Free Unenforceable Credit Agreement Service?

orangetrader

This was a 2002 agreement but it will be interesting to see if the case results in a number of post-April 2007 agreements going to Court under the newer CCA regulations governing "unfair relationships"

never-in-doubt

orangetrader wrote: »

This was a 2002 agreement but it will be interesting to see if the case results in a number of post-April 2007 agreements going to Court under the newer CCA regulations governing "unfair relationships"

I doubt it mate. I can't see the provision myself - unfair relationships wouldn't afford constitution for unenforceability. I think you're hoping for something that won't happen. There are clauses, which allow some provision to fight post 04/07 agreements, but not as you suggest above - it'd open a minefield of enquiry which, to be fair, would have been thought of at the repealed (s.127 (3-5)) stage.

orangetrader

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I doubt it mate. I can't see the provision myself - unfair relationships wouldn't afford constitution for unenforceability. I think you're hoping for something that won't happen. There are clauses, which allow some provision to fight post 04/07 agreements, but not as you suggest above - it'd open a minefield of enquiry which, to be fair, would have been thought of at the repealed (s.127 (3-5)) stage.

I wasn't hoping so much, more raising the question up for debate. As I understand it pre Apr 07 - the court has no discretion if a prescribed term has been breached. That doesn't mean the court wouldn't hand down the same ruling post-Apr 07. But I suspect the court wouldn't look favourably on a technical breach if there wasn't any real detriment to the borrower.

bingy_burge

Yeh this is why we are being rate jacked as these people don't want to pay their debts.

I have no issue repaying what I owe as long I can do it at an affordable rate.

People like !!!! and moan that all the banks are putting up the cost of borrowing and then attempts to wiggle out of their own comitments.

You should be banned from for like 6-10 years if you manage to wriggle out of paying a debt you ran up just because a loophole, its doesn't make up for the fact you had the product and service its just theft basically.

The op is no better than a common thief as they have taken goods and services and now have no intention of paying!

never-in-doubt

bingy_burge wrote: »

Yeh this is why we are being rate jacked as these people don't want to pay their debts.

I have no issue repaying what I owe as long I can do it at an affordable rate.

People like !!!! and moan that all the banks are putting up the cost of borrowing and then attempts to wiggle out of their own comitments.

You should be banned from for like 6-10 years if you manage to wriggle out of paying a debt you ran up just because a loophole, its doesn't make up for the fact you had the product and service its just theft basically.

The op is no better than a common thief as they have taken goods and services and now have no intention of paying!

Utter nonsense - you keep spouting rubbish like this yet have no idea of the actual facts at hand do you?

1. It is not wriggling out of anything, it is a legally binding contract pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - if it does not conform then it can be unenforceable which means the debt cannot be pursued. Nothing whatsoever to do with wriggling out of anything!

2. These people are not stealing from anyone - learn the meaning of the word theft before you try and argue this point :mad:

3. The fact that debt is written off has no bearing on you or rates you pay - if you apply for a product and get a high quote (APR) then look in the mirror at your own credit status - don't blame others! The facts of the matter is that debt is written off against profits for the company - you are not charged anything extra!

4. Learn the facts before you preach your rubbish! :rolleyes:

born2bongo

We have paid an up-front fee to a claims management company who had promised us we would have nothing to pay whether we won or lost. We had that in writing so we felt it was trustworthy.

Having paid the fee, we now have documents from the solicitors they are using. There is a lot of small print but the claims management co have attached their own summary of the content, insisting we will have nothing to pay.

Nevertheless, the small print suggests that we would have to make good the legal fees if the award were less than their fees.

The small print also refers to a document 'Conditional Fee Agreements: What you need to know'. Nothing with this title was included in the pack so we tracked it down on the internet. We then realised that the pack included a cut down version of this, and one line that was missing appeared to emphasise our liability in the above circumstances.

We've queried this with the claims managment company but they have dodged the questions and reiterated that we won't pay any further fees unless we decide to withdraw or we don't co-operate

So, if we pull out now we have lost a substantial fee and have a debt to settle. If we proceed, and they lose, we get our fee back and still have the debt. Two questions:

1. What constitutes a win? Is it still a win if they only get the loan written off? Or only part of it?
2. If the claims management company has insisted there is nothing else to pay, is that enforceable if we subsequently get asked for the balance of legal fees?

TIA