MSE News: Could the debt write-off industry become a write-off?

noted

But couldn't detriment be argued about so many laws? What was the point in bringing in those laws as consumer protection then? What was the intention?
Surely there must be some detriment if the banks are supposed to provide information to consumers clearly in a required format with required information..but don't? Why is it they are allowed to do that?

~Brock~

noted wrote: »

But couldn't detriment be argued about so many laws? What was the point in bringing in those laws as consumer protection then? What was the intention?
Surely there must be some detriment if the banks are supposed to provide information to consumers clearly in a required format with required information..but don't? Why is it they are allowed to do that?

If it was considered that there was so much potential for consumer detriment caused by incorrect loan documentation, why was the concept of an agreement being irredeemably unenforceable removed from the Consumer Credit Act in 2007?

I've asked this question before, but never had a meaningful answer.

PROLIANT

It is quite satisfying knowing that these people have been sent running back to the rock they crawled from under with their tales between their legs now having to repay what they borrowed.

It seems the fog-horns on here spouting yuppie boy legal fallacy have vanished from the forums - yay, so now we might actually see some legitimate "Money Saving" advice being posted and for those of us in a financial pickle some good advice on how to "Manage" the debt and negotiate with creditors, not some deluded wannbe finance expert posting crap about debt evasion et al.

So here is a big pat on the back to all of us who are riding it out and doing the right thing by repaying our creditors and as a final thought to the losers who tried and failed at Debt Avoidance 101.....sweet! :beer:

iolanthe07

with their tales between their legs

Says it all, really.

Rafter

I totally support the view in the article that unenforceability doesn't necessarily mean that payment is not due. If you borrowed the money, you should pay it back and morality and integrity should matter.

I level the same judgement against MPs who claim that they shouldn't repay their completely excessive gardening or cleaning bills because they wouldn't be forced to in a court of law because the guidelines were vague and the house of commons staff (appointed by MPs) said it was ok at the time.

That shows a complete lack of morality and integrity for those of us in the real world who think that just because you are an MP you shouldn't have regard for what is reasonable and fair!

R.

blind-as-a-bat_2

~Brock~ wrote: »

If it was considered that there was so much potential for consumer detriment caused by incorrect loan documentation, why was the concept of an agreement being irredeemably unenforceable removed from the Consumer Credit Act in 2007?

I've asked this question before, but never had a meaningful answer.

To try and stop what now has happened, it was too late, as it was not retrospective:rolleyes:

127.—(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under—(a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or
(b) section 105(7)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or
(c) section 111(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or
(d) section 124(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention
of section 123),
the court shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only
if, it considers it just to do so having regard to—
(i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and
the degree of culpability for it; and
(ii) the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections 135
and 136.
(2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or
discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate
him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question.
(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section
61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether
or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1))
itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or
hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

In reality it was not even needed, as the above states, it only stops a court enforceing it, not that it wrote any debt off, just made it harder for the creditor to collect

It was sir Morrits comment that gave the impresion it should not be re-paid

Para [26] Sir Andrew Morritt’s Wilson v First County Trust Ltd;

“In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

So blame him:p

noted

My worry is that individuals are, seemingly, not allowed/able to take advantage of consumer protection laws...but big companies and banks take advantage of any law possible. I feel, strongly, that if consumer laws are in place individuals should be able to pursue their rights under these laws without 'moral' matters coming into it. That, to me, seems a separate issue and one for individuals to decide.

I feel it is wrong,that the banks have the laws they are supposed to follow to protect consumers, but haven't done so...and some people seem to want to suggest (?) they shouldn't be held accountable for this in any way. I don't, personally, feel it is 'moral' for banks to ignore and flout laws specifically designed to better protect consumers. Nor do I think it is 'moral' that they have the weight of legal departments behind them but decide not to follow the laws..and then people criticise consumers who then question this. It definitely isn't 'moral' for them to be allowed to do that and consumers have no recourse whatsoever, surely?

blind-as-a-bat_2

noted wrote: »

My worry is that individuals are, seemingly, not allowed/able to take advantage of consumer protection laws...but big companies and banks take advantage of any law possible.

Welcome to my world:rolleyes:

Debt avoidence was not the goal, as rightly said by someone else, if you can never pay, Bankruptcy is the solution.

The Goal was to buy time, but thanks to the debt write-off industry It has made my job harder, if not imposible.

All i wanted to do was buy my OH time, without it costing the earth in charges and intrest.

I asked nicely, they ignored me, so i resorted to legislation, and mostly won

But it was never about not paying what was owed:rolleyes:

noted

So you won, in some instances, under the consumer protection laws (CCA)? Did you end up going down the court on your own? (if you don't mind my asking) Yes, I can see why the fast growth of the write off industry would have made things more difficult. It is a worry though, for people who aren't able/up to pursue such matters on their own, I imagine that's why such numbers turned to the write off industry...which in turn caused its own problems.

I'm not to up to date on all the recent developments, I am just always very cautious about any kind of power imbalance (which happens all too often in my view). The banks, if they don't follow these laws, have to be held to account I would have thought. In the same way they hold individuals to account as and when it suits them.

blind-as-a-bat_2

We went to court with one debt, and won, but not on the CCA, but CPR, the claimant failed to appear to present there case. That in itself speaks volumes

The Judge, whilst appeared to ignore the CCA, was fair, i know he wanted to judge on morality, but understood our situation, so used what he could without useing the CCA, he did not seem to even want to go there

The other creditors vary, some have no agreemant at all, the others are questionable:rolleyes:

the only one left that by the letter of the legislation may get a court to allow the agreemant is LTSB.

To roughly quote my last corispondence to them

'your agreemant is unenforceable without a court order, due to your errors, but i am aware a court may allow it to stand, in part if not in full. My OH has no surplus income, and no assets, so you have three choices, try your luck in court to get the agreemant allowed, or shut up and wait, and do as we are, and hope things improve, or petition her for bankruptcy.'


They have been strangly quiet since