Free Unenforceable Credit Agreement Service?

Cemeteryjunction64

NickX wrote: »

Which lender do you represent ?

Referring to the lender's "hard earned cash" has made me laugh - so thanks for that :T

my thoughts exactly, LOL

orangetrader

Cemeteryjunction64 wrote: »

I would really appreciate some advice. I have a loan and a couple of credit-cards which I want to check to see if they are enforceable or not. I have no intention of paying a firm my hard-earned cash to do this. The only reason I am contemplating it is that I had spoken to a company earlier this year who offered to do it for free. I didn’t go ahead at the time because there would have been a fee to pursue the case if it went ahead and it wasn’t cheap. Anyway Torston has written back saying that their pricing has changed and that there are now no fees to pay either them or their solicitors. They will do the assessment for free and the solicitors will run the case at no cost to me if I have grounds. Apparently each case is checked by a barrister first. They also don’t deduct anything at the end of the case. It’s similar to a no-win no-fee except I don’t receive a payment at the end, so there isn’t anything to deduct from. They make money by getting legal costs from the lender and they have an insurance policy to cover them if they lose which they pay for. I can continue making payments whilst the case is running if I wish so no problem with the credit rating. The thing is I can’t see a downside to doing this. I have been assured that regardless of what happens once legal proceedings start there will be no fees to pay. Am I missing something?

I should add that I have read the Ministry of Justice/OFT warnings but these only relate to “fee-charging” companies who take money off people. And as somebody that has first-hand experience of how ruthless banks are, I don’t have any moral issues with this.

Anyway I really want to make sure that I have covered all of the angles before I go ahead.

A good CFA / conditional fee agreement will include after-the-event (ATE) insurance at no cost to you (solicitor should pay for it). Also make sure that you are not liable for any shortfall i.e. if the court awards less costs than what your solicitor requests. The citizens advice bureau have a document on CFAs which is worth reading.:cool:

orangetrader

I would also check what your responsibilities are under the no-win no-fee contract. Usual stuff is1) you have to get back to them when they need info from you 2) you don’t accept an early settlement at a stage where the solicitor can’t get costs 3) you don’t make anything up

sheila2155

hi, new to this site. sorry if this has been answered before. i have a catalogue, jdw, and pay £65 a month. they take over £30 of that in service charge. their prices are often dearer than other companies and i appear to be paying double for my goods. I didn't see any mention of this in the forms i filled in ( but I admit I don't often bother to read small print). Anyone know if it would help me to fight these charges?

orangetrader

sheila2155 wrote: »

hi, new to this site. sorry if this has been answered before. i have a catalogue, jdw, and pay £65 a month. they take over £30 of that in service charge. their prices are often dearer than other companies and i appear to be paying double for my goods. I didn't see any mention of this in the forms i filled in ( but I admit I don't often bother to read small print). Anyone know if it would help me to fight these charges?

I take it JDW = JD Williams store card? If so, yes it is subject to the terms of the consumer credit act. Therefore if it does not meet the regulations it may be an unenforceable credit agreement. Whether or not you would get a declaration discharging you depends on 1) if it breaches the consumer credit act and 2) if it is a pre 6th April 2007 agreement.

debtdestroyer007

Barrister NID... my friend wherever you are.....

so if a debt in unenforceable, the lender can still register a default but doesnt pursue it......

from a legal point of view, can one dispute the default too considering the agreement in itself cannot be enforced.....
cheers buddy:beer:

orangetrader

so if a debt in unenforceable, the lender can still register a default but doesnt pursue it......

from a legal point of view, can one dispute the default too considering the agreement in itself cannot be enforced.....
cheers buddy:beer:[/QUOTE]

Once an agreement becomes unenforceable it loses all of its legal rights including the ability to share info about you with 3rd parties i.e. credit reference agencies. So credit agencies cannot register or maintain records on credit agreements which are found to be unenforceable.

never-in-doubt

debtdestroyer007 wrote: »

Barrister NID... my friend wherever you are.....

so if a debt in unenforceable, the lender can still register a default but doesnt pursue it......

from a legal point of view, can one dispute the default too considering the agreement in itself cannot be enforced.....
cheers buddy:beer:

Hi matey - yea, the way the lenders work is they put a default on the file as a 'true reflection of how you ran the account'. However, the recent Mitchell -vs- HBOS (Leeds) case highlighted the flaws in that; i.e. no legal agreement means no legal entitlement to add data (in essence where is your authority for the lender to add data?)...

Therefore you'd have to fight once for unenforceability and a second time to remove the associated default. However there is no law to auto get the default removed, you'd need a damn good solicitor and/or a listening judge! :beer:

never-in-doubt

orangetrader wrote: »

Once an agreement becomes unenforceable it loses all of its legal rights including the ability to share info about you with 3rd parties i.e. credit reference agencies. So credit agencies cannot register or maintain records on credit agreements which are found to be unenforceable.

Not true - this is the theory that all us pro-unenforceability guys stand by but there is no legal provision for this as yet. We need more cases going through court.......

orangetrader wrote: »

I take it JDW = JD Williams store card? If so, yes it is subject to the terms of the consumer credit act. Therefore if it does not meet the regulations it may be an unenforceable credit agreement. Whether or not you would get a declaration discharging you depends on 1) if it breaches the consumer credit act and 2) if it is a pre 6th April 2007 agreement.

No, JD Williams is a catalogue. It still conforms with CCA 1974 but I think you're assuming most these guys want to go to court - this is the absolute last resort and is totally unecessary in most cases. Basically, its all very well going for Unenforceability but the lender will (and can as things stand) add a default.

Court action is the last resort if the lender denies their obligations or plays silly beggars with you.

orangetrader

Court lets woman off £8,000 loan
By Ian Pollock
Personal finance reporter, BBC News


The obligation to repay many consumer loans may be undermined
A decision by a county court Judge could mean thousands of borrowers being able to renege on their debts.
Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields county court has decided that the MBNA credit card company cannot demand the repayment of a customer's debt.
It tried to force Lynne Thorius to repay the £8,000 she owed on her card.
But the Judge decided there had been an unfair relationship between Ms Thorius and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance.
'Massive ramifications'
Ms Thorius' case was pursued on her behalf by a claims management firm Cartel Client Review, based in Manchester, and the law firm Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors.
Carl Wright of Cartel Client Review, claimed the court decision was a landmark judgement.
"This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country," he said.
But MBNA downplayed the importance of the court decision.
"The judgement went against MBNA for a number of reasons," a spokeswoman said.
"In principle, because the deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases," she explained.
"The case is a county court case and each case is decided on its own merits and on the factual circumstances of each case. This does not set any legal precedent," said MBNA.
'Secret commission'
The credit card in question was branded with the logo of Sunderland football club and was sold to Ms Thorius in the club's shop in 2002.
The PPI policy was sold to her at the same time, to pay off her account if she fell ill or was made redundant.
But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.
Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Ms Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach the Consumer Credit Act.
This point could potentially undermine many other agreements where PPI has been sold by the lender alongside a loan.
These include car finance deals, other personal loans and even mortgages.
"This practice is believed to be widespread and formed part of the Competition Commission's decision to prohibit the co-sale of PPI with credit in its report published on 29/1/09," Mr Brant noted.
"This point is likely to affect many thousands of individuals within England and Wales," he added.
Repayments
Judge Smart also agreed that the debt on Ms Thorius's credit card was unenforceable because the card company could not provide a copy of the original loan agreement, which is also required by the Consumer Credit Act.
MBNA's claim for the repayment of the outstanding money on the card was rejected.
And the Judge ordered the company either to repay Ms Thorius's PPI premiums and interest, or the value of the commissions it had received which so far has been undisclosed.
The PPI premiums, which rose each month as the credit card debts increased, amounted to £2,500 over the time the card had been in use.
Controversial
The claims management industry which has emerged in the past few years has been highly controversial.
Many firms advertise in newspapers and on television, encouraging people to come forward to write off their debts.
This year the authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Ministry of Justice (which regulates claims management firms) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, have warned firms not to make exaggerated claims about their ability to get debts written off because of apparent technical errors in the lenders' paperwork.
Since April 2007 more than 100 such firms, or those advertising for people to pursue personal injury claims, have been shut down by the OFT.
But the South Shields ruling appears to open up a new and genuine line of attack for claims firms.
"We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity," said Mr Wright.
MBNA applied for leave to appeal, which was rejected, but it may now apply directly to a higher court for permission to appeal.
Only when higher courts have decided the issue will the legal ramifications, and the effects on lender and borrowers, be clear.