No Agreement

petermb_2

There have been many discussions on here regarding the issue of the lender not being able to provide a copy of the agreement. I have consulted the solicitor who runs my cases. He was until very recently acting for a particular lender and defended them against actions, he therefore knows his stuff.

The truth is that if the lender cannot provide a copy of the agreement then they cannot enforce the debt. They then in turn are not, legally , entitled to enter defaults on your credit record. They could not, legally, provide the case to a debt collection agency as they would be giving false information to do so.

So legally, they can do neither. However even the legal eagle admits that the even though they cannot legally do these things will not stop the lenders from acting outside the law and they may well default on the credit file and also sell the loan on to a collection agency.

This is a chance you will have to take if you take the stance that the loan is unenforceable through lack of an agreement.

iolanthe07

So a lender loses documentation and you walk away with perhaps thousands of pounds you have neither earned, been given or inherited. It's a kind of theft, really, isn't it?

petermb_2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

So a lender loses documentation and you walk away with perhaps thousands of pounds you have neither earned, been given or inherited. It's a kind of theft, really, isn't it?

Dont blame me for the rules. The government of the land created the law. Do you really think this was put in the statutes by accident? An oversight? It is there to provide protection for consumers. Besides the lenders won this battle in 2006 when they got the law amended. This now only applies to loans prior to April 2007.

I personally would rather there was a copy of the agreement. Then I could challenge the loan in a far more robust way where the lender could not wriggle and twist and get out of paying or can still harm the borrower. At least I could then prove my case. And I make no apologies for doing so.

~Brock~

petermb wrote: »

Then I could challenge the loan in a far more robust way where the lender could not wriggle and twist and get out of paying or can still harm the borrower.

You really have got it bad haven't you Peter?

Do you consider every single lender out there as bad? Would you prefer that the ability for consumers to borrow money was withdrawn completely?

kinglewis121

thanks peter this post needed to arise sooner or later as people seem to be getting the wrong end of the stick here with this sort of thing for Eg thinking if they cant produce agreement they wont do anything at all . as states depends on the lender

Cashpig74

Peter is correct here - and I cannot fathom why so many people have this do-gooder stance on debts etc... If the lender I agree a loan with LOSES my valuable documents, then they cannot be trusted.

These rules are in place to stop lenders making up stuff and screwing the clients - its way they must keep records of the agrements, to prove what the agreement was. It works both ways though.

Cashpig74

~Brock~ wrote: »

You really have got it bad haven't you Peter?

Do you consider every single lender out there as bad? Would you prefer that the ability for consumers to borrow money was withdrawn completely?

I think that ablility to borrow money under flawed and invalid agreements should be withdrawn completely.

petermb_2

~Brock~ wrote: »

You really have got it bad haven't you Peter?

Do you consider every single lender out there as bad? Would you prefer that the ability for consumers to borrow money was withdrawn completely?

My main issue of contention Brock is PPI. The simple fact that ALL banks and loan lenders have been able to sell a product that at best is vastly overpriced to the point of extortion. Add to this the fact that the vast majorty of the damned things would never pay out even if the client did claim. To the worst case senario of fraud and bribery taking place where these products are sold.

The above is true of even the cleanest of lenders, if such a thing exists.

The other issues of unenforceable agreements and the like just happen to be there as an issue we spot along the way.

Those words of bribery and fraud should rightly send a shudder through the heart of all lenders and brokers alike.

Yes my friend I tar them all with the same brush because they have all been equally dishonest in their dealings with the British Public.

I have no problem with anyone as long as they are honest in their business dealings.

Foenix

Not to mention the fact were all in the !!!!!! now because of their greed and practises! muppet

petermb_2

LOL ! I love you people.

~Brock~

To be honest, I find the contempt displayed for lenders in general, and the venom with which some people post against all lenders to be a fascinating insight into certain parts of this country's psyche.

Money is an emotive subject - of that there is no doubt. In the good times, when everyone is happily spending the money they have borrowed and able to afford to pay it back it would seem that lenders are seen as essential to the ongoing growth of the economy.

How times change. As soon as problems occur, lenders are perceived as an evil monster and, often egged on by those with a vested interest in doing so, people launch their own mini-crusades against them - many of which appear ill informed and doomed to failure.

I don't think that there is a solution to this, but we should all recognise that the ability to borrow money is a pre-requisite to a functional modern society. Spreading the slightly blinkered indoctrination that all lenders are crooked is a little wide of the mark and not exactly helping the bigger cause.

Nevertheless, my viewpoint obviously counts for nowt, and I am sure business is good for you, Peter. You are, after all, spreading a message that people want to hear.