Unenforceable Loan?? Alliance & Leicester

matty4113

Ok guys and girls, I sent never-in-doubt a pm and he recommended i put the query in here to gain more feedback so here it is.

My story- i took out a loan with a&l in may 2005 which contained ppi. i borrowed further in 2006, again this contained ppi. this loan cleared the old one and i was issued a new account number.
I then cancelled the ppi in 2007 and was issued with another account number and amended payments.
I claimed back the ppi from both these loans earlier this year which I was very happy with.
Now i have requested a cca for my current loan (which actually started in 2006 but i was given a new number in 2007 when i cancelled the ppi) they have failed to send me one within the 12+2 days so i am sending the second letter tomorrow.

I hope your keeping up so far lol. My questions are; do i have to follow up with an sar? if so when should i send this? And which agreement would i need to see if it is unenforceable? the original settled one from 2005? the current one which i started in 2006 or the amended one from when the ppi was cancelled in jan 2007?

Hope i havent fried your brain too much lol, When am i legally allowed to stop making payments? Is it now or after the further 30 days?

Many thanks
Matt

matty4113

and my reply from n-i-d..........

Hi Matt

You can legally cease payments at any time, regardless of any legalities the lender will still report the late payments to the CRA's thus affecting your ability to get credit - its a catch 22.

Basically, if it is one loan, i.e. you asked for a loan and then they changed things due to the PPI, this is their fault and they should match the paperwork. What i'm saying is that you signed one CCA right? At the time of the loan? It is this copy you need to see.

If you got a new loan and upped the original one then you need the new loan's CCA - following me? If the lender changed something that's their problem, you aint bothered - they still have to comply.

Leave it with them and see what they come up with..... being honest, if you know you're going to default (i.e. cannot afford the repayments) then you may as well stop paying now and save what you can! If you want to keep your credit record intact then unenforceability may not be the best option here.... its usually designed for people with nothing to lose, i.e. already defaulted.

What is the loan amount and the actual debt (balance), is this the only thing you're looking to make unenforceable or are you looking for other credit accounts as well?

Send the reminder letter and see what happens - the dates are the legal minimum that must be given, anytime after this then you are in control. So its up to you if the debt is unenforceable or not, if they do not respond after 30 days (in total) which legally is ample time.

A SAR is only any use if they continually mess you around but even so, may not contain the CCA.

matty4113

Ok so i think the CCA i am after is from 2006 when i upped it because the 2005 one was cleared. Although i got a new number in 2007 when i cancelled the ppi, it was still the same loan from 2006.

original loan was £15,000 in 2005. I borrowed a further 5k in 2006 to make £20,000 but the actual loan was for £18,700 as I had already paid the old one for a year. The balance now is around the 9K mark.

I have paid all my other debts off except a credit card (this was taken out post april 2007 so I am not worried about that.

With the loan I have never missed a payment and always pay direct debit on the 1st of each month. I am able to manage it no problem but if its unenforceable then all the better for me really, however I am having doubts due to the credit record you mentioned.

I have sent the reminder letter which gives them 30 days, although it says I will make no more payments until it is sorted I am unsure whether to or not.

If I dont make any payments for say 2 months, then they produce a CCA, does this mean I then have to stump up 2 months payments in one go??? If thats the case I may aswell a) keep paying it, or b) stash the money to one side to be safe. Very confused.......any help is appreciated.

ILW

matty4113 wrote: »

Ok so i think the CCA i am after is from 2006 when i upped it because the 2005 one was cleared. Although i got a new number in 2007 when i cancelled the ppi, it was still the same loan from 2006.

original loan was £15,000 in 2005. I borrowed a further 5k in 2006 to make £20,000 but the actual loan was for £18,700 as I had already paid the old one for a year. The balance now is around the 9K mark.

I have paid all my other debts off except a credit card (this was taken out post april 2007 so I am not worried about that.

With the loan I have never missed a payment and always pay direct debit on the 1st of each month. I am able to manage it no problem but if its unenforceable then all the better for me really, however I am having doubts due to the credit record you mentioned.

I have sent the reminder letter which gives them 30 days, although it says I will make no more payments until it is sorted I am unsure whether to or not.

If I dont make any payments for say 2 months, then they produce a CCA, does this mean I then have to stump up 2 months payments in one go??? If thats the case I may aswell a) keep paying it, or b) stash the money to one side to be safe. Very confused.......any help is appreciated.

If you want to get any form of credit,a mortgage or say a new mobile phone contract, you can forget it if you go down the unenforceabilty route. Your credit file will be down the toilet for the next six years.

woody01

This section should be banned.

It is blatantly being used for Never-In-Doubt and idiots like him to attempt to get out of paying debts accrued.

N-I-D (and his merry band) are giving vulnerable (who i do empathise with), or stupid people (which i don't), false hope that these debts will just disappear.

If someone is in financial trouble then there are other avenues, and ones that will be honest and helpful.

matty4113

I will take my points elsewhere then. Thanks for the unhelpful comments!!

jonesMUFCforever

He wasn't being unhelpful but practical.

If the debt is found to be unenforceable then it does not disappear - it will still be there but your credit rating will be shot for 6 years.

never-in-doubt

woody01 wrote: »

This section should be banned.

Right muppet, i'll say this to you again one last time in the hope you can actually understand it....

We couldn't care less what you think - the fact of the matter is that this is a public forum and the fact that the information asked for, and subsequently given, does not morally agree with you does not give recourse for you to say it should be banned. Maybe in your small minded opinion, but who cares about your opinion - get over yourself.

IT IS A PUBLIC FORUM!

woody01 wrote: »

It is blatantly being used for Never-In-Doubt and idiots like him to attempt to get out of paying debts accrued.

Eh? Never-in-doubt is not in debt! Also, for the last time -

IT IS NOT GETTING OUT OF ANYTHING IT IS LEGAL, PRACTICED AND PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE!

woody01 wrote: »

N-I-D (and his merry band) are giving vulnerable (who i do empathise with), or stupid people (which i don't), false hope that these debts will just disappear.

Yep. And N-i-D's got proof of removing defaults etc for people - ooops! Forgot that did we, muppet! :rotfl::rotfl: Also, I think you'll find I have a lot more support than you, simply because instead of gobbing off rubbish I do try and help people.

For any neutrals, read my previous posts and nobs previous posts and see for yourself. :rotfl:

woody01 wrote: »

If someone is in financial trouble then there are other avenues, and ones that will be honest and helpful.

Implying I am not honest? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I think the effort and time I put into helping others will far put you to shame so best go home and suckle on mummys teet there's a good lad :hello::hello:

never-in-doubt

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

He wasn't being unhelpful but practical.

If the debt is found to be unenforceable then it does not disappear - it will still be there but your credit rating will be shot for 6 years.

Yes he was, Woody nob is always unhelpful - search his posts and find me one that is helpful? Good luck! The OP asked a question and woody came here and abused the question. How on earth is that practical?

Ahh, you mean cos morally you think it is practical right? Well we couldn't give a hoot about morals - the facts are what the law is based on - not morals or feelings and the sooner you lot realise that the better!

As for your second paragraph, what planet are you on? If the debt is unenforecable then trust me it will disappear what with the new case law from Leeds - you have heard haven't you? That it was challenged in court - no agreement means no signature, no signature means no authority to share data with CRA's - guess what? The consumer won!

Now guess what? the consumer will continue to win cos thats the law!

rnb_3

how anyone can question the morality of requiring the correct documentation to be available for what is of course an UNSECURED DEBT, attracting higher interest rates, such that the uninitiated (or indeed initiated), consumer can correctly and accurately assess their legal position with regard to what amounts in many cases to be huge financial burden, is beyond me.
how about looking at the reverse? the moraility of these institutions routinely riding roughshod over consumers without the vaguest hint of worry about keeping documents required by statute and plainly backed up in the highest court in the land, in the knowledge that as they have unlimited reserves they will eventually succeed over the majority.
if they simply cant be bothered or financial sense prevails, they sit back, take the tax break and offload said debt further down the food chain for a fraction of the debt (10% in a lot of cases, never offered to the consumer though eh?) to DCAs who then take a sledgehammer to a drawing pin and make the consumers life even more pressured when they could least do with it. often forcing them to make payments ahead of any secured debts and even food, with threats of court action, loss of home or whatever curse they think will get to their desired goal.
the consumer credit act is exactly that, not an act for the protection of large finacial institutions. people would do well to remember that when sitting in their glass houses in my opinion.

rnb_3

matty,
if your credit record is, or is likely to be an issue in the future and the payments are affordable, it a no brainer.