Credit Reclaim UK - Is this too good to be true?

talana

petermb wrote: »

It does not actully say in the article that the entire process is a scam. Only that many companies are making false claims regarding this issue. There is no argument about this fact. Many companies are merely seeking to persuade the public to part with their money.

No argument with you there.

petermb wrote: »

It does not change the fact that many loan agreements breach the Consumer Credit Act and are therefore unenforceable.

"It said statements that most loan agreements were "unenforceable" were particularly misleading."

And as the Citizen's Advice person says in the article:
"But many credit agreements do meet the legal requirements and therefore can't easily be challenged as unenforceable"

In other words, some may be unenforceable yes, but by no means all/most/the majority as I've read on many similar threads to this one. People just need to get real on this.

Browntoa

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1051918/Can-REALLY-cut-credit-card-debt.html

petermb_2

talana wrote: »

No argument with you there.



"It said statements that most loan agreements were "unenforceable" were particularly misleading."

And as the Citizen's Advice person says in the article:
"But many credit agreements do meet the legal requirements and therefore can't easily be challenged as unenforceable"

In other words, some may be unenforceable yes, but by no means all/most/the majority as I've read on many similar threads to this one. People just need to get real on this.

I was very careful to say many. Many does not mean all/most or the majority. It means in the scale of things there are many that are unenforceable.

Personally there are far more that are ok than there are that are challengeable. That is why I would never advocate someone paying to find out.

That is why I would advocate someone using a free service.

Hucks77

I agree with jopwo_87 about paying it back. If you can pay, pay it!

From what i can see the OFT are getting involved mainly due to the poor advertising.
An advert needs to be Clear,fair and not Misleading. Something i'm yet to find.

For me retrospective legislatuion has caused a huge grey area.
When the loan was signed for we/I knew the amount and monthly payment for it. The rules making a loan 'unenforcable' is q joke and heaping more pressure on the banks.
We need the banks whether we like them or not......

petermb_2

Hucks77 wrote: »

I agree with jopwo_87 about paying it back. If you can pay, pay it!

From what i can see the OFT are getting involved mainly due to the poor advertising.
An advert needs to be Clear,fair and not Misleading. Something i'm yet to find.

For me retrospective legislatuion has caused a huge grey area.
When the loan was signed for we/I knew the amount and monthly payment for it. The rules making a loan 'unenforcable' is q joke and heaping more pressure on the banks.
We need the banks whether we like them or not......

We need banks to be honest and open and not to rip us off as soon as we walk in the door. If you cant see that this stuff is all about getting the banks to deal fairly then we are going to be in exactly the same position down the road a pace.

Just to say we need banks is just head in the sand stuff.

As for the Consumer Credit Act legislation being a joke. I wonder why it had to be there in the first place. Probably because those that write such laws had evidence that we the public needed protection from these angelic lending houses.

I dont think it is people like me who need to get real or get a life. You anti guys ( bank's bleaters) need to wake up and see what these lenders have achieved. Even this week when they are basically falling apart at the seams and being held up by public money the banksters want to pay their staff bonuses totalling Billions.

Of course we need them but more importantly we need them to be honest.

~Brock~

Christ you've got it bad today Peter haven't you?

petermb_2

lol. It must be my age mate

Hucks77

The 'we're so sorry' from the bankers in the house of commons didn't wash with me either.
i agree we need the banks to be honest but having to wipe out debts based on an unenforcable credit agreement isn't helping the situation.
You can't blame people for persuing this route i just think it should never have been allowed in the 1st place!

petermb_2

Hucks77 wrote: »

The 'we're so sorry' from the bankers in the house of commons didn't wash with me either.
i agree we need the banks to be honest but having to wipe out debts based on an unenforcable credit agreement isn't helping the situation.
You can't blame people for persuing this route i just think it should never have been allowed in the 1st place!

The agreement is either enforceable or it isnt. It is not the borrower's fault if the lender is too busy ripping the borrower off to make sure their agreements comply with the law.

There again it is the very same law that allows lenders to remove people from their homes if they fail to pay. You cant have it all ways. If the law must be obeyed if it sides with the lender then you cant question it when the very same law sides with the borrower.

I call that having one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

algenon

So whats the story, could I claim given the criteria of date amount etc?
who do I contact as allI can find are companies offering services for upwards of £100
Any help direction would be greatly recieved.
Thanks