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

ILW

petermb wrote: »

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.

I have not seen on any of the legal rulings the phrase "the loan becomes a gift"
More than happy to be corrected though.

petermb_2

ILW wrote: »

I have not seen on any of the legal rulings the phrase "the loan becomes a gift"
More than happy to be corrected though.

If the loan becomes unenforceable there is no opportunity for the lender to recoup the capital and cannot request further payments. The borrower keeps the goods.

ILW

petermb wrote: »

If the loan becomes unenforceable there is no opportunity for the lender to recoup the capital and cannot request further payments. The borrower keeps the goods.

Is it not the case that the loan becomes unenforceble because if the documents cannot be found, it is deemed that there is no agreement?

fermi

ILW wrote: »

I have not seen on any of the legal rulings the phrase "the loan becomes a gift"
More than happy to be corrected though.

Here ya go!

Court of Appeal Judgement.

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 (2 May 2001)

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 sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;

A lot more to it in that case, but the principle is arguable in law.

Regardless under s127(3) of the CCA74 for a pre April 2007 agreement if there is not a signed CCA containing the prescribed terms that can be shown to the court, the court is not entitled to make an order to enforce the agreement.

Moral argument or not, that is the legal bare bones of it.

Hucks77

petermb wrote: »

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.

Surely borrowing money and paying back is a fundemental part of banking?
If that puts a smile on the bank managers face then so be it.
I try not to concern myself about anyone else but myself right now.
I work in finance and have concerns about jobs ect, if i get laid off i'll be eating humble pie!
I'm more peed at Gordon as his days as chancellor are haunting us now! :eek:

Hucks77

fermi wrote: »

Here ya go!

Court of Appeal Judgement.

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 (2 May 2001)

A lot more to it in that case, but the principle is arguable in law.

Regardless under s127(3) of the CCA74 for a pre April 2007 agreement if there is not a signed CCA containing the prescribed terms that can be shown to the court, the court is not entitled to make an order to enforce the agreement.

Moral argument or not, that is the legal bare bones of it.

cheers for this....i'll look it up in full. Personally my moral view challenges this but the law is the law.

fermi

Hucks77 wrote: »

cheers for this....i'll look it up in full. Personally my moral view challenges this but the law is the law.

I help people this site (on DFW) in this area a bit.

My view is that if you are in deep financial poo with the creditors being completely unreasonable then you are entitled to use the law to fight back. After all, they would not hesitate to use it against you.

But if you are cynically trying to avoid paying back what you otherwise could, then you won't get any sympathy (or help) from me.

I hope you see what I mean.

petermb_2

Hucks77 wrote: »

cheers for this....i'll look it up in full. Personally my moral view challenges this but the law is the law.

But this is what I have been saying for weeks now. This is no loophole. The lenders have a very serious responsibility to get their act right and any failure in this area means they pay the price. Morals have nothing to do with it.

If you get it wrong and dont pay they turn you over. The rule is the same for them. If they get it wrong then they pay.

petermb_2

fermi wrote: »

I help people this site (on DFW) in this area a bit.

My view is that if you are in deep financial poo with the creditors being completely unreasonable then you are entitled to use the law to fight back. After all, they would not hesitate to use it against you.

But if you are cynically trying to avoid paying back what you otherwise could, then you won't get any sympathy (or help) from me.

I hope you see what I mean.

With the greatest respect, the vast majority of people who seek to make a claim are usually in some distress. I find very few who are just trying to get out of paying.
On the other hand the law is the same for the cynical ones as it is for those who are in trouble.

fermi

petermb wrote: »

With the greatest respect, the vast majority of people who seek to make a claim are usually in some distress. I find very few who are just trying to get out of paying.
On the other hand the law is the same for the cynical ones as it is for those who are in trouble.

Which is why unlike some people on these forums, I do not presume judge people until I have a good understanding of their circumstances or motives.