying an ambulance chaser to do it for anyone when there is no need. As Peter says, either it's enforceable or it's not. Educate yourselves, do it yourselves, don't pay anyone any fees, it's madness.

I never doubted for a moment that there has been plenty of successes. I understand the issues very well and know that there will be many who will successfuly claim. My concern is that I do not believe that as many as 80% or whatever the figure is that is being bandied about by claims companies is acurate. It will be much lower but will still be hugely significant.

As for the gagging thing. You just see what happend in the coming months. I was given some insider information recently that outlines exactly what and how the lenders will act in the coming months. Basically they realise very well that you cannot defend that which is indefenceable so the best defence is attack.

bookworm1363

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with what you say about the CMCs. Personally, anything they claim I would take with a pinch of salt. After all, they're only in it for one thing, and that's their fees, which they will get whether they're successful or nor so of course it is in their interest to inflate their figures!

However, I also believe that in the case of a non-enforceable agreement, then 80% is probably close to the mark, the remainder being judges who take it upon themselves to discard the CCA74 as an irrelevant piece of paper or such. In the case of enforceable agreements, then they are enforceable and that's it.

I fear that in the future, judges will decide to use their discretion (some already do) more and more whether the agreement is pre 06 or not and bar appeals which most people won't be able to raise anyway, there won't be much that they can do about that.

petermb_2

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with what you say about the CMCs. Personally, anything they claim I would take with a pinch of salt. After all, they're only in it for one thing, and that's their fees, which they will get whether they're successful or nor so of course it is in their interest to inflate their figures!

However, I also believe that in the case of a non-enforceable agreement, then 80% is probably close to the mark, the remainder being judges who take it upon themselves to discard the CCA74 as an irrelevant piece of paper or such. In the case of enforceable agreements, then they are enforceable and that's it.

I fear that in the future, judges will decide to use their discretion (some already do) more and more whether the agreement is pre 06 or not and bar appeals which most people won't be able to raise anyway, there won't be much that they can do about that.

LOL now I cant agree totally with your comment regarding CMCs as I happen to run an ethical claims company that offers a totally free service. Now you have to admit that that is something you dont hear too often.

I also agree that judges will be more likely to use their discression and throw out as many unenforecability claims as they can. I am sure they are being led that way by their masters. For that reason alone my legal team look for all issues rather than just that of unenforceability. There is more than one way of skinning a cat.

Shiku_2

petermb wrote: »

LOL now I cant agree totally with your comment regarding CMCs as I happen to run an ethical claims company that offers a totally free service. Now you have to admit that that is something you dont hear too often.

I also agree that judges will be more likely to use their discression and throw out as many unenforecability claims as they can. I am sure they are being led that way by their masters. For that reason alone my legal team look for all issues rather than just that of unenforceability. There is more than one way of skinning a cat.

Peter, do you mean to say that even if an agreement contains relevant dates, signatures, APR calculations, toital amount repayable etc, that there are still certain terms under which an agreement can be rendered un-enforceable.... I got this impression form reading the Martin Lewis comment quoted earlier in this thread.....?

petermb_2

Shiku wrote: »

Peter, do you mean to say that even if an agreement contains relevant dates, signatures, APR calculations, toital amount repayable etc, that there are still certain terms under which an agreement can be rendered un-enforceable.... I got this impression form reading the Martin Lewis comment quoted earlier in this thread.....?

Not necessarily unenforceable. The loan could be deemed voidable or unenforceable or even both. It really depends on the circumstances of each loan.

booi666

cuddly12 wrote: »

I am sorry but I do just have to say to all of you hoping to get your loan written off, You were the one's who took out the loan and you were happy to spend the money you were lent and now you want them to write off your debt? I appreciate that you will have paid back alot fo what you borrowed especially if you have had the loan for several years, but surely you knew what you were getting into when you took the loan out and you should have read the credit agreement before signing anything!

Im sorry but i can only wet myself with laughter at this quote:rotfl::rotfl: