Clear your Debt Comapnies for Credit Cards

Dream_Car

Hi All, advice required please:
I have contacted 2 companies about clearing my huge credit card debts pre 2007. Both companies sound convincing, but i'm not sure which one to use. One is Cento Client Review who has taken an initial fee and the 2nd is CYD revolution- who charge 10% of the total debt outstanding. Has anyone used these companies and know if they are genuine? or do you know of another company which def clears pre April 2007 credit card debts?? Really appreciate any advice, thanks.
Harriet

NickX

I wouldn't use either of these companies.

Do it yourself by following this thread :

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1868507

ffacoffipawb

Dream_Car wrote: »

Hi All, advice required please:
I have contacted 2 companies about clearing my huge credit card debts pre 2007. Both companies sound convincing, but i'm not sure which one to use. One is Cento Client Review who has taken an initial fee and the 2nd is CYD revolution- who charge 10% of the total debt outstanding. Has anyone used these companies and know if they are genuine? or do you know of another company which def clears pre April 2007 credit card debts?? Really appreciate any advice, thanks.
Harriet

You borrowed the money. Pay it back.

never-in-doubt

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

You borrowed the money. Pay it back.

Not necessary though, unless the lender has correct paperwork and a lawful consumer credit agreement......

Why would someone pay for something that may not be lawful in the first place :rolleyes::rolleyes:

cooltt

Don't be so stupid it's got nothing to do with being lawful, it's about paying back the money that YOU decided to borrow and SPEND which didn't belong to you!

If you leant your brother £1000 and then he refused to pay it back becaue you didn't get him to sign a credit agreement would that be ok too?......I thought not.

It's attitudes like yours which is why this country is in the mess it is and will be for years to come.

ElkyElky

cooltt wrote: »

Don't be so stupid it's got nothing to do with being lawful, it's about paying back the money that YOU decided to borrow and SPEND which didn't belong to you!

If you leant your brother £1000 and then he refused to pay it back becaue you didn't get him to sign a credit agreement would that be ok too?......I thought not.

It's attitudes like yours which is why this country is in the mess it is and will be for years to come.

Of course it is to do about it being lawful. If they can't enforce the agreement by law, then they can't force you to pay it back. Paying it back or not comes entirely your decision. Why pay back a loan when you don't have to?

Lending money to family members is a different situation. In that situation, two people can be badly affected by the decision of not to repay. Whereas a bank will continue banking if you don't repay.

never-in-doubt

cooltt wrote: »

Don't be so stupid it's got nothing to do with being lawful, it's about paying back the money that YOU decided to borrow and SPEND which didn't belong to you!

If you leant your brother £1000 and then he refused to pay it back becaue you didn't get him to sign a credit agreement would that be ok too?......I thought not.

It's attitudes like yours which is why this country is in the mess it is and will be for years to come.

Nuggat!

Its attitudes like mine that keep the legal system (and the lenders) on its toes!

Elky - thanks, you took the words right outta my mouth!

fermi

To quote a High Court judge............

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 sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;

never-in-doubt

fermi wrote: »

To quote a High Court judge............

Thanks for clearing this matter up Fermi - couldn't find that snippet but says it all really - or did it say theft? Hmmm, one ponders this moral dilemma - NOT! :rotfl: :rotfl:

jonesMUFCforever

That's not what the judge said the other week which is why thousands of cases like this have been stayed until the principle has been proved one way or another.

I would also ask whether OP has any connection to either of the companies he mentioned being his first post etc.

fermi

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

That's not what the judge said the other week which is why thousands of cases like this have been stayed until the principle has been proved one way or another.

The Judge you refer to said this in that very judgement.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2009/2386.html

In other words, this is a case of temporary or redeemable unenforceability, concerned only with section 77 of the Act. In that respect it differs from two other factual scenarios where unenforceability can be said to be permanent or irredeemable[1]: (i) where the agreement is improperly executed, so that by virtue of section 65(1) of the Act, the agreement is only enforceable on an order of the court and, in the exercise of its discretion under section 127(1) the court declines to make an enforcement order and (ii) the case again under section 65(1) where section 61(1) (a) has not been complied with and by virtue of section 127(3), the court has no power to make an enforcement order (and the similar provision under section 127(4) where section 64 has not been complied with). Sections 127(3) and (4) were repealed by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, but only prospectively in respect of agreements made after 6 April 2007. As Mr Moran points out, there are a large number of regulated consumer credit agreements extant made before that date.