Unenforceable Loan?? Alliance & Leicester

ILW

leveller2911 wrote: »

Question: If you saw an old lady fall over in the street, would you A: keep on walking?? B : try and help her??

I was queing at an ATM last week behind an old lady.
She seemed a bit flustered si I asked if there was anything I could do to help.

She asked me if I could check her balance for her.

So I pushed her over.

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

I was queing at an ATM last week behind an old lady.
She seemed a bit flustered si I asked if there was anything I could do to help.

She asked me if I could check her balance for her.

So I pushed her over.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

WH39

N.I.D

I am with you on this one mate. The banks have ripped the !!! out of "joe public" for years and got away with it. now people are sitting up and taking note and are really understanding what CCA is all about. I have no quams about screwing the banks.

rnb_3

leveller2911 wrote: »

NID if you help the old lady out then you have a "MORAL" conscience..You say "Morals" are nothing and mean nothing and yet you have them.
At the end of the day when all is said and done if people borrow money they should pay it back.
I have had loans from banks ,unsecured ,I knew the term of the loan and the total amount payable and also the ARP.It seems that you believe that if a loan agreement has a spelling mistake or minor problem then they should be "unenforcable" its wrong for people to shirk their responsabilities and like other posters have said anyone who does "try it on" will pay in the long run....
Maybe you should put all the energy you use on here to a proper "good cause" do some charity work...........Lastly if someone winds you up then do what most do on here.............IGNORE.........

sorry matty taking ur thread up again apologies.

so leveller, do u not think that a bank/financial institution has an obligation, moral or otherwise, to keep and produce when asked (as per statute governing these debts, passed by parliament not consumers!!!), legally binding documents, or proof thereof, that show strict, prescribed terms (again laid down in statute) and other documentation sent in strict form, that MUST be followed to allow the documentation to be lagally binding in a court of law on said consumer?
or are you happy that they can simply say, at will, that the consumer has had the benefit of the monies so they have to pay it back, including interest and charges and then, when they cannot, secure a previously unsecured debt (for which they have had the benefit of vastly exaggerated interest lvls) on peoples homes by dragging them thru the court system. which incidently, they know damn well that most people have had no experience of, know nothing of the complex procedures required and are generally terrified of? or perhaps even worse, pass it on to heavy handed debt collectors for a fraction of the debt who, if they get your phone numbers, call 20-30 times a day, every day, including weekends, especially weekends, gradually trying to wear u and your family down so that u pay them something, anything, threatening 'home visits', loss of home, contact with your place of work, etc, etc.
the problem here is, on what grounds and under what terms does the consumer have to pay these monies back? the institution doesnt have the agreement on which ALL this rests, so where do we start?
the House of Lords is where, the highest court in the land. there is binding case law backing up the fact that statute MUST be adhered to in every respect of reclaiming monies owed, but curiously none binding in the other direction!!! maybe that says something do u not think?
and lets not get too silly here, the reality is, after a couple of years the original monies have generally been repaid and the debt remains as primarily interest.
its very very easy to sit in a secure situation in the current climate, waxing lyrical about scroungers, bottom feeding, getting their debts written off for nothing when others have to pay. there will be those who can genuinely afford to pay their debts, yet choose to take this route to 'escape' the debt, granted. the flipside however, is that there is a majority of people struggling to feed themselves and their families let alone keep a roof over their head. it is not down to them that the financial world collapsed around them in heap. who did that i wonder?
i personally have no empathy for the institutions (and i have worked in the city for 25 years). if they have been so arrogant as to not see the requirement to keep or check such important documents in the past, they deserve all they get. the CCA1974 by definition is nothing new, its been there for all to see and adhere to. its their choice not to and they are, to some small degree, feeling the effects of that omission.
ive been on the extremes of both sides of this coin so i feel able to comment and i just cannot omit to reply, when such a high stand is taken
with an apparently narrow view, when a panoramic perspective is so clearly required. this is not a black and white issue, there are errors on both sides and this should be taken into account in my opinion.

orangetrader

matty4113 wrote: »

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

Gong back to the original question.

At the time that the PPI came off the loan, the loan contract was re-written. You may have a legal argument to say that it is the original contract which is subject to the CCA rules but it is contentious and wouldn’t be an easy argument to win. Therefore I personally would request a copy of the current credit agreement.

With regards to defaults/credit rating – check out the banking code. It clearly states that banks cannot issues defaults whilst the debt is in dispute. If lenders do they are doing they are breaching the banking code. You may have a difficult time trying to stop them however.

Also lookup Mitchell versus Bank of Scotland to see what happens to your credit file if a court decides that the agreement is unenforceable. They force the lender to remove all entries in connection to the unenforceable debt.

never-in-doubt

orangetrader wrote: »

Also lookup Mitchell versus Bank of Scotland to see what happens to your credit file if a court decides that the agreement is unenforceable. They force the lender to remove all entries in connection to the unenforceable debt.

Whilst I agree with the main I must say that the Michell -v- HBOS case was unique and the fact HBOS pulled out the day before and decided to play silly beggars about costs all contributed to the decision to remove the defaults. This is not the normal action and usually you would have to start a new case (after the original judgement) for the removal of any entries within the CRA confines......

Therefore it is not a given right that unenforceability will result in removal of default, although it should and if you take the lender to court a second time for removal of default you should win; simply because the fact the agreement is unenforceable means it is not lawful; an unlawful agreement means they cannot add data with 3rd parties (i.e. your authority was revoked when unenforceability kicked in); meaning the default and all entries relating to the account (including past history) should be erased as if the account was never there.

So to summarise the debtor would have to bring two cases against the lender, the first would be the unenforceability claim followed up with judgement to remove entries within the CRA's....

Mitchell -v- HBOS should be quoted in all cases to enlighten the lender that you intend to use it as case law.

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Whilst I agree with the main I must say that the Michell -v- HBOS case was unique and the fact HBOS pulled out the day before and decided to play silly beggars about costs all contributed to the decision to remove the defaults. This is not the normal action and usually you would have to start a new case (after the original judgement) for the removal of any entries within the CRA confines......

Therefore it is not a given right that unenforceability will result in removal of default, although it should and if you take the lender to court a second time for removal of default you should win; simply because the fact the agreement is unenforceable means it is not lawful; an unlawful agreement means they cannot add data with 3rd parties (i.e. your authority was revoked when unenforceability kicked in); meaning the default and all entries relating to the account (including past history) should be erased as if the account was never there.

So to summarise the debtor would have to bring two cases against the lender, the first would be the unenforceability claim followed up with judgement to remove entries within the CRA's....

Mitchell -v- HBOS should be quoted in all cases to enlighten the lender that you intend to use it as case law.

You have to bear in mind that whilst all this is going on (could be years) you will have real problems if you wish to get something like a loan, phone or mortgage.

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

You have to bear in mind that whilst all this is going on (could be years) you will have real problems if you wish to get something like a loan, phone or mortgage.

Yes, this is true - these things don't just happen overnight. In some cases, it is better to see out the 6yrs and let the default fall off naturally/statute barred.

I'd like to think though, that those that took it to court done it more out of principle that gain.

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I'd like to think though, that those that took it to court done it more out of principle that gain.

Whilst avoiding the pigs flying overhead.

wayne99

Can i just say that N-I-D has helped me and others to fight defaults that should of never been added, have been added multiple times by DCA's etc so for me and iam sure many many others he is a great help on these forums.

He also made it quite clear of the concequences of not paying, or going down the unenforcability route in his reply pm on post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=25100159&postcount=2

If you want to go down that route as clearly stated your credit file will be shot for 6 years.