Unenforceability & Template Letters II

Dojo_Jo_Jo

Thanks for that. Excellent news.

The Reflex account is a rolling one and I have made sure that any accounts in hubby's name have their letters digitally signed by him!

CCA Request to Barclays re loan first thing in the morning.

That will total 7 cases I am dealing with through the advice of this site. Oh I do love a fight!!!!

never-in-doubt

Dojo_Jo_Jo wrote: »

Thanks for that. Excellent news.

The Reflex account is a rolling one and I have made sure that any accounts in hubby's name have their letters digitally signed by him!

CCA Request to Barclays re loan first thing in the morning.

That will total 7 cases I am dealing with through the advice of this site. Oh I do love a fight!!!!

Best of luck - you'll need it

But to be fair, its a simple process so long as you have 'nothing to lose' so to speak, i.e. if you don't have a mortgage and already have defaults etc then you can simply stop paying. If you have liabilities then it is always something to consider.

I wouldn't expect a fast reply as they will drag their heels hoping the 12 test cases will provide a similar [STRIKE]joke[/STRIKE] outcome to todays bank charge verdict :mad:

If you get stuck or need help, just send a message... :D

Dojo_Jo_Jo

In your opinion, if a customer can prove unenforceability before the result of any test cases, do you think the courts will have the power to overturn.

Will all those already declared unenforceable over the years suddenly be enforceable again?

never-in-doubt

Dojo_Jo_Jo wrote: »

In your opinion, if a customer can prove unenforceability before the result of any test cases, do you think the courts will have the power to overturn.

Will all those already declared unenforceable over the years suddenly be enforceable again?

I don't want to shy from the questions but to be fair I really do not think the banks can win this one. The CCA is an act that has merit and as such the rules are there in black and white and to omit them and remove them would only work for cases brought in after the change had taken place.

So I personally think you'd be fine if it was already deemed unenforceable however I don't expect to lose this - bear in mind the test cases are looking at several factors including reporting data to CRA's when the account is unenforceable for instance if the contract (CCA) is void then surely your authority to share data is also void, if you follow?

Its complex but in a nutshell, s.127 etc will remain - maybe modified or clarified but the main basis will remain for pre 2007 cases.

Only my humble opinion, of course :beer:

Dojo_Jo_Jo

Well, that sounds promising. My deflation was short lived!

GUTTED ABOUT THE BANK CHARGES RESULT THOUGH! We can only hope there is a massive swell of public opinion, especially with an election looming!

Will let you know how I get on, thanks again.

never-in-doubt

Dojo_Jo_Jo wrote: »

Well, that sounds promising. My deflation was short lived!

GUTTED ABOUT THE BANK CHARGES RESULT THOUGH! We can only hope there is a massive swell of public opinion, especially with an election looming!

Will let you know how I get on, thanks again.

Ahh, dont worry about the bank decision - seems we can get round this using regs 5 & 8 as opposed to reg 6 which the OFT originally went in with :D

It may be a short 'victory' of sorts :rolleyes:

ConsumerActionGroup wrote:

NEW ROUTE FOR CHARGES CLAIMS

After further consideration of today's judgement, we consider that the door is now open for claims to be made under sections 5 and 8 of the UTCCR 1999. We believe that the Charges term within your bank contract will not be binding under Regulation 8 as Regulation 5 points to terms being unfair if they are not individually negotiated if the cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Once it is established that the term violates Regulation 5, then Regulation 8 negates that term and so the banks will be liable to return all charges.

Over the next couple of days new templates will be drawn up, but the most important thing is that claims are not allowed to be closed. If your bank notifies you that your claim has been closed please let us know. Further details will be posted as things develop, including details of what to do next if your claim is already in the system.

captainhaggis

Holy hell, there are some incredible peple here always able to find another way of beating the banks! Good job. I hate banks.

captainhaggis

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I don't want to shy from the questions but to be fair I really do not think the banks can win this one. The CCA is an act that has merit and as such the rules are there in black and white and to omit them and remove them would only work for cases brought in after the change had taken place.

So I personally think you'd be fine if it was already deemed unenforceable however I don't expect to lose this - bear in mind the test cases are looking at several factors including reporting data to CRA's when the account is unenforceable for instance if the contract (CCA) is void then surely your authority to share data is also void, if you follow?

Its complex but in a nutshell, s.127 etc will remain - maybe modified or clarified but the main basis will remain for pre 2007 cases.

Only my humble opinion, of course :beer:

If you weren't a bloke and probably, as a result, fairly ugly, I could probably find myself loving you.

never-in-doubt

captainhaggis wrote: »

Holy hell, there are some incredible peple here always able to find another way of beating the banks! Good job. I hate banks.

Haha - its good isn't it? Less than 12 hours later and already we're onto round 2! Ding Ding! :rotfl::rotfl:

never-in-doubt

captainhaggis wrote: »

If you weren't a bloke and probably, as a result, fairly ugly, I could probably find myself loving you.

You cheeky so and so :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: