Loans Written Off on Terms and Conditions

never-in-doubt

iolanthe07 wrote: »

What bo££ox. It hasn't answered me appropriately at all. You answer is a complete non sequitur. The moral thing to do is to pay back what you owe. If you've fallen on hard times, then you negotiate; but to lie about your address to avoid your obligations is absolutely immoral from any standpoint.

Non Sequitur or not, it is the same thing because it is all about morals and what you believe to be morally correct does not mean that it is in fact correct.

Similarly, what I believe does not mean it is right except on this occasion, I am because the law actually confirms that by the unenforceability legislation and therefore there is nothing wrong with utilising our right, within the context of the law.

Love it or hate it - that's just the way it is.

never-in-doubt

bert&ernie wrote: »

Here lies the issue - nobody really knows how many credit agreements are unenforceable. The lenders themselves may well have carried out audits to assess their liability, but they have no incentive to publish the results. They seem to be using the same playbook as they first did for bank charges - pretending that the issue doesn't exist.

Thing is though we do know, roughly, how many are unenforceable. Also, as at April 07, the CCA format changed to provise for the legislation and most, if not all, credit providers changed to the new format which in essence meant regardless of the actual provisions of the law, the fact would remain that the prescribed terms will near on be perfect each time now (although still not the case, as proven by Cap1 recently - missing the amount of credit).

What i'm trying to say is that most (as many upto 80%) of pre 04/07 CCA's did not contain the prescribed terms in the correct format and as such the figure of 80% was generated. There is history to this and it can be found, I just can't be bothered hunting for it but suffice to say the figure wasn't plucked from thin air - it was based around quantitive assessment of borrowers and matched to those lenders that were known to be using outdated CCA's.

For clarity, HSBC were always on of the few to issue correct CCA's as they use their own version and not the normal 1-2 pages that we usually see. Thus you'll see a lot of people losing HSBC unenforceability claims, they tend to win on non compliance, i.e. no default notice issued.

natweststaffmember

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Non Sequitur or not, it is the same thing because it is all about morals and what you believe to be morally correct does not mean that it is in fact correct.

Similarly, what I believe does not mean it is right except on this occasion, I am because the law actually confirms that by the unenforceability legislation and therefore there is nothing wrong with utilising our right, within the context of the law.

Love it or hate it - that's just the way it is.

I gotta agree with you and I have used the argument that if you take a loan you should pay it back. With regards to this, I doubt anyone has taken out a loan with the intention of not paying it back so morally yes I agree there is a MORAL argument to pay it back. However, we live in the days or LEGAL arguments in a court of law.

For example:

"in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] 3 All ER 229, Sir Andrew Morritt said:

26 The recognition that there is nothing in the 1974 Act which prevents an improperly executed regulated agreement from giving rise to contractual rights, nor which prevents the right to possess goods pawned as security passing on delivery of the goods, provides the answer, as it seems to us, to the principal argument advanced on behalf of the Secretary of State in support of his submission that there is nothing in s 127(3) of the 1974 Act which is incompatible with convention rights. It was said, in effect, in relation to art 1 of the First Protocol, that, where there was no document signed by the debtor--or where the document signed by the debtor did not contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement--neither the agreement, nor the delivery of the pawn, conferred any enforceable rights on the creditor. So, in the present case, the creditor had no relevant 'possessions' to the peaceful enjoyment of which it was entitled, or of which it was deprived by s 127(3) of the 1974 Act. In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid; so there is nothing to engage the rights guaranteed by art 1 of the First Protocol. Nor, on that analysis, does the creditor have any civil rights in respect of which it is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 6 of the convention is not in point."

Whilst s.127(I believe) has gone the principle of a loan that is unenforceable is the same ie that the FI have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The Creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid.
Morally: pay it back. Legally: the banks' are stuffed because they failed to properly to legally have the right to enforce it.

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Also, as at April 07, the CCA format changed to provise for the legislation and most, if not all, credit providers changed to the new format which in essence meant regardless of the actual provisions of the law, the fact would remain that the prescribed terms will near on be perfect each time now

Rubbish.

The rules surrounding the form and content of credit agreements has remained unchanged since May 2005 when the provisions of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2004 came into force.

Over the month of April 2007 precisely nothing changed in respect of credit agreements, or the drafting of them by lenders. The only thing that changed was the abolition of the concept of automatic unenforceability.

I seem to remember us having this discussion before and you agreed with me back then

never-in-doubt

Look at a credit agreement, bottom right corner (03/07)

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Look at a credit agreement, bottom right corner (03/07)

Which credit agreement..........all of them!!!?? They don't all say that!!:rotfl:

The CCA 2006 was made up of many reviews and overhauls of the 1974 Act, and was brought about over 4 years, between 2004 and 2008.

The changes to agreements came under these Regulations
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041482.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041481.htm
Both the above came into force on 31/5/05

A list of what changed on 6/4/07 can be found here, under Schedule 2.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/pdf/uksi_20070123_en.pdf
Notice it says nothing about any changes to agreements or their wording, but it does mention the removal of s127

Why would lenders suddenly change their agreements in response to a change in the act that removes automatic unenforceability?

I have absolutely no problem with you continuing your facade as this forums self appointed expert on all things to do with credit, but there is nothing to be lost by at least acknowledging the odd correction with an element of good grace.

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

Which credit agreement..........all of them!!!?? They don't all say that!!

The CCA 2006 was made up of many reviews and overhauls of the 1974 Act, and was brought about over 4 years, between 2004 and 2008

Notice it says nothing about any changes to agreements or their wording, but it does mention the removal of s127

Why would lenders suddenly change their agreements in response to a change in the act that removes automatic unenforceability?.

All agreements have a version number and those with a date after 04/07 will almost certainly be correct. Find an older date, check it with prescribed terms and it will be wrong. Thats the point i'm making, yes they redesigned the forms - have you forgotten that they are blanket copies, i.e they are one style then amended to suit each lender?

The reviews you mention were going on way before 2004! Try going back to the 90's - the only problem was that typical of the UK, they leave it until it is too late. The amendments don't really change much anyway, lack of an agreement still gives you a right to challenge legality as it did pre 04/07 but as you say, the automatic element of unenforceability has been removed but it never was 'automatic' as all lenders dispute it until we actually force them to accept it.

~Brock~ wrote: »

I have absolutely no problem with you continuing your facade as this forums self appointed expert on all things to do with credit, but there is nothing to be lost by at least acknowledging the odd correction with an element of good grace.

The above is comical - since when do I 'facade as the forum anything'? I think you're confusing me. The key difference is that I do actually know what i'm on about, the question remains do you? You keep trying to prove argumentative but to be honest, try and learn instead of being over opinionated - we're never too old to learn new things and I tend not to post things without first checking for accuracy.

Especially when it involves unenforceability. :rotfl:

cardinalbiggles

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Non Sequitur or not, it is the same thing because it is all about morals and what you believe to be morally correct does not mean that it is in fact correct.

Similarly, what I believe does not mean it is right except on this occasion, I am because the law actually confirms that by the unenforceability legislation and therefore there is nothing wrong with utilising our right, within the context of the law.

Love it or hate it - that's just the way it is.

Ok so you take a loan, you cant afford to pay it back so you use a legal loophope to get out of paying.

You took the loan and you aggreed to the terms and conditions of the loan, and to all intents and purposes its not a credit shark loan but one from a normal high street bank.

You want to get out of paying it back. That, unless you are in dire fanancial hardship is wriggling out of paying your debts. It may be lawfull but its imorral and not the kind of thing that decent people do.

Sure we have to use consumer law to protect the masses but what you are saying is that its ok to exploit technicalities to allow those who cant afford to get what they want and who cares about who is going to pay for it.

If we never lived in a society where people who couldnt afford things had easy access to money to pay for them we wouldnt be in this mess, that is the problem.

If you cant afford to pay for it (and dont have a job) dont bother with it, that may be harsh but its reality and thats whats sadly missing with many people nowadays.

never-in-doubt

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Ok so you take a loan, you cant afford to pay it back so you use a legal loophope to get out of paying.

You said it all in that one paragraph - it is not a legal loophole, it is just legal. In the case of the CCA, well that evidently is not legal thus we do not have to pay.

Pointless arguing with me, its the law. Accept it.

never-in-doubt

Felt the need to repond in detail to set you straight on a few things..... I think you're misinterpreting the actual law somehow!

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Ok so you take a loan, you cant afford to pay it back so you use a legal loophope to get out of paying.

You take out a loan, regardless if you can or cannot afford to pay it back, if the CCA is not intact and contain the prescribed terms it is unenforceable. There are no loopholes, it is black & white.

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

You took the loan and you aggreed to the terms and conditions of the loan, and to all intents and purposes its not a credit shark loan but one from a normal high street bank.

I took a loan and agreed to the terms, but the terms were not legal so in essence I agree to an unlawful agreement meaning that paying it would be silly because there is nothing they can do if I don't! Loan shark or bank, they should still have correct paperwork without which, they will lose money.

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

You want to get out of paying it back. That, unless you are in dire fanancial hardship is wriggling out of paying your debts. It may be lawfull but its imorral and not the kind of thing that decent people do.

That's not right, you'll find that decent people do it all the time. Like I say, if the agreement was lawful then we'd stick to it. Similarly, if you signed up for a loan and used your house as collateral the bank would sieze it if you didn;t pay, i.e. they use the agreement to their advantage not giving a !!!!!! about you in the process. Reverse this, so now the bank see how it feels - that's what i'm talking about

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Sure we have to use consumer law to protect the masses but what you are saying is that its ok to exploit technicalities to allow those who cant afford to get what they want and who cares about who is going to pay for it.

Its not a technicality - its a law. It is paid for by the banks huge profits and/or deductable tax liability - not by existing customers.

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

If we never lived in a society where people who couldnt afford things had easy access to money to pay for them we wouldnt be in this mess, that is the problem.

We would be in this mess. It has nothing to do with revolving consumer credit. Try looking at sub-prime mortgage and interbank lending for full details. Are you forgetting the banks have just paid £250k bonus again last week - I mean, recession, us? never!

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

If you cant afford to pay for it (and dont have a job) dont bother with it, that may be harsh but its reality and thats whats sadly missing with many people nowadays.

Not at all, if you can't afford to pay for it (having a job is totally irrelevant by the way) then check for unenforceability cos you may just get away with it