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

mowerman2

Could I bump algenons question. Who are these companies that will investigate if a credit agreement is legally enforceable for free?

Hucks77

petermb wrote: »

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.

I took a loan with hsbc in 2005. 7.5k, 49 payments of £166 per month at 6.5% APR. No PPI!!
Do i challenge the C/A ?
To me it's like this: It makes no difference if they have a copy of the agreement or not, i know the terms of the loan and am happy to pay it.
The BR was around 4% and i got 6.5% fixed....no rip off or forced ppi.

i can't help thinking that if i challenge the CA I'm alleviating my responsibilty to pay it on something that makes no difference to me whether it exists or not.
i will need hsbc again at some point and have no beef with them what so ever.

I do agree if laws are broken then banks will have to take the hit as this 'thing' will only get bigger.
Morally though if challenging this helps pay the mortgage and keeps a roof over your head then you do what you have to do.....we are after all in survival mode!!

mebo81

Thanks for the positive comments (for the most part anyway). I didn't realise my post would be quite so flammatory! I will look into this cautiously and see what happens.

For the doubters, I (like a lot of the people on here) have overstretched myself with unsecured debt and my earning ability does not match up with the payment demands i constantly receive, so perhaps you'll be a little less judgemental when the next newby comes on here asking for help and advice.

ILW

Just been thinking.
If the loan company company cannot find the agreement and the borrrower cannt either, from previous posts I would assume that no agreement exists. At this point what is to stop the lender saying they never agreed to loan the money and demand immediate repayment ( as in the case where a bank accidentally credits a customers bank account).
Any thoughts?

iolanthe07

mebo81, I can see where you're coming from, and I'm trying not to be judgemental, but don't you think personal responsibility comes into this a bit? If you borrow money, then surely you should pay it back. If you've fallen on hard times, then by all means negotiate for easier terms, but we are all adults who can read when we sign up for loans. People trying to get out of paying their proper debts are acting as immorally as the banks. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Browntoa

Legal experts contacted by Money Mail are unaware of any specific flaws in the Consumer Credit Act.


The only loophole they suggested was a change to the rules covering borrowers who were being treated unfairly and entitled for their debt to be cancelled, and interest and charges repaid.

Borrowers now have to prove their deal was based on an 'unfair relationship' rather than it was 'extortionate'.

there is no record of a court case involving this so called "loophole"

srely the absence of a agreement could not explain away the existance of the loan and your agreement to pay it as you would have made regular payments

petermb_2

ILW wrote: »

Just been thinking.
If the loan company company cannot find the agreement and the borrrower cannt either, from previous posts I would assume that no agreement exists. At this point what is to stop the lender saying they never agreed to loan the money and demand immediate repayment ( as in the case where a bank accidentally credits a customers bank account).
Any thoughts?

The law is quite clear. The borrower has no responsibility to keep a copy of the agreement. However, the lender does. Sadly if the loan becomes unenforceable because the lender has not fulfilled their responsibilities under the CCA they cannot request the money be repaid at all. The loan becomes a gift.

CHR15

mebo81 wrote: »

For the doubters, I (like a lot of the people on here) have overstretched myself with unsecured debt and my earning ability does not match up with the payment demands i constantly receive, so perhaps you'll be a little less judgemental when the next newby comes on here asking for help and advice.

I think you will find that is precisely WHY people are so judgemental.

Your position has not been orchestrated by an unfortunate turn of events (redundancy, disability etc.) just a plain and simple spending greed in the past. :beer:

petermb_2

Browntoa wrote: »

Legal experts contacted by Money Mail are unaware of any specific flaws in the Consumer Credit Act.


The only loophole they suggested was a change to the rules covering borrowers who were being treated unfairly and entitled for their debt to be cancelled, and interest and charges repaid.

Borrowers now have to prove their deal was based on an 'unfair relationship' rather than it was 'extortionate'.

there is no record of a court case involving this so called "loophole"

the absence of a agreement could not explain away the existance of the loan and your agreement to pay it as you would have made regular payments

To my knowledge parliament does not write loopholes and I am sure that the Consumer Credit Act was written just the way it was supposed to be written.
I am sure that it was no mistake that the lender pays a price for getting fundemental issues incorrect. If the powers that be thought this should be changed it would have been changed in the last update of the Consumer Credit Act.

As it is the lenders won a huge victory in having the automatic unenforceability removed so that the judge has discression where this issue is concerned.

How can it be morally wrong if the government has put the laws in place enabling borrowers to legitimately challenge potentially flawed agreements?

If you continue to pay the loan after finding out that the agreement is unenforceable you will probably waive the right to take action, ever. This moral issue is a red herring where this is concerned.

petermb_2

Hucks77 wrote: »

I took a loan with hsbc in 2005. 7.5k, 49 payments of £166 per month at 6.5% APR. No PPI!!
Do i challenge the C/A ?
To me it's like this: It makes no difference if they have a copy of the agreement or not, i know the terms of the loan and am happy to pay it.
The BR was around 4% and i got 6.5% fixed....no rip off or forced ppi.

i can't help thinking that if i challenge the CA I'm alleviating my responsibilty to pay it on something that makes no difference to me whether it exists or not.
i will need hsbc again at some point and have no beef with them what so ever.

I do agree if laws are broken then banks will have to take the hit as this 'thing' will only get bigger.
Morally though if challenging this helps pay the mortgage and keeps a roof over your head then you do what you have to do.....we are after all in survival mode!!

Good for you. While there are lots of people like you there will be big smiles on bank manager's faces and lots of money in their pockets on bonus day.

If the lenders got their act together there would be no claims work to be had. Fortunately I cant see that happening for a long while yet. I have faith in them that their greed and arrogance will continue.