Loans Written Off on Terms and Conditions

cardinalbiggles

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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

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

Firstly I know the law, however if you actually read what I am saying is that its not moral to try and get yourself out of paying what you are due in this instance. Sure the banks may not have everything tied up however most people would accept that trying to get out of paying because of this, enforcable law or otherwise is trying to get out of paying debts. Some may find this acceptable I suspect most wont.

I suspect you are somehow involved in allowing people to get off paying. I am sorry but if you are its not exactly the most admirable methods of employment, so say the least. What actually drew this to my attention was speaking to a guy whos job was to take money from people to tell them that they can exploit this to stop having to pay the loans back. To be honest first thing that came to mind was that it was not really the sort of job you would want your kids doing I mean come on getting people off paying loans is fine if your the type of person who watches Jeremy Kyle and agrees with the guests.

I do however totally accept that if people genuinely cant pay then they need help as banks are as imorral as they come. I suspect however that most are in it to make a fast buck.

cardinalbiggles

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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!

Exactly, people take mortages they cant afford, glad your actually agreeing on something although by the looks of it you dont seem to see that mortages are debt...

never-in-doubt

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Firstly I know the law, however if you actually read what I am saying is that its not moral to try and get yourself out of paying what you are due in this instance. Sure the banks may not have everything tied up however most people would accept that trying to get out of paying because of this, enforcable law or otherwise is trying to get out of paying debts. Some may find this acceptable I suspect most wont.

I suspect you are somehow involved in allowing people to get off paying. I am sorry but if you are its not exactly the most admirable methods of employment, so say the least. What actually drew this to my attention was speaking to a guy whos job was to take money from people to tell them that they can exploit this to stop having to pay the loans back. To be honest first thing that came to mind was that it was not really the sort of job you would want your kids doing I mean come on getting people off paying loans is fine if your the type of person who watches Jeremy Kyle and agrees with the guests.

I do however totally accept that if people genuinely cant pay then they need help as banks are as imorral as they come. I suspect however that most are in it to make a fast buck.

I work in security :rotfl:

never-in-doubt

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Exactly, people take mortages they cant afford, glad your actually agreeing on something although by the looks of it you dont seem to see that mortages are debt...

People were thrown mortgages that the banks knew they couldn;t afford and so the banks thought 'I know, we'll let em borrow 125%'.......

You miss the point, mortgages are nothing to do with unenforceability and you're swaying from the subject thus I do not classify mortgages as revolving credit (because they aren't) and unenforceability only affects revolving credit and/or hire purchase. Not mortgages or other fixed arrangements.

natweststaffmember

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Firstly I know the law, however if you actually read what I am saying is that its not moral to try and get yourself out of paying what you are due in this instance. Sure the banks may not have everything tied up however most people would accept that trying to get out of paying because of this, enforcable law or otherwise is trying to get out of paying debts. Some may find this acceptable I suspect most wont.
If the loan is unenforceable, the bank have in effect gifted people the money. You say you know the law, but you do not accept the law. Whether you view it as a legal loophole or otherwise, if the banks who lent the money had complied with UK law then there would not be this thread and instead we would be giving advice to people in trouble with their loan repayments.
I suspect you are somehow involved in allowing people to get off paying. I am sorry but if you are its not exactly the most admirable methods of employment, so say the least. What actually drew this to my attention was speaking to a guy whos job was to take money from people to tell them that they can exploit this to stop having to pay the loans back. To be honest first thing that came to mind was that it was not really the sort of job you would want your kids doing I mean come on getting people off paying loans is fine if your the type of person who watches Jeremy Kyle and agrees with the guests.
There are unscrupulous firms out there who will take a fee without viewing the agreement, so it means that some people do have legally enforceable agreements but the amount of nonsense out in the public domain is based on an old principle, where there are clients there is commission which a lot of these referrers are on,
I do however totally accept that if people genuinely cant pay then they need help as banks are as imorral as they come. I suspect however that most are in it to make a fast buck.

The law is the law whether we like it or not. It has no morals, it is not a thinking being.

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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?

Wrong. What type of agreements are you talking about here? Where do you think they come from.....Agreements R Us?

Banks use different types of agreements for different products, and each bank designs their own? The only 'style' is the CCA itself.

I have available to me copies of most HP agreements that have been in use over the last 10 years, from throughout the industry. Not two of them from different companies look even similar.

Also, a bit of a sweeping statement to say that earlier copies will be wrong, when you yourself have elsewhere 'proclaimed' HSBC's to be generally correct.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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.

There have been two overhauls to the form and ocntent of agreements. One in 1983 and the latest one in 2004. From 31/5/05 ALL credit agreements changed in their design. This has nothing to do with any changes in 2007 and you are wrong to assume that there was some huge revision that went on then.

There are no doubt continual minor changes over time - often to do with the terms and contitions or DPA wording requirements etc, which is the reason for version numbers on some agreements, but you should not make the assumption that some sort of huge program of correction went on in April 2007 - it didn't.

Trouble is, you cannot being yourself to acknowledge this, because it goes against a something you said earlier.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

The above is comical - since when do I 'facade as the forum anything'? I think you're confusing me.

Not really. You do generally post useful advice, but also tend to jump on anyone who shows the slightest sign of either not agreeing with you or trying to correct you.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

The key difference is that I do actually know what i'm on about, the question remains do you?

See what I mean?

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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.

Ah, so when you shoot someone down in flames because of their opinion that is OK, but when I try and correct a point that you have made it is classed as being 'argumentative'. Fair enough - as long as I know the playing field from now on :rotfl:

RedRobbo

Hi all,

I have just received a copy of my CCA from HFC, which states that "section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires us to provide a copy of the executed agreement" which then goes on to say "the copy fo the executed agreement we must supply is a copy but need not be a photocopy of the signed agreements".

Can someone tell me if this is correct, and if not what should I do next.

thank you in advance.

Charles

ILW

RedRobbo wrote: »

Can someone tell me if this is correct, and if not what should I do next.

Possible pay what you borrowed?
Just a suggestion.

iolanthe07

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.

So the law agrees that it is OK to lie about your address then? (Which is what you advocated at the start of this thread).

phgr79

Has anyone got any new updates on this? I sent my first letter off, after 3 weeks they did not send me my terms and conditions, I have now sent the second letter giving them an additional 30 days.

In the mean time I have also lost my job and am recieving letters from the banks debt collector, and both the banks and there debt collector have been helping themselves to money from my account which they claim is within there right according to the terms and conditions, not that I'd now as they wont/have'nt sent me a copy.