Loans Written Off on Terms and Conditions

never-in-doubt

Claims_Manager_Rep wrote: »

There have been successful cases, look up walker-v-southern pacific mortgages or Royal Bank of Scotland-v-Mitchell. Or go back to Wilson-v-FirstCounty (house-of-lords decision)
These cases were won on the basis that a prescribed term was breached.
Many cases are settled out-of-court.
Yes you can apply for a copy of the agreement. If they do not have one, you can claim that under the CCA it is unenforceable but they will argue all they need to do is supply a copy of the t+c’s. Also if they subsequently supply an agreement it becomes enforceable again.

but they will argue all they need to do is supply a copy of the t+c’s.
Which we all know is utter nonsense!

Also if they subsequently supply an agreement it becomes enforceable again.
Sometimes it does, only sometimes - depends if you can get judgement in your favour prior to them finding it, but to be honest you just write back saying unknown at this address and sit out the Statute Barred time period........ :rotfl:

Claims_Manager_Rep

Good news, the point is that if you are going to get your loan audited DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES! There are ethical claims management companies who will audit it without charge and then simply refer you on to a solicitor if you have a case.

See below Taken from MOJ Impact of Regulation Update July 2009

15.11 The business models used by claims companies vary. The “good” model, outlined earlier in this section, is for the claims company to do a comprehensive assessment of whether the agreement is enforceable and if it is found to be enforceable then passing it on to a solicitor to take the appropriate action. However, there appear to be a number of other business models –
• Taking a significant up-front fee with the promise of a full refund less an administration cost if the agreement is found to be enforceable. The company then does little more than take in the advance fee, do virtually no work and then pocket the administration fee leaving the consumer feeling that he may well have got a good deal.

Browntoa

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Did you miss this by Fermi at 09.00am lol: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1869783

whoops....lol

never-in-doubt

Browntoa wrote: »

whoops....lol

:rotfl: interesting news though - maybe now we'll not get asked the same question 200 times an hour :rotfl:

iolanthe07

but to be honest you just write back saying unknown at this address and sit out the Statute Barred time period........

That's downright immoral. If you owe it, pay it back.

never-in-doubt

iolanthe07 wrote: »

but to be honest you just write back saying unknown at this address and sit out the Statute Barred time period........

That's downright immoral. If you owe it, pay it back.

Not at all, what is immoral to you may not be to me. Ok, to me it is moral to club women over the head and drag them into my cave. Does that make it right?

I think that has answered you appropriately. Nuff said :cool:

bert&ernie

As most regulars will know, I fully support the individuals right to use a technical legal argument to have their debts deemed unenforceable. However, I would draw the line at actually lying to a lender by telling them that you are not known at your address. I would even suggest that this may be viewed as fraud.

never-in-doubt

bert&ernie wrote: »

As most regulars will know, I fully support the individuals right to use a technical legal argument to have their debts deemed unenforceable. However, I would draw the line at actually lying to a lender by telling them that you are not known at your address. I would even suggest that this may be viewed as fraud.

Not at all - it wouldn't classify as fraud. Its simply avoiding them contacting you, like most things you have a right to refuse delivery of anything at your home address and if you get threatening letters it is perfectly legal and acceptable to refuse to accept them.

Ok, maybe writing unknown at this address is a bit OTT but refusal of delivery is prefectly legal

bert&ernie

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Not at all - it wouldn't classify as fraud. Its simply avoiding them contacting you, like most things you have a right to refuse delivery of anything at your home address and if you get threatening letters it is perfectly legal and acceptable to refuse to accept them.

Ok, maybe writing unknown at this address is a bit OTT but refusal of delivery is perfectly legal

I've got no problem with refusing delivery, telephone calls or any other type of contact. However, saying that you are not known at your address would be a clear attempt to deceive - hence my suggestion that this may be seen as fraud.

Refusing delivery could also turn out to be somewhat impractical. You would need to either refuse all postal deliveries or ensure that you could inspect each packet before you accept it. Even then, you wont always be able to tell where the correspondence has come from.

Surely the key is making sure that you don't acknowledge the debt?

cardinalbiggles

This is why credit card rates are so high for those of us who actually want to pay their debts and not try and wriggle out.

Now I personally think that credit card companies are to blame for tempting those who cant pay for them to take more credit, but its people wriggling out instead of actually facing up to what they have done that the problem.

Also the morality of such companies that offer this service is severely in question.