CAA request updates / results part 2

stapeley

The OFT as I HAVE SAID BEFORE are not lawyers ! They were wrong with thinking they were right over bank charges , why should a Judge take their advice ? THIS WILL GO TO A SUPREME COURT RULING !

never-in-doubt

stapeley wrote: »

The OFT as I HAVE SAID BEFORE are not lawyers ! They were wrong with thinking they were right over bank charges , why should a Judge take their advice ? THIS WILL GO TO A SUPREME COURT RULING !

Stapeley - calm down mate, wait and see what happens.... all will be fine, just wait and see

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_id=495575&in_page_id=62

Main points are highlighted below.....

I already knew about the OFT guidance here, but couldn't really say much cos it hadn't been published yet. As promised though, the reminder has now been issued.

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

I already knew about the OFT guidance here, but couldn't really say much cos it hadn't been published yet. As promised though, the reminder has now been issued.

Haha - I remember and did ask for that didn't I? Did you not see my reply though #35 hehe

Brock, you're the maaaaan (in dodgy yank accent) :rotfl::rotfl:

stapeley

The case highlighted by n i d , is misleading . The bank did come up with the agreement ,eventually and it was not argued to be incorrectly formulated. The court refused to make Judgements on whether in other situations agreements should be deemed unenforceable. Ofter court cases were deemed to be better "test" cases .

fermi

It must be remembered that the forthcoming OFT guidance deals with how it is fair for a creditor to deal with a s77/8 request, and whether they are entitled to attempt enforcement while in default of that.

That, and the recent rulings (McGufficK et al), do not effect the basic fact that for a pre April 2007 debt that unless an agreement signed by the debtor and containing the prescribed terms exists the court should be precluded from making an enforcement order.

Notice the should. Quite a few judges seem to think it is OK to ignore that and make it up as they go along, contrary to the existing House of Lords and High court precedents. Hence much confusion.

Goodtimesahead

nid, regarding your letter to arrange payment for default removal
To confirm, I am more than happy to settle as much as 50% of the total amount owing so long as you can agree to, and ensure that, the following actions will be carried out;

• The Default Notice will be removed
• The Status of the account will change from “Defaulted” to “Settled”
• The Current Balance will appear as £0.00
• The Default / Delinquent Balance will be set to £0.00
• There will be no date in the “Defaulted Date” field (as it will be removed)
• There will be no date in the “Date Last Delinquent” field on the report
• This will apply to all 3 Credit Reference Agencies, namely Experian, Equifax & Call Credit

in addition to the above terms can you not reasonably request the following?

Reset all late status payment history to 00000000's

otherwise whilst the default is removed the status payment history may still show lots poor data of 2,3,4,5 etc Better to go for the complete spring clean no? Has that been done before, will the lender agree to this, just interested to know?

never-in-doubt

You got more chance of the moon singing you a song tonight mate! That would be clear lying and they cannot do it, it would suggest to another bank you paid on time when clearly you never.

No way will they agree to it, tried and tested mate. Good idea but sorry, save yourself a flat rejection....

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

You got more chance of the moon singing you a song tonight mate!

I guess it's back to the drawing board on that score then...........

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

I guess it's back to the drawing board on that score then...........

Mate, how on earth did you find that link? Haha - thats actually quite sad :rotfl::rotfl: