credit card clearance

ICan'tStandIt

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

They already have, how many billions was it at the last count? and i bet they are still laughing

But PPI, bank charges reclaims and yes even those getting out of agreemants on technicality, are nothing compared to the real reason

The greed of there management, and the fact some even got away with fraud

And they will continue to laugh untill the consumers says enough.

But as the consumer cannot live without a bank account, as the goverment has made it so.......................................

I'm thinking more of time, which will probably come soon, when ordinary people on an ordinary wage have to pay for even the most basic of banking facilities.

Yes the banks have been lending very badly and have had to be bailed out as a result, but plenty of people were happy to take the money when it was being offered.

never-in-doubt

dealer_wins wrote: »

Bad comparison. Its called taking a calculated risk boarding a plane.

When you borrow money, whether from family, a friend, or a company, you have a moral duty to repay what you borrowed.

I truly hope that no one gets their dept wiped out as that is an insult on everyone who pays theirs.

Lets hope you never lend hard earned money to someone who then sticks two fingers up when you want it back!!

And borrowing money, as is lending money, are also calculated risks, as I said

'don't wanna die in a plane crash? Don't board a plane'

You said it all - moral duty. Not legal duty unless the paperwork was in order. Sorry, but morals do not come into this whatsoever - it doesn't bother me what you think, not in the slightest! You could be a racist, I am not. You could believe in Ghosts, I do not. See the pattern? Morals are individual and not there to be thrust down people's throats! - its the facts that count. Nothing more, nothing less.

If I lend money to someone and they don't pay it back you know what? I'd learn from it and not do it again. That's my morals. Other people may resort to violence whilst others may seek legal help. Whatever, the point remains.

I have stated throughout this post that I do not condone illegal methods to get out of paying back what you owe (another of my morals), why do you always seem to miss that when having a dig? Hmmm - the mind wonders

Morally incorrect but hey, one rule for you, one rule for us right? :silenced:

Thanks Brock for pointing out the obvious typo!
Finally, thanks to B-as-a-B for this post: #44

never-in-doubt

BigLad wrote: »

Well, I was going to hold my tongue but...

If viewers disagree with the content of a thread then it would be appreciated if you refrained from posting merely to vent your moral indignation, or your approbation. All this does is raise the post count, with the inevitable arguments on personable responsibility. By doing so it dilutes the factual content of the thread and makes it tough reading for anybody actually trying to sort the wheat from the chaff and gain understanding of the issue at hand.

If you feel that strongly about it then start your own thread to debate the morality of the issue, or PM the person concerned. There are threads here that are virtually unreadable due to these posts which add nothing to the factual discussion.

Thanks to Never-In- Doubt for attempting to provide some information. Shame your thread has been hijacked...

I won't post again - if you want to express your indignation, outrage etc. just PM me.

Cheers

BigLad.

P.S. Yes I'm a newbie but the post above reflects my experience here with many threads :-).

BigLad - thanks for your message and please do not quit because of a select few on here that are 'obviously' always right. Just ignore them, eventually they'll go away.

Hijacking a thread is unfortunate, especially because their input/content is irrelevant to the actual OP in every essence but again, you just come to accept that some people have no idea and for whatever reason, think the banks are angels. As I say, hopefully they will need our help one day when they too get screwed by their bank - it's only a matter of time...

I hope this doesn't sour your vision of MSE - generally it is a decent hang-out, just leave the cling-ons to do their worst - if it gets out of order we'll get the mods in to remove them/their posts.

This thread was always going to be contentious, quite so contentious was another thing altogether!

never-in-doubt

rog2 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you have missed anything, nid. I simply saw the thread developing into an open 'brawl' and wanted to clarify my own position.
I post mainly on the DFW board, where many people have very serious issues with debt and are looking to this site in general for helpful advice and support - many of the DFW posters have been the unfair victims of creditors and dcas who will, often, see the most vulnerable of debtors as 'fair game' and will, in many cases, alter or withhold information to the detriment of the debtor, in the name of 'easy money'.
The overwhelming majority of posters seeking advice and support fall into the 'can't pay' category, rather than the 'won't pay' category.
For these people it is, unfortunately, often only through forums like this, that they can be directed towards the sources that are most likely to be able to give them the best, and more importantly, impartial and professional advice.
For these people, the simple process of requesting a true copy of the original executed consumer credit agreement can not only serve to validate, or otherwise, the claims of the creditor/dca, but it can, equally, prove whether the 'alleged debt' is enforceable or not. For someone who has had to endure the physical and mental harassment of dca phone calls, threats of 'legal action' and 'doorstep collectors' the results of a cca, whether positive or negative, request can help to put the situation back on a level playingfield and give that debtor a better choice of options as to how to proceed. Very few creditors or dcas will advise a 'debtor' to check the legality of that creditor or dca's demands.
Where I have the problem is that the cca request is seen by many, as some of the posts on your thread will confirm, as nothing more than a way to find 'loopholes' that will release a debtor from his obligations.
Consequently a 'whole new industry' has emerged - enticing 'debtors' to build up debt in the knowledge that there are (not could be) fundemental flaws in all consumer credit agreements, and that, for a fee, they can get those debts written off.
Not only does this offer 'false hope' to many debtors, it also creates the opinion that every debtor who requests a copy of his cca is doing so purely to avoid responsibility for a debt.
And finally (I promise) please do not misunderstand me when I say that posters could be forgiven for reading your posts as advocating this latter approach.
Thank you.

Rog,

Thanks again for clarifying your position. Let me though, explain to others - for a final time - that I am not advocating anything - I am simply advising people what to do. I refer you to the opening line in the thread, post 1:

quote
Due to lots of posts asking the same mundane questions; this thread is specifically to answer the common myths surrounding enforceability. The information that follows is purely to be used as reference.

Nowhere would this suggest I have any opinion or views, it is an impartial thread stating facts - nothing else. What I think doesn't matter because this isn't about morals, its about what is right and what is wrong.

I agree with your points raised, I just felt as though you came on here and said something valid then went off and came back contradicting your initial post by clearing up the fact you didn't condone certain things - that impression was never portrayed thus I asked if I was missing the point.....

Regards to what other people perceive as morally correct or incorrect, instead of assuming they ought to consider one thing - I am only trying to help other people out. If they don't like it then walk on by - don't post!

I didn't ask for everyone's opinion/morals so why thrust them down my throat?

never-in-doubt

ICan'tStandIt wrote: »

My main beef with this business of trying to escape debts on legal technicalities is with those that have enough money in the bank to pay it all off anyway. They simply don't see why they should.

Where in any of my posts do I say that this thread is 'trying to escape debts on legal technicalities'?

I haven't, please be so kind as to justify your post or edit/remove it?

ICan'tStandIt wrote: »

Anyway, any money that does get refunded (on top of all the PPI etc that has already been given back, plus all the bad dept write-offs etc) has to come from somewhere.

The banks WILL have the last laugh.

Yes, it comes from the banks profits that they make when they charge customers that borrow an APR for said borrowing. Please don't make me spell out basic banking procedures to you? Everyone knows where this money comes from and to boot, it is written off against their actual profits so you know what? The shareholders are directly taking the hit - NOT you!

Trust me, you, I - come to think of it - everyone added together on this forum, would be small fry to the banks - wouldn't even dent their pockets so please talk sense.

The banks have had the last laugh for the last 50 years or so, now you'll find that for the first time in years (as the test case is proving) the consumer is actually having the last laugh.

Sorry, edit the above - after reading your posts I'm having the last laugh (hilarious).... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

ICan'tStandIt wrote: »

I'm thinking more of time, which will probably come soon, when ordinary people on an ordinary wage have to pay for even the most basic of banking facilities.

Yes the banks have been lending very badly and have had to be bailed out as a result, but plenty of people were happy to take the money when it was being offered.

Yes, like the rest of the world? UK has never had 'free banking' contrary to popular belief. Where did you ever see that it actually costs 35 pounds to write a letter and 30 pounds a day overdraft charge for going one pound overdrawn when the bank paid the bill in the first place? Is this what you call justifiable behaviour by the banks? Free Banking? NOPE!

Please think before you post, free banking was never meant to be - all that's happened is that we have now started to act the same as the rest of the world. For the record, basic accounts cannot be charged and the government insist they are available, fee free so free banking in one respect is available and will remain so.

Can you do me a favour and scan these boards and come back and quote how many posts you see with people saying 'I want a mortgage but cant get a 100% one' and things similar..... trust me, if the banks can see that they are/will be skint and then do a Northern Rock (125% LTV) and give them silly amounts of money then i'm sorry, you blame the banks! They should know better than to thrust cash at hard-up families/people.

never-in-doubt

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Fair enough, but does it justify a creditor charging 30% intrest on an agreement that quotes no intrest at all

Even more so if you take off that intrest and lo and behold, you actually have paid back everything, except that intrest, that the agreement never said you would pay:rolleyes:

And yes that is a REAL example of the likes of littlewoods accounts

If only life was as black and white as you paint it

Agreed, thanks!

Also worth noting that the Littlewoods Direct Account (Flexible Account) have no provision to share data with a DCA nor can they sell the debt! Therefore, I incorrectly got accused of having a clubby with LD and wrote a strong letter demanding removal of said default, they declined.

I then reminded them of the law; guess what? Default and all incorrect data has been removed.

Point proven, they think they are always right and left unchallenged, i'd have had an incorrect default for 6 years through no fault of my own.

See letter below - specific to Littlewoods.......

N-i-D wrote:

30 March 2009

Dear Credit Account Management,

Reference: A/C - BXXXXXX9 / Request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

In February 2009 I requested a copy of my credit report and noticed a Default registered against me by a company called Phoenix Recoveries. I disputed this entry and requested Equifax arrange for a true copy of the CCA to be sent to me. Littlewoods responded to this request on 07 March 2009, containing a copy of what they purport to be a Consumer Credit Agreement. I then wrote to Phoenix Recoveries to formally request a true copy of the CCA but instead received a response from Credit Account Management with an exact copy of the documents sent to me by Littlewoods and therefore request refund of the £1 statutory fee paid and clarity as to your exact legal position.

In response to this request I was supplied a document a copy of which is attached which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The document sent, purporting to be a credit agreement, does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. Suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document.

Further to these shortcomings the document supplied also bore a signature other than my own in the signatory box and so cannot possibly be held under any line of argument to be a 'true copy' of the executed agreement relating to any account held by myself such as prescribed by the law. A certified copy of my Passport was sent to Littlewoods, in my response to them dated 16 March 2009, which would clearly show my signature.

Further to this you have supplied a copy of an agreement dated 20/10/2004 yet you clearly state in the accompanying letter that my account was opened on the 25/09/2004; yet on the financial breakdown page this has an account opening date as 26/09/2004, I acknowledge this as further indication that you might be harassing the wrong person by chasing myself in respect of the debt you allege.

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states;

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced. In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection.

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states;

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:
h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

I require you to produce a compliant copy of my alleged credit agreement to confirm I am liable to you or any organisation, which you represent for this alleged debt, if you cannot do so I require written clarification that this is the case. Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40.

Despite your failure in the matter, I have been able to obtain a copy of the terms and conditions relating to an account of this type, specifically Littlewoods Direct Flexible Account.

I hereby bring to your attention that no agreement is given within the terms and conditions of this particular type of credit account for the original creditor to share data pertaining to the conduct of this account with third parties for the purposes of credit referencing. I admit to being surprised these terms do not include such a clause but am factually correct in stating that no such clause exists.

I notice that you have chosen to register a default against my person with the credit reference agency (ies) and draw to your urgent attention the fact that since such behaviour was not permissible under the terms of any original contract then it would be unlawful for this to be added after execution and transferred to yourself as a right under the original contract regardless of the manner in which this right was transferred from the OC to yourselves. You have inadvertently inserted a clause into the contract upon assignation permitting you to share data with third party agencies. As such behaviour is unlawful I request that you immediately cease and desist from sharing my data with any person who is not a member of your company or group of companies and withdraw any information you have shared about myself from each and every party to which you have supplied this information. I require written confirmation of this or your reasons for continuing to process my data in such a manner, despite no contractual right existing, within 14 days from the date of receipt of this letter. Failure to comply will result in you being served notice under Sec 10 Data Protection Act 1998 to cease and desist; failure to comply with such notice will result in my seeking enforcement through the Courts.

This does of course not alter the fact or present any intimation by myself that such contract exists. I have asked you to prove that a contract exists and is enforceable and you have failed. I simply advise you that even if an enforceable contract could be presented to me it is still outside the terms and conditions of the Littlewoods Flexible Account that data is shared with third party credit reference agencies and any such behaviour whether conducted by Littlewoods or yourselves is unlawful as a result of such terms not existing in the contract.

Since the agreement is unenforceable, the default notice is non existent, you have supplied evidence to support a claim by myself that this agreement does not relate to any account I might have held with the OC and you are identifiably in breach of The Data Protection Act 1998 in your conduct it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for you to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages.

I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days.

Yours faithfully

never-in-doubt

blind-as-a-bat wrote:

.......

Thanks for your voice of reason, seems that some other people do think the banks have a role to play in this financial mess we are in.... glad to see i'm not the only one.

never-in-doubt

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

As your sig says you work for the HSBC i will ask if i presented you with a CFS filled in with a debt charity that showed zero surplus to pay any creditor anything, and the totals for each catagory where well below the CFS trigger figures, and no assets what would your company do?

Other than this being the most confusing post I think i've ever read (show off hehe) - can you please tell me what the hell it means in plain english - hahahaha :rotfl:

Its like russian to me! anyone, any takers LOL

Pretty please...?

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I have stated throughout this post that I do condone illegal methods to get out of paying back what you owe (another of my morals),

That's the best Freudian slip I've seen in ages.:rotfl:

fermi

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Other than this being the most confusing post I think i've ever read (show off hehe) - can you please tell me what the hell it means in plain english - hahahaha :rotfl:

Its like russian to me! anyone, any takers LOL

Pretty please...?

CFS = Common Financial Statement

That is a standardised I&E and summary of assets and liabilities that is commonly used by the major debt advisory services.

Trigger figures are amounts of basic expenditure in various categories that are used with the CFS. Although not set in stone, expenditure significantly above the trigger figures may indicate that there could be savings made to increase payments to creditors. Conversely, if expenditure is at or below the trigger figures it is normally considered unreasonable for a creditor to push for further savings to increase payments.

So Bat is basically asking what they would do if it is clear that the debtor cannot free up more money and they have no assets.

Unfortunately as we commonly see on DFW and elsewhere, banks/creditors frequently ignore this and put unfair and sustained pressure on people to up payments when it is clear they cannot afford to do so while maintaining the most basic standard of living.