Old Loan Caught up With Me

[Deleted User]

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I agree, but at the end of the day a contract should still be 'fair' and if the lenders have misled us (including issuing unlawful agreements) then they should lose out - too right! That i'm afraid is in black and white.

NID - with the utmost respect - do you not consider it perhaps irregular that on the one hand you use terms like 'fair' (as in the above post) but on the other hand still advocate the OP avoiding a debt that they legimate acquired in the first instance (regardless of whether the seconday DCA has acquired the rights to the debt legitimately - which is still in debate)?

Fact: the OP took out a loan. Bona fide. Legitimate. Knew what they were getting into. Understood the terms. Fact.

Fact: the OP 'dodged' the loan - as per their own admission.

Now, let's stop the clock at this point. Would you consider it 'fair' that the OP now has the ability to avoid this debt on the basis of what the DCA acquiring the debt does?

Regardless of whether the DCA has legal title, you really can't throw around arguments based on 'fairness' when it would seem that the person who has acted most unfairly is the OP for reneging on their original debt agreement.

Surely you agree with that bit?

[Deleted User]

Or - in other words - and regardless of who the lender is - do you not agree that the OP has an obligation to pay something back to someone as part of the above situation? Whether it's the DCA or the original lender?

Goodtimesahead

Has anything be done to find out if they have a true copy of the original CCA yet? If they cannot produce one the debt would not be enforceable anyway.:D All DCA's are scooom!

never-in-doubt

Deleted_User wrote: »

NID - with the utmost respect - do you not consider it perhaps irregular that on the one hand you use terms like 'fair' (as in the above post) but on the other hand still advocate the OP avoiding a debt that they legimate acquired in the first instance (regardless of whether the seconday DCA has acquired the rights to the debt legitimately - which is still in debate)?

Fair doesn't come into play when in the respect of Consumer vs Bank - the fairness must come from the people out to gain, in this instance the lender. Therefore, the moment they tried to be 'unfair' by selling us an unlawful product they broke all fair rules. Therefore, gloves off.

I advocate the OP does not pay an unenforceable debt, yea - too right! I also advocate this if there is like 1-2 years left (Statute Barred), why not? It'd be stupid to contact them and make payments cos the record will remain for longer. Sorry, but at the end of the day we're here to help each other not help the banks - don't you think they have had enough help lately?

If the bank sold the debt unlawfully (high probability) then yet again, proves my point. Bottom line, there are rules for a reason - these rules include the proper conduct of account opening by the lenders. If they bodge an agreement or cut corners, sorry - they have broken the rules and therefore deserve whatever they get. NoA was not followed thus the debtor doesn't even have to acknowledge the DCA.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Fact: the OP took out a loan. Bona fide. Legitimate. Knew what they were getting into. Understood the terms. Fact.

Assuming the agreement was bona-fide then yes, i'd agree with you. If not then the loan would be unenforceable and thus non recoverable.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Fact: the OP 'dodged' the loan - as per their own admission.

There is no law stopping the OP from 'dodging' a loan.... there are however laws that protect him when the bank lends money unlawfully.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Now, let's stop the clock at this point. Would you consider it 'fair' that the OP now has the ability to avoid this debt on the basis of what the DCA acquiring the debt does?

Yes, because it is a breach in regulations - not just one but several.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Regardless of whether the DCA has legal title, you really can't throw around arguments based on 'fairness' when it would seem that the person who has acted most unfairly is the OP for reneging on their original debt agreement.

The OP is not renegading anything, they are not paying back an unlawfully agreed loan. Quite simple really.

I hope my response clears things up for you - if you need to know how the law works i'll explain in detail quoting the relevant acts to you - but suffice to say, the OP is well within their rights to cease repayment until such time the lender (or dca) provides the correct, lawful paperwork.

never-in-doubt

Deleted_User wrote: »

Or - in other words - and regardless of who the lender is - do you not agree that the OP has an obligation to pay something back to someone as part of the above situation? Whether it's the DCA or the original lender?

Nope, not at all. Unless the lender has followed proper process then the debt is unenforceable - that is the law. What is right or wrong 'morally' doesn't bother me.

The banks have no morals, we need to take their approach and in doing so will always win.

[Deleted User]

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Nope, not at all. Unless the lender has followed proper process then the debt is unenforceable - that is the law. What is right or wrong 'morally' doesn't bother me.

The banks have no morals, we need to take their approach and in doing so will always win.

Fine, we just will have to agree to disagree.

I find your approach quite disgusting when there are many people out there who are genuinely struggling to pay legitimite debts, all the while you support people who are trying to escape debts they willingly acquired, just because of a technicality.

Do you not see how you're cutting off your nose to spite your face here? Who pays for the £X thousands that the OP is planning to avoid paying? Other borrowers, that's who.

Your 'crusade' against the banks is just harming the people who are the most vulnerable.

[Deleted User]

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Fair doesn't come into play when in the respect of Consumer vs Bank - the fairness must come from the people out to gain, in this instance the lender. Therefore, the moment they tried to be 'unfair' by selling us an unlawful product they broke all fair rules. Therefore, gloves off.

How did the bank sell the OP an unlawful product? What evidence have you got to suggest that the original loan was in any way unlawful?

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I advocate the OP does not pay an unenforceable debt, yea - too right! I also advocate this if there is like 1-2 years left (Statute Barred), why not? It'd be stupid to contact them and make payments cos the record will remain for longer. Sorry, but at the end of the day we're here to help each other not help the banks - don't you think they have had enough help lately?

But as I said before, you're actually stinging other consumers by acting selfishly. You're confusing retail banking with investment banking and trying to create hatred towards this concept of a 'bad bank' when in fact much of the vitriol is directed towards a very small minority of 'greedy bankers' (as you might put it).

never-in-doubt wrote: »

If the bank sold the debt unlawfully (high probability) then yet again, proves my point. Bottom line, there are rules for a reason - these rules include the proper conduct of account opening by the lenders. If they bodge an agreement or cut corners, sorry - they have broken the rules and therefore deserve whatever they get. NoA was not followed thus the debtor doesn't even have to acknowledge the DCA.

Odd though, how you're almost advocating the same approach that the banks have taken in the Bank Charges test case: namely, that you are using the slightest technical indiscretion to impose a disproportionate penalty on the other party. Or, in this example, the bank fails to fill out a few bits of paperwork but somehow you fell the OP should escape their entire debt.

How has the OP been disadvantaged in any way at all by the original lender selling the debt? How have they suffered loss? The answer: they haven't. Just to repeat myself: the OP has not suffered any loss, inconvenience, disturbance, upset, harm or traume by the original lender selling the debt to a DCA. So why start banging on about this process being 'unfair' - how is it unfair, exactly? If a customer suffers no loss, could it not be argued that it's unfair on the banks for that customer to try and renege on their agreement on the basis of incorrect paperwork even though no loss has been suffered? Or does fairness only work one-way in NID-world?

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Assuming the agreement was bona-fide then yes, i'd agree with you. If not then the loan would be unenforceable and thus non recoverable.

Great!

never-in-doubt wrote: »

There is no law stopping the OP from 'dodging' a loan.... there are however laws that protect him when the bank lends money unlawfully.

WRONG! Ever heard of something called the law of contract? You know, one of the most basic tenets of our civil legal system on this planet? The notion that if you make an agreement with another person and each offers consideration under that agreement, then there's an obligation on each party? OP agreed to pay money back to lender. Lender agreed to provide OP with money. The law that stops the OP from 'dodging' the loan is the most basic law of contract.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

The OP is not renegading anything, they are not paying back an unlawfully agreed loan. Quite simple really.

The original loan was not unlawfully agreed (for all we know).

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I hope my response clears things up for you - if you need to know how the law works i'll explain in detail quoting the relevant acts to you - but suffice to say, the OP is well within their rights to cease repayment until such time the lender (or dca) provides the correct, lawful paperwork.

I look forward to the day that Lowells reads this thread, provides the correct paperwork and the OP gets everything that's coming to them.

dotstar24

iolanthe07 wrote: »

In your first post you said that you were not trying to get out of what you owe, which is decent and honourable of you and far beyond some of the shyster advice you get on here. If you really are prepared to face your responsibilities, then get in touch with them and offer a reasonable settlement.

decent and honourable - the OP perhaps could be these things if he tried.....Lowell on the other hand will not be :rolleyes:

iolanthe07

What is right or wrong 'morally' doesn't bother me.

My God - what are we coming to?

never-in-doubt

Deleted_User wrote: »

Fine, we just will have to agree to disagree.

I find your approach quite disgusting when there are many people out there who are genuinely struggling to pay legitimite debts, all the while you support people who are trying to escape debts they willingly acquired, just because of a technicality.

Do you not see how you're cutting off your nose to spite your face here? Who pays for the £X thousands that the OP is planning to avoid paying? Other borrowers, that's who.

Your 'crusade' against the banks is just harming the people who are the most vulnerable.

I couldn't care less what you think of my 'approach'. It really doesn't matter, the facts remain the same - if th debt is unenforceable then it legally does not need to be repaid, it cannot be pursued either.

What is difficult to understand exactly and i'll spell it out for you?

I am not cutting off my nose at all, bank debts come off their operating profit - it does not affect the rates they pass down, if it does and you're not happy then move banks - simple really isn't it?

I have no 'crusade' against anyone, I simply fight for the consumer against unlawfully issued agreements.