Credit Card Agreement - Request and Dispute

~Brock~

bert&ernie wrote: »

Should the law apply retrospectively, in your view?

Damn right it should........and if the lawmakers had realised the amount of abuse that the system would have been subjected to as a result of the activities of the 'reclaim your right' brigade it probably would have been.

My point was simply in reply to the view that these laws were to 'protect the innocent'. Nothing wrong with that, I agree, but in reality much of it is twisted in order to gain apparent advantage to the debtor.

This is not the spirit in which the original act was written, as its author Francis Bennion would appear to agree when commenting on the activities of the Rankines.......

"This sort of thing was not what was intended by those responsible for the enactment of the CCA. As Judge Mason points out, the Act was introduced to protect the individual who is unsophisticated in financial affairs and contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. ‗It was not designed to help individuals in the financial services business make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities.‘ Well that was rather what I thought too, having I fear created many of the said technicalities."

My point is a simple one........if consumers were subject to so much risk of detriment as a result of supposedly 'flawed' agreements then why were the relevant sections removed from the Act?

JLHE

Brock - what you're saying is nonsense. You're implying is that consumers are now taking advantage of the banks? Don't make me laugh! It was the banks who were taking advantage of consumers - handing credit cards out willy-nilly, to people. The banks were irresponsible, thinking they had the full weight of the law behind if it came to demanding all the cash back. Well, the tables have turned now. Does the term 'consumer revenge' not ring a bell to you, Brock?

evanjonesaber

Why are people posting abuse and being harsh? This person has come here for help and all some people can do is point accusing fingers and have a go. It's not on, is it.

If you have nothing nice and useful to say, shut up.

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

My point is a simple one........if consumers were subject to so much risk of detriment as a result of supposedly 'flawed' agreements then why were the relevant sections removed from the Act?

They were removed in error lol.

Seriously though, the removal of 127(3) only applies to the actual remedy of enforcement of the agreement (or debt). You have to realise that although the onus of proof (for a compliant agreement) has been removed from the lender, they still do have to abide by the CCA. For agreements after April 2007 the lender still has to act lawfully and in the case of going to court, judges will be aware of the revisions to the CCA and will take into consideration the overall facts on a case by case basis.

So although s.127(3) was repealed in its entirety from the CCA, if there is no signed agreement or prescribed terms were missing from said agreement then you'd simply revert to Criminal Procedure Rule as opposed to CCA and take the lender to court on the basis of unfair agreement and/or unlawfully executed agreement.

There is provision for the CCA to protect post 04/07 agreements (more on a case by case basis) and a good CCA lawyer will find a way around the repeal of s.127(3). To be fair though, most lenders have sorted their paperwork out and therefore post 04/07 agreements are likely to be water-tight...

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

They were removed in error lol.

Seriously though, the removal of 127(3) only applies to the actual remedy of enforcement of the agreement (or debt). You have to realise that although the onus of proof (for a compliant agreement) has been removed from the lender, they still do have to abide by the CCA. For agreements after April 2007 the lender still has to act lawfully and in the case of going to court, judges will be aware of the revisions to the CCA and will take into consideration the overall facts on a case by case basis.

So although s.127(3) was repealed in its entirety from the CCA, if there is no signed agreement or prescribed terms were missing from said agreement then you'd simply revert to Criminal Procedure Rule as opposed to CCA and take the lender to court on the basis of unfair agreement and/or unlawfully executed agreement.

There is provision for the CCA to protect post 04/07 agreements (more on a case by case basis) and a good CCA lawyer will find a way around the repeal of s.127(3). To be fair though, most lenders have sorted their paperwork out and therefore post 04/07 agreements are likely to be water-tight...

I understand what you are saying, and also agree with it **shock** (apart from the bit about post 4/07 agreements being watertight - in my experience nothing really changed)

However you should also understand that when operating outside the constraints of s127(3) judges will generally award a real world settlement which is in line with the degree of detriment suffered (if any) by whatever flaw is being argued about.

Such proportionate solutions are exactly how things should be, and should hopefully go a long way to understanding my overall views (not that you should give a to$$ about what I think of course), and why I think that there exists widespread ABUSE by the claims industry which is nothing to do with protecting consumers.

I also have no sympathy with lenders who intentionally break the law, but when you have a situation where a CAB advice centre tells clients they can avoid their debts to a local loan company by requesting a copy of their agreement, knowing full well that the company concerned had their paper records destroyed in last year's floods that, in my opinion, is going too far.

I wish the OP well in his crusade against banks by using the 'consumer revenge' philisophy. I am sure in his own mind he is 100% in the right, although most observers will hopefully consider the proportionality of his situation when deciding right from wrong.

Endnote: Just because people may not agree with my views, or others, does not mean that healthy debate should resort to petty arguments or insults.

ILW

~Brock~ wrote: »

Endnote: Just because people may not agree with my views, or others, does not mean that healthy debate should resort to petty arguments or insults.

Yes it does.

bert&ernie

~Brock~ wrote: »

Damn right it should........and if the lawmakers had realised the amount of abuse that the system would have been subjected to as a result of the activities of the 'reclaim your right' brigade it probably would have been.

My point was simply in reply to the view that these laws were to 'protect the innocent'. Nothing wrong with that, I agree, but in reality much of it is twisted in order to gain apparent advantage to the debtor.

This is not the spirit in which the original act was written, as its author Francis Bennion would appear to agree when commenting on the activities of the Rankines.......

"This sort of thing was not what was intended by those responsible for the enactment of the CCA. As Judge Mason points out, the Act was introduced to protect the individual who is unsophisticated in financial affairs and contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. ‗It was not designed to help individuals in the financial services business make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities.‘ Well that was rather what I thought too, having I fear created many of the said technicalities."

My point is a simple one........if consumers were subject to so much risk of detriment as a result of supposedly 'flawed' agreements then why were the relevant sections removed from the Act?

We'll your views on retroactive legislation are different to mine, and, it would seem, parliament.

I don't think it is unusual or surprising to find that individuals will seek to use the law to their advantage.

Its interesting to note what you think about the spirit of the law - especially as you have quoted its draughtsman. I seem to recall you quoting those particular comments before. I happen to agree with his view of the Rankines, but think this better expresses his view of the spirit of the law:

"...I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed."

JLHE

Nice one Bert&Ernie.

Nuff said, I'd say! :T

ILW

Have you considered what this course of action will do to your credit file. If it is already in tatters you have nothing to lose though.

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

Have you considered what this course of action will do to your credit file. If it is already in tatters you have nothing to lose though.

Careful - you're starting to sound like N-i-D..... :rolleyes: