Unenforceability

petermb_2

Just to keep all up to date.
I have been informed by our solicitors that they would not run a case for uenforceability simply because the lender cannot provide a copy of the agreement as it is likely to fail.

Please be aware of this if a claims company is advising you to part with hard earned money, stating that they can win such a claim.

I am not saying that unenforceability is not an issue. Simply that it will become more and more difficult to win such a case on just this argument.

iolanthe07

Good. It always seemed a flimsy argument to use to renege on a debt.

Robert_Sterling

Common Sense Rules OK

oscar52

iolanthe07 wrote: »

Good. It always seemed a flimsy argument to use to renege on a debt.

Maybe, but on the other hand, do the the credit providers (be it loan or credit card) have a good arguement when the say "you signed the credit agreement and we can do what the hell we like"

RAS

Interesting, as the OFT do not seem to share Peter's solicitors view see here

Link: OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts

See section 1.1

petermb_2

RAS wrote: »

Interesting, as the OFT do not seem to share Peter's solicitors view see here

Link: OFT imposes requirements on MackenzieHall to improve handling of disputed debts

See section 1.1

I think that my solicitors and those barristers that advise them are erring on the side of caution after a judge threw out a borrower's claim that the loan was uenforceable because the lender did not provide a copy of the agreement. They realise that this was just one judge's opinion but it throws the whole argument into question.

The section you quote refers to the loan being in dispute. The point is that in this particular barrister's opinion, simply relying on the fact that the lender cannot provide a copy of the agreement "may" not be sufficient to call the loan into dispute.

Because of that caution other heads of claim should be prevalent.

I have already seen a case where the lender openly admits in writing that they cannot enforce the debt because there is no agreement. They go on to state that in their opinion this does not prevent them from placing a default on the loan and then passing to a debt recovery agency.

PROLIANT

...and still not ONE successful case won, are people finally taking their heads out of the sand?

petermb_2

PROLIANT wrote: »

...and still not ONE successful case won, are people finally taking their heads out of the sand?

oh I certainly think there have been cases won. Of that there is no doubt but it will get harder, if unenforceability is the only head of claim. That is all I am saying.

PROLIANT

petermb wrote: »

oh I certainly think there have been cases won. Of that there is no doubt but it will get harder, if unenforceability is the only head of claim. That is all I am saying.

Maybe, however any judge worth his salt in any court of law in England, should be able to distinguish between a rogue lender preying on an unfortunate person or a little rat trying to take evasive action between his/her financial responsibilities - welcome to today’s society people, I hope you are proud of what you have created. :beer: :rolleyes:

cyril82

I don't think anyone who pursues a claim of unenforceability should really be labeled a "rat",
Sure, they are manupulating the law a little to benefit themselves, but is that not just the same as the banks manipulating the appeal process to delay giving back the money they took from customers unlawfully?.

PROLIANT

cyril82 wrote: »

I don't think anyone who pursues a claim of unenforceability should really be labeled a "rat",
Sure, they are manupulating the law a little to benefit themselves, but is that not just the same as the banks manipulating the appeal process to delay giving back the money they took from customers unlawfully?.

Define "unlawfully" - money that was taken from you in the form of a fine for being crap with your finances or money that the bank stole from you in the form of - theft?