Old Loan Caught up With Me

woody01

marmitedog wrote: »

You could at least read some of the posts before posting.

Lowells are not acting as an agency. They have legal title as they have purchased the asset. Regardless of how much Lowells paid for it, the OP is a debtor for the full contracted amount.

I have read it all unlike you.
You are just 'assuming' the debt has been bought. Then again, people such as yourself always assume without thought.

mabski

golden_eagle wrote: »

There seems to be a little inconsistency in your statements. On one hand you keep on repeating how you are not trying to get out of your obligations whilst on the other you are prepared to try to have the CCA declared unenforceable.
Anyway, beside that I thought that the test cases re enforceability of CCAs are still going through the courts? Or have I missed the ruling?

the ruling a couple of weeks ago hasnt changed anything really in regards to unenforcability
an agreement either has the prescribed terms and is enforcable
or it doesnt which means its unenforcable .
they are now allowed to trash your file even if they have an unenforcable agreement which is what they did anyway.
i still dont quite understand how this would work if they failed to provide your credit agreement as in where is your written consent to process your data but when has that ever stopped the banks and scumbag dca's

never-in-doubt

mabski wrote: »

the ruling a couple of weeks ago hasnt changed anything really in regards to unenforcability
an agreement either has the prescribed terms and is enforcable
or it doesnt which means its unenforcable .
they are now allowed to trash your file even if they have an unenforcable agreement which is what they did anyway.
i still dont quite understand how this would work if they failed to provide your credit agreement as in where is your written consent to process your data but when has that ever stopped the banks and scumbag dca's

This is one of my main arguments as well mate. The 12 test cases will hopefully sort this little query as well. Oh, on that note MBNA have already pulled out so 2-0 to us already!

At the end of the day you sign an agreement to allow the data controller (the lender) to share your information with the data processor (CRA/DCA etc). So, in light of non compliance of lawful agreement (or lack of totally) there is no legally binding agreement that gives your authority for them to share data and they should therefore cease reporting to the CRA's.

That's what should happen, unfortunately the lenders are taking the risk that we will not fight it to court - especially after the recent McGuffick case that RBS won (pretty much confirmed that even though the debt was unenforceable, they could still leave the default intact).... See here: McGuffick v RBS judgment

golden_eagle

never-in-doubt wrote: »

So, in light of non compliance of lawful agreement (or lack of totally) there is no legally binding agreement

I truly hope that the debtors will not be allowed to just walk away from their financial responsibilities on a mere technicality and the courts will rule accordingly. It really makes me angry when people were more than happy to take on credit and now they are trying to get out of repaying it. At the end of the day the banks and other financial institution will only pass on any such bad debts onto other consumers. I really don't see why I should be paying more in interest or fees because of those who acted irresponsibly and now don't want to/cant pay. At the end of the day, anyone earning £10k per annum, taking out a loan of £7.5k and now trying to blame the bank for lending this amount just about sums it up. When will people start taking responsibility for their own actions?! Has the society gone mad?

And no, I don't work for a bank nor do I have any love of them either.

never-in-doubt

Deleted_User wrote: »

So, just to confirm: you agree that you are advocating this person avoids their debts by avoiding the radar and using technicalities (which may not even be valid) to renege on their debts obligations?

You're happy for them to do that? In fact, you're encouraging them to do that?

What the hell has this world turned into...? Very sad.

In response to your points:

How is this transfer of debt to the detriment of the OP? It makes no different in this situation whether it's an internal/external transfer - the rates/terms remain the same. The fact that the external agency is actually trying to enforce it would not be accepted as 'to the detriment' by a court, as it's simply exercising the right that the customer would have expected the lender (original) to have in the first instance.

Otherwise, you end up with a perverse situation where you take out a loan, avoid paying it and then when the debt is sold on could claim that you have suffered loss because you're now being chased for a debt whereas before you were not. This is clearly ludicrous.

Secondly, there is no evidence (yet) that Lovells haven't followed the correct procedures. This is just speculation from you. Given that the OP 'dodged' his loan for a few years and disappeared overseas, it's quite likely that they were notified but either missed the correspondence or just ignored it.

I - like many others - am sick of people on these forums who don't realise that this sort of advice is actually damaging the chances of the very people who do need MSE and are in financial trouble. Advocating the avoidance of debt on technicalities in morally wrong and destroys any sympathy people have for those who have found themselves in problem debt through little or no fault of their own.

OP - how about this for a groundbreaking solution to your problem: how about you phone Lovells and start paying what you owe rather than letting everyone else take the hit for you?

Of course i'm advocating that he doesn't willingly get in touch - the last payment was over 4 years ago thus meaning Statute Barred kicks in within 2 years so yea, sorry - its the best advice! Not like i'm telling him to do it with one late payment is it? Taken into context, it is the right thing to do!

As for the rest of your rant, you miss my point and maybe if you actually understood this part of law you'd have realised in which context I was relating to 'the detriment of the OP'. Moreso, in that it was explicitly referred to in the manner of contracts and the relevant laws surrounding such contracts. Bottom line is that if the DCA (or whoever) uses underhand and unlawful tactics then too damn right it would be at the debtors detriment therefore it would be thrown out. I do not mean the debtors detriment in the way you try and describe - i.e. at his loss! I mean process simply has to be followed.

If not, then you'd end up with a perverse situation whereby DCA's are hassling anyone for everyones debt!

Finally, Lowells are notorious for not following process - I think I can safely assume that process was not followed in this case. Also, if the OP states he never avoided a letter then that rules out your other theory of deliberately hiding. At the end of the day, if he did not receive NoA documents then he does not need to deal with Lowell - period! However, what you'll find is the OC will send a copy to him, he then needs to check for accuracies such as date of NoA compared to default date.... invariably something will have gone amiss, it always does when Lowell is involved. Fact!

never-in-doubt

golden_eagle wrote: »

I truly hope that the debtors will not be allowed to just walk away from their financial responsibilities on a mere technicality and the courts will rule accordingly. It really makes me angry when people were more than happy to take on credit and now they are trying to get out of repaying it. At the end of the day the banks and other financial institution will only pass on any such bad debts onto other consumers. I really don't see why I should be paying more in interest or fees because of those who acted irresponsibly and now don't want to/cant pay. At the end of the day, anyone earning £10k per annum, taking out a loan of £7.5k and now trying to blame the bank for lending this amount just about sums it up. When will people start taking responsibility for their own actions?! Has the society gone mad?

And no, I don't work for a bank nor do I have any love of them either.

Main point here, it is not a technicality - it is a breach of law therefore illegal. If a lender issues an unlawful agreement or cannot provide one then the debt is unenforceable - end of. That is no technicality or anything else but simple law. Same applies, you can get a job offer with a £100k salary all agreed etc but when you get paid, you only got a grand. So you actually read the contract it shows £100k and a little asterisk. The asterisk explains your basic will be £1k per month unless you request the full amount. You missed it. Legally, what can you do?

Nothing? Didn't you just sign a legal agreement?

Actually, the same law would protect you in this case and use that 'technicality' to ensure you were paid properly in line with what you agreed at the time of offer.

Some of these guys got a card, then noticed they were paying for PPI etc and want to claim it back. part of this involves the mis-sale etc and so they can ask for the debt to be written off.

To be honest we couldn't care less if you get angry (you mean jealous right?) about people who as you put it, were more than happy to take on credit and now they are trying to get out of repaying it. Do you really think that these guys took it out with no intention of repaying or do you think they are just following their rights as a consumer? Have a think about that one yea?

Now the facts - you do not pay more in fees or rates because of non payers - Jesus! When will you learn the facts before spouting rubbish? The losses are deductible from operating profits/losses - they do not affect the average consumer! :mad:

hint: learn what you're talking about before ranting :rotfl:

RobertoMoir

woody01 wrote: »

I have read it all unlike you.
You are just 'assuming' the debt has been bought. Then again, people such as yourself always assume without thought.

Exactly. The DCA need to be able to prove they have title on the debt, otherwise anyone set themselves up as a DCA and make all kinds of claims that people owe them for this or that made up debt.

never-in-doubt

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Exactly. The DCA need to be able to prove they have title on the debt, otherwise anyone set themselves up as a DCA and make all kinds of claims that people owe them for this or that made up debt.

Exactly what i've been saying above but will they listen? Oooooh Noooooo!

Plus we all know about Lowell and their past history so chances are they have messed something up!

Dabooka

Can't we all just learn to get along?! :rotfl:

danrogers

by the way you all owe me a grand and if you dont pay up im sending someone over to slightly irritate you