Credit Card Agreement - Request and Dispute

~Brock~

bert&ernie wrote: »

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."

Good reply. Those comments were also made as comment after a court case - I think it was the Hurstanger one, but I could be wrong.

It seems clear that the difference in the two reflections, and the time that has gone between them being made, means that he did not forsee a whole sub-industry of get rich quick merchants using such loopholes in such a widespread manner.

This still does not change my original point though which was that if s127 was so important and central to the protection of the consumer then why was it removed?

Also, how likely is it that post 4/07 agreements will be declared unenforceable through the application of s140, despite the fact that there is already at least one claims company now claiming that they can train others on how to use s140 to acheive this aim. Looks like even more abuse of the consumer lies ahead from these parasites.

JLHE wrote: »

Nice one Bert&Ernie.

Nuff said, I'd say! :T

Why don't you contribute to the debate instead of getting your dad to do it?

HouseHuntr

JLHE wrote: »

unwanted and I repeat irrelevant opinion. Get a life and don't bother clogging up the forums with !!!!. You could (and you probably do) spend your entire time cruising the forums to give your two penny worth to people who just don't give a monkeys.

So to anyone else who has nothing useful to say - save it!

And for the record, if the CCA is unlawful, it's deemed unlawful for a reason. Rules and regulations are there to protect; otherwise, might as well all go to the loan-sharks. :T

Unwanted maybe, irrellevant no because the truth hurts doesn't it. Not irrelevant when S""" like you cost people who are willing to repay their debts.

I do not recollect being offered a Credit Card, let alone sign for one

Yet you were quite happy to use and abuse it rather than send it back or cancel it ! Isn't that fraudulent on your behalf ?

I didn't use it for years

So they kept sending you new ones, but still you kept them !

my brother who is in exactly the same situation is thinking of paying a company to sort this out; however, I'm inclined to think we could do it ourselves with some cleverly worded letters sent to them. What does anyone else here think?

Irresponsibility is obviously a family trait and something you're proud of !

hints or tips would be greatly appreciated!!

Pay your debts !!

Quote NID ; There are a lot of preachers on here

You're the biggest one, just look at your post count for gods sake, most of them telling people not to repay their debts, yet YOU PAY your own ! Hypocrite !

CUE NID with you're such a muppet quotes :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

HouseHuntr

evanjonesaber wrote: »

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

Take your own advice !!

never-in-doubt

Black quotes = JLHE
Blue quotes = HouseHuntr
Red quotes = N-i-D Response to HouseHuntr silly post!

HouseHuntr wrote: »

Post details below

JLHE wrote:

unwanted and I repeat irrelevant opinion. Get a life and don't bother clogging up the forums with !!!!. You could (and you probably do) spend your entire time cruising the forums to give your two penny worth to people who just don't give a monkeys.

So to anyone else who has nothing useful to say - save it!

And for the record, if the CCA is unlawful, it's deemed unlawful for a reason. Rules and regulations are there to protect; otherwise, might as well all go to the loan-sharks.

HouseHuntr wrote: »

Unwanted maybe, irrellevant no because the truth hurts doesn't it. Not irrelevant when S""" like you cost people who are willing to repay their debts.

Actually irrelevant yes (maybe you need to learn to spell) because your opinion does not matter. The truth hurts you, evidently - thus your little rant that proves you're actually the bitter one here! Why get personal and call people names? How does it cost people 'willing' to pay their 'unlawful' debts exactly? Please post proof of such costs otherwise be quiet cos you're wrong!

JLHE wrote:

I do not recollect being offered a Credit Card, let alone sign for one

HouseHuntr wrote: »

Yet you were quite happy to use and abuse it rather than send it back or cancel it ! Isn't that fraudulent on your behalf ?

That really doesn't matter, the law is clear that a signature must be present! Can you imagine you in court! It'd be a joke..... Bottom line is that regardless of whether he spent on the card without a signed agreement it is a gift - legally! Accept it, powers much higher (with a lot more intelligence) than you made this decision.

JLHE wrote:

I didn't use it for years

HouseHuntr wrote: »

So they kept sending you new ones, but still you kept them !

Yes, why not? Its not illegal to use something sent to you - find me a law that says it is and i'll accept it. See above point for my reasoning.

JLHE wrote:

my brother who is in exactly the same situation is thinking of paying a company to sort this out; however, I'm inclined to think we could do it ourselves with some cleverly worded letters sent to them. What does anyone else here think?

HouseHuntr wrote: »

Irresponsibility is obviously a family trait and something you're proud of !

Getting personal achieves nothing other than prove to others that you're actually clutching at straws due to your restricted knowledge. May I suggest you quit before we ridicule you even more.....

N-i-D wrote:

There are a lot of preachers on here

HouseHuntr wrote: »

You're the biggest one, just look at your post count for gods sake, most of them telling people not to repay their debts, yet YOU PAY your own ! Hypocrite !

LOL, yea and look at my thanks count as well..... What's your point? I do not preach, people ask questions and I tell them the answers - sorry, I forget your intelligence doesn;t allow that does it?

HouseHuntr wrote: »

CUE NID with you're such a muppet quotes

LOL, classic time to cue N-i-D's Mupper alert......

Muppet Alert Above!
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

never-in-doubt

HouseHuntr wrote: »

Take your own advice !!

Oh go away you silly silly boy. Do you have nothing better to do than sit there and press buttons on a computer? Maybe mummy will take you to the park if you're a real good boy :T

gizmo111

The law states nothing is owed if unenforceable so why would anyone be stupid enough to do such a thing, i.e. pay money which legally is not owed?

The amount is still owed it is just unenforceable.

never-in-doubt

gizmo111 wrote: »

The amount is still owed it is just unenforceable.

You think i dont know this? Your pedantic point is?

Unenforceability & Template Letters

By the way, without a signed agreement then it isn't actually owed! They can never locate a signed agreement so in fact it would be wiped off. i.e. not owing. The lender would never be able to enforce it would they, without a signature....

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

By the way, without a signed agreement then it isn't actually owed! They can never locate a signed agreement so in fact it would be wiped off. i.e. not owing. The lender would never be able to enforce it would they, without a signature....

Not 100% accurate. If a lender can demonstrate to a court that its procedures at the time of the loan would have made it beyond reasonable doubt that an agreement was signed, and they can reconstruct this agreement, then the court could, quite rightly, rule that the debt is owed.

gizmo111

You think i dont know this? Your pedantic point is?

the point is it is still legally owed just not enforceable without an agreement, not as stated above.

HouseHuntr

NID the Hypocrite - Forever telling people what to do and getting personal !

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Getting personal achieves nothing other than prove to others that you're actually clutching at straws due to your restricted knowledge .

Actually irrelevant yes (maybe you need to learn to spell) because your opinion does not matter. The truth hurts you, evidently - thus your little rant that proves you're actually the bitter one here! Why get personal and call people names? How does it cost people 'willing' to pay their 'unlawful' debts exactly? Please post proof of such costs otherwise be quiet cos you're wrong!

LOL, yea and look at my thanks count as well..... What's your point? I do not preach, people ask questions and I tell them the answers - sorry, I forget your intelligence doesn;t allow that does it?


LOL, classic time to cue N-i-D's Mupper alert......

Muppet Alert Above!
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Just look at what you been thanked for !! Most are for completely irrelevant nonsense rather than advice ! With you it means nothing.
Just look at who has thanked you ? Your other screenames !!! How many do you need ? Funny how most of the people thanking you are the SAME ones all the time ! SAD !!!

Your arrogance is overwhelming in thinking that you're far superior to everyone else around here !