CAA request updates / results part 2

captainhaggis

gargrave50 wrote: »

Does this affect those of us currently pursuing CCA requests?

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2009/11/debt-write-off-loophole-closed-by-court?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=box

Thanks x j

This has already been discussed, and no - it doesn't affect us.

This case relates to one specific set of circumstances. I think MSE's headline might be a little misleading actually.

blueforyou

gargrave50 wrote: »

Does this affect those of us currently pursuing CCA requests?

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2009/11/debt-write-off-loophole-closed-by-court?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=box

Thanks x j

Its early Sunday morning, so please forgive me if I've mis-read anything!

This looks like a reference to any claims that the detail of documentation produced is missing or incorrect, rather than the inability to produce ANY documents at all.

Even so, my initial thoughts are that prescribed terms (from Sec 127 (3) are stated and its now possible to ignore them?!

My experience is one of NO documents (ie CCA) is ever produced, so the details are not available for any court to decide on enforceability anyway.

never-in-doubt

That case was one unique set of circusmstances which will not be replicated to the average consumer. Basically they were fighting the legalities of the term 'total charged for credit' as a £825 fee was added to the loan but not documented properly. In this case, specifically, I agree it should not have been made unenforceable.

The total was shown, albeit in different formats under different methods but still, not really worth unenforceability IMO.

It has no affect on the current state of unenforceability whatsoever.

gargrave50

Thanks to you all, as usual I didn't read it properly:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

rog2

gargrave50 wrote: »

Thanks to you all, as usual I didn't read it properly:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

No doubt the creditors, and dca's, will be 'misquoting' that case in order to justify their already questionable stance towards their obligations under the Consumer Credit Act. :rolleyes:

captainhaggis

Who here has actually had debts declared unenforceable by the creditor? That is, after writing to them to say you deem the debt to be UE, how often do the creditors come back and say "yeah, OK"?

fermi

captainhaggis wrote: »

Who here has actually had debts declared unenforceable by the creditor? That is, after writing to them to say you deem the debt to be UE, how often do the creditors come back and say "yeah, OK"?

They won't do that easily will they? That is shooting themselves in the foot.

They will either sell it on, or try to b***sh*** it out won't they.

Still, saying that, there have certainly been a few who have admitted that 'we cannot pursue this through the courts', but the debt still stands.

captainhaggis

fermi wrote: »

They won't do that easily will they? That is shooting themselves in the foot.

They will either sell it on, or try to b***sh*** it out won't they.

Still, saying that, there have certainly been a few who have admitted that 'we cannot pursue this through the courts', but the debt still stands.

If the debt is UE, can they legally sell it on ?

gargrave50

captainhaggis wrote: »

Who here has actually had debts declared unenforceable by the creditor? That is, after writing to them to say you deem the debt to be UE, how often do the creditors come back and say "yeah, OK"?

I would never say that they have lay down and said "no please Mrs G, stop paying us - it turns out you are right":rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. However I did have a catalogue account for which I was being pursued by DCA (for £3260), the CCA was unenforceable and the DCA eventually wrote back to say they would be closing the file. I haven't had a word (written or otherwise) from the OC for around 6 months. I'm not counting my chickens yet, but I'm reasonably optimistic that I won't hear anything further

never-in-doubt

rog2 wrote: »

No doubt the creditors, and dca's, will be 'misquoting' that case in order to justify their already questionable stance towards their obligations under the Consumer Credit Act. :rolleyes:

They already are mate - someone (i'm helping on here - you know who you are lol) sent me a copy of a letter from RBS using this case as an example of why 'pursuing unenforceability is a waste of time as a result of this victorious landmark ruling' or words to those effect. As you can imagine, I sent a nice reply back reminding them of their obligations and in particular s.88 CCA1974 and the fact that they were talking bollox (I did actually write that)!

Suffice to say they sent a response back confirming they will not pursue the debt as they cannot locate the original agreement - ahh, shame RBS