Unenforceable Loan?? Alliance & Leicester

ILW

wayne99 wrote: »

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.

I agree, but I think there are many who think (probably encouraged by claims companies) that it is a simple matter to sign a few forms and be tens of thousands of pounds better off virtualy overnight with no consequences.

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

I agree, but I think there are many who think (probably encouraged by claims companies) that it is a simple matter to sign a few forms and be tens of thousands of pounds better off virtualy overnight with no consequences.

Nah see I don't think they are daft to think there are no repercussions - we all know that taking the unenforceability route will have some adverse effect (those that seem to think otherwise have been blinkered and need to wake up!).....

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Nah see I don't think they are daft to think there are no repercussions - we all know that taking the unenforceability route will have some adverse effect (those that seem to think otherwise have been blinkered and need to wake up!).....[/QUOTE]

From the tone of many of the questions about "writing off my debts" or "clearing my credit cards" many people seem to believe there are no repercusions to speak of. A lot of the advice regarding unenforceabilty seems to carry no such health warning. Especially from claims company advertising and even from your good self at times.

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

From the tone of many of the questions about "writing off my debts" or "clearing my credit cards" many people seem to believe there are no repercusions to speak of. A lot of the advice regarding unenforceabilty seems to carry no such health warning. Especially from claims company advertising and even from your good self at times.

Yea but these so called claims companies are a joke - we all know that and those that believe the BS they spurt are unfortunately the same ones that let the banks walk over them in their time of desperation - kinda sweet justice IMO.....

Regards to me, if you read any of the threads i've started about this I always say (and deffo throughout the thread) that it will affect your credit file, obviously I don't if they are trying to remove a default cos it does no harm whatsoever.

I think you're wrong to suggest I encourage people to get defaults - I am the first to say avoid it unless absolutely imperative. Also someone above mentioned this exact same fact. Maybe you;re confusing my unenforceability thread with the sutton default removal thread - both perform differently and so my advice will differ.

leveller2911

rnb wrote: »

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.

RNB I think your mis-undestanding my point.The moral question was one aimed purely at NID as he/she has said previuosly that they care not for morals, morality means nothing to them at all ,it was nothing to do with whether or not banks and financial institutions were behaving morally.For what its worth ,no I don't belive they have behaved in a right and proper manner, but then bank NEVER have and we ALL know that so why "play the game"?.
QUOTE: "Its very easy to sit in a secure situation etc etc etc".How do you know what my situation is?.In the recession of the 90,s I had loans and was laid off work every winter for 4 years ,but I still paid my debts off . As for this recession anyone with an ounce of common sense knew this was going to happen,we had 12yrs of boom time when house prices went up 300% whilst wages rose by 20-25% ,doesn't take a genius to work out it was coming .I for one settled my debts about 3 yrs ago,worked like f*ck to save and prepare for the recession.
I know about 12 people who have gone bankrupt and only 1 was NOT !!!!less ,they all borrowed to the hilt with 125% mortgages,£thousands on credit cards ,brought new cars on finance etc etc etc ,Im sorry but there is an equelly large number or idiots out there as there are the GENUINE people who have fallen on hard times.

Go back 18 months,how many people would save up for a new television???? how many went for the finance option?, BIG lesson here for a lot of people "if you haven't got the money for it then don't buy it".
You seem to give the impression people WERE borrowing for everyday necessities like food etc, thats crap im afraid most borrowed for luxuries.How many threads do we get on here titled "Unenforcable loans"??? answer: too many.

At the end of the day If you play with fire sooner or later you,ll get burned, banks have always behaved badly its nothing new and so have their customers.If you borrow it then pay it back,if NOT don't borrow it.
You will always have genuine cases but the !!!!less morons are NOT a small minority.

This isn't a "Holier than thou attitude" its common sense, if Del-boy Trotter came knocking at your door ,would you buy a car from him??? No thought not........:rolleyes:

never-in-doubt

leveller2911 wrote: »

RNB I think your mis-undestanding my point.The moral question was one aimed purely at NID as he/she has said previuosly that they care not for morals, morality means nothing to them at all ,it was nothing to do with whether or not banks and financial institutions were behaving morally.:rolleyes:

Can I just say I never once said that, I cleared that up with the grandma scenario :rolleyes:. I think you confuse, yet again, my context of morals which I am clear about is that morals mean nothing in a court of law. Read my posts, you'll see I emphasise this fact daily..... I have morals, course I do! I give up my seat for someone older or a woman, i'll open doors for women, i'll respect my elders - but because I do and morally I think it's right doesn't mean it 'is' right cos to someone else spitting in their grans face and stealing from the elderly may be morally right for them.

Its not for me to judge - thus I say my morals fall within the law - the latter does not. :beer:

matty4113

Thanks guys, especially nid and orange trader. Still no reply from A&L, On my credit file it shows the original loan as SETTLED in 2006, the second one then starts. Even though I cancelled the PPI in 2007 (before april) there is no sign of a new agreement.
With that said I have obviously used my up to date account number to request the CCA but still no reply as yet. They have until 14 October to reply.

rnb_3

leveller2911 wrote: »

As for this recession anyone with an ounce of common sense knew this was going to happen,we had 12yrs of boom time when house prices went up 300% whilst wages rose by 20-25% ,doesn't take a genius to work out it was coming .I for one settled my debts about 3 yrs ago,worked like f*ck to save and prepare for the recession.

well good for. perhaps u should be having a word with those in government then eh???

i think i/we ll leave it there as this is taking up mattys thread.

orangetrader

Just to add to the discussion regarding your credit rating. You can go down the unenforceable route without causing any damage to your credit rating. But in order to do so you need to carry on making payments until the matter has been settled in a court room. i.e. put loan into dispute and carry on making payments so that the lender can’t file any negative records on your file whilst the matter is being settled.

never-in-doubt

orangetrader wrote: »

Just to add to the discussion regarding your credit rating. You can go down the unenforceable route without causing any damage to your credit rating. But in order to do so you need to carry on making payments until the matter has been settled in a court room. i.e. put loan into dispute and carry on making payments so that the lender can’t file any negative records on your file whilst the matter is being settled.

Yes you can do this, but that defeats the purpose of unenforceability because people cannot and do not want the hassle of court! Can I ask, have you done this from outset to completion, through the courts?

How did you find the experience? Who done your NOC? Who represented you? Who pays if you lose?

You seriously miss the point about unenforceability, going on your CAG posts it seems you've learned one thing and stick to it without swaying..... point is, the majority of people actually do not want to go to court! The process is black and white; why deviate and make payments to an unlawful account that does not require payments? Surely any court will see this as admission of guilt (i.e. why pay for an unenforceable debt?)....

Personally, I think maybe you had a victory through court but just cos you did, does not mean others will. It is a very contentious issue and court should be the very last option.

Therefore if you have an unblemished credit file, forget unenforceability and pay the bloody debt off! If the lender already issued a default then fight it cos you have nothing to lose. Court is awful and they rip you and your knowledge apart (in most cases) and even though I feel very clued up in this field i've only ever been to 3 court hearings and won them all (lender backed out on the day) - but the point is i've been working on this for near on 2 years on and off. Most other people have not.

p.s: I am pro-unenforceability so not having a go but I do think you have to realise this aint CAG and we do not want to go to court.....