Debt write-off cases to be suspended by courts, lawyer claims

Mark_Davis

petermb wrote: »

This issue is always likely to create controversy. It does not change the fact that the case went against the lender. So I suspect there is a little bit of smoke screeening here.

As a claims man I do not advocate looking at unenforceability as a sole head of claim. It is not a strong enough argument. On the other hand where there are destinct issues prevalent within the agreement where the borrower has been clearly "ripped off" such as in single premium PPI and the agreement happens to be unenforceable, we see it as simply another head of claim to add to our argument for compensation..

I agree wholeheartedly.

There have been a number of successful cases against Lenders based around other legal arguments that have precedent and validity.

never-in-doubt

Don't think this is as legal as it look chaps! Spin Dr anyone.....?

See here -

- Unenforceability - Chester County Court
- CAG Forum Notes Here

cbrown372

I noticed it was pointed out to you on the dark side or no thats what you call MSE?

Bigal_2

uktyler wrote: »

This can only be a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I feel for people with debt issues that cannot afford to pay, but the number of posters we see on here who don't want to pay is staggering.

Hi

Although I can understand to an extent your logic in saying this, there is also another side to the discussion.

For many years now the banks themselves have been guilty of trying to make money unscrupulously from consumers. Examples are pensions mis-selling, endowment mis-selling, PPI insurance mis-selling, unlawful credit card charges and unlawful banks charges.

There, it is hardly surprising that some consumers are trying to hit back.

The argument cannot be one sided.

In addition to this, there are plenty of documented cases where consumers have had a legitimate claim against a bank, such as a mis-sold pension, but the bank deliberately tries to frustrate the claim by withholding information or not supplying documentation.

With this in mind, many consumers are also resorting to the view that all is fair in love and war.

diamondtweezer

You take a loan based on the figures quoted to you in good faith. You take it for granted that the APR (which is the yard stick for assessing the cost of a loan) is correct and that you are not incurring hidden or illegal charges, costs or interest.

Some agreements contain an understated APR and/or have a combination of hidden/illegal charges, costs and interest. But you won’t know whether this applies to your agreement unless you get it checked. Most people assume that their bank/lender wouldn’t act in such a way– but that isn’t always the case.

I personally would not allow my lender to get away with this and would not think twice about taking action and using the law to get the debt cleared. I would urge anybody that has taken a loan etc… pre Apr 2007 to get the agreement checked.

cyril82

uktyler wrote: »

, I don't believe that having the entire amount written off is fair. IMO you should be able to claim for money you overpaid due to hidden/illegal charges, and compensation for your costs, but not for the amount of the entire loan.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY the law disagrees with your opinion and states that such agreements are unenforceable.

i was speaking to some one i know the other day who works in the claims industry and apparently this so called "hold" is having little effect as many cases are open and shut and lenders usually don't want to go to court.

It makes sense really, if they think they are likely to lose why waste more money trying to defend it?

diamondtweezer

uktyler wrote: »

So instead of getting the difference back between what you paid and what you should of paid you expect the loan to be written off in its entirety so other people can pay it back on your behalf?

You should be entitled to fair compensation, but I don't believe that having the entire amount written off is fair. IMO you should be able to claim for money you overpaid due to hidden/illegal charges, and compensation for your costs, but not for the amount of the entire loan.

Fair point but that wouldn't act as a strong enough deterrent for lenders in my opinion i.e. if all they were only obliged to refund the illegal charges they applied + my costs then they would all be at it, knowing not everybody is going to reclaim them back.

The law takes a hard line on lenders that ignore the legislation for good reason - to stop them breaking the law! They either work within the law and have nothing to worry about or suffer the consequences.

And it is ONLY the profits which are dented. Customers only ever end up paying more if 1) they are prepared to and 2) the bank decides to charge more to increase or pro-up their profits.

gb57

I believe we all end up paying when people are getting money back for mis-sold this and that and the other. A typical case is "mis-sold" endowments. I took mine out before 1988, so can't get any money back for "mis-selling" even though no-one at that time got any proper financial advice about any of that stuff, but the profits of the company have been clobbered by having to settle "mis-selling" cases, so other policy holders (like me) do not then get bonuses added to our policies, so WE are the ones paying, not the company.

If you borrow money, you should pay it back, end of story. Unfair bank charges, PPI insurances, unfair or excessive interest charges etc are something else, they should be refunded, but the underlying debt should still be repaid. No-one should be allowed to wriggle out of repaying a debt due to a "technicality"

debtornate

Iḿ sorry gb57, but what you say is plainly flawed.

People claiming for mis-sold endowments are claiming back money because they have been sold an endowment saying it would definitely pay off their mortgage and now find out it won´t. The idea of the law is to put them back in the position they would´ve been in if the company which sold them the endowment had lived up to their promise - i.e. it will definitely pay off your mortgage.

To say that it is the fault of people making these claims that you don´t get bonuses is frankly misleading. You aren´t getting the bonuses because the firm is short of money as it has to pay these claims, because it mis-sold the product in the first place.

Let me cut the middle bit out of that to make it clearer - you aren´t getting paid your bonuses because the firm you are with mis-sold their endowments in the first place - don´t blame the people claiming compensation - it´s not their fault the endowments don´t provide the money these firms said they would!

Ames

Wow, I really envy you all living in such a black and white world - you borrow the money you pay it back etc. Let's hope you never suddenly become disabled, or lose your job and can't find another before your savings run out, or any other sudden event happens that leaves you in a financial mess.