Old Loan Caught up With Me

never-in-doubt

iolanthe07 wrote: »

My God - what are we coming to?

What? Because you may think something is morally right? Morals is an opinion specific to an individual. What you think is right and what I think is right doesn't come into it - this is about unenforceability which, legally, takes precedence over morals (thankfully).

Ok, plain English time: Someone kills your partner, you take revenge and go seek retribution. In court the whole jury will know, 'morally' you done the right thing - however, legally you never. Fortunately for us, the law prevails over morals. :rolleyes:

never-in-doubt

Deleted_User wrote: »

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?

Well watch this space - the OP will get the agreement and then i'll find it to be unenforceable if they scan and post it! Simple. It is called experience - an agreement from then will not be enforceable - that is a fact!

Deleted_User wrote: »

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).

No, i'm not confusing anything. I am clear and quite right in stating that unenforceability does not affect the rate you pay - not yet anyway (it will when the law is clearer after the judgement in January though)

Deleted_User wrote: »

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.

Its nothing like that! Originally they tried to use Regulation 6 which was always going to fail, in retrospect, however Regs 5 & 8 clearly offer protection - the law lords themselves confirmed this is the route to take - why would they do such a thing unless they too, felt this needed clarity and closure one way or another?

The banks did, in a weird sort of way, lose the test case cos now we have em by the long and curlies! :rotfl::rotfl: (and i'm loving it)

Deleted_User wrote: »

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?

Fair = lawful credit agreement. Nothing personal, or personal loss related.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Or does fairness only work one-way in NID-world?

eh? Its the law - not NID's law is it!

Deleted_User wrote: »

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.

Right! Think you'll find the CCA will take precedence over contract law because funnily enough, we're dealing with the CCA. Interestingly enough though, you quote 'The notion that if you make an agreement with another person and each offers consideration under that agreement' to which I agree, therefore the contract should be as agreed. How come then, most the people I help have had PPi added that they never knew about?

Its ok in one respect but not another then, in your world? Right?

Deleted_User wrote: »

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

Think you'll find it was!

Deleted_User wrote: »

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.

So do I, i'll fight Lowells on behalf of the OP any day of the week! Bring it on!

jamesey07

haha i have to laugh at all these people who think they r gods preaching about how people should always have to pay there debt, the stupid banks shouldn't of been giving out money to anyone, if some of the people here complain because they have to pay higher intrest then aren't you stupid for having to take out a loan then? why can't you's save money since you's r so righteous, as clearly you's r paying for things beyond your means if you have to go for a loan good luck to all those people who r trying everyway not to pay back the banks a penny i'm with you's 100%

aldredd

Look, I can appreciate people not liking the fact that there is a way out of debt - jealousy often pays a large part of it (not saying that's the case....). I'm not going to stand here and pretend it's the right thing do to try and get out of it, but remember this - if they can't stick to the rules, why should anyone else?
And, not being funny, but the 'worse case' is that the banks are out of pocket by c7k - remember that most of the bigs banks each made in excess of £3 billion profit in the first half of 2009.
It's not like I'm living off the system, having everything in life paid for including the flat screen TV and SKY etc cos I can't be bothered to work, costing the average Englishman much more in the long run. I work hard, pay all my taxes, and am trying to build a future for my family, whilst trying to sort out my past mess.

I've requested a copy of the CCA so I will at least know where I stand with them, and will keep you posted on how I get on!

never-in-doubt

aldredd wrote: »

I've requested a copy of the CCA so I will at least know where I stand with them, and will keep you posted on how I get on!

Ok, best of luck - keep us updated. If they do not reply within 14 days, send this: 2. CCA Reminder

leveller2911

aldredd wrote: »

Look, I can appreciate people not liking the fact that there is a way out of debt - jealousy often pays a large part of it (not saying that's the case....). I'm not going to stand here and pretend it's the right thing do to try and get out of it, but remember this - if they can't stick to the rules, why should anyone else?
And, not being funny, but the 'worse case' is that the banks are out of pocket by c7k - remember that most of the bigs banks each made in excess of £3 billion profit in the first half of 2009.
It's not like I'm living off the system, having everything in life paid for including the flat screen TV and SKY etc cos I can't be bothered to work, costing the average Englishman much more in the long run. I work hard, pay all my taxes, and am trying to build a future for my family, whilst trying to sort out my past mess.

I've requested a copy of the CCA so I will at least know where I stand with them, and will keep you posted on how I get on!

Your sentiment has totally change since your OP, listen bud your just like all the other "Chancers" who come on here and try to renege on their debts.

In fact your worse because youve tried to "hide" behind a cloak of Supposed honesty at least most come on here and are Honest enough to say theyre just trying to get out of paying back their debts....

As for starting a family whilst financially F***ED makes you a pretty poor character........

never-in-doubt

leveller2911 wrote: »

Your sentiment has totally change since your OP, .......

Lol, as blunt as usual I see mate :D

Thought you'd have chilled with the X-Mas spirit :rotfl:

leveller2911

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Lol, as blunt as usual I see mate :D

Thought you'd have chilled with the X-Mas spirit :rotfl:

I wish, not packing up work till Chrimbo eve NID, might crack open a bottle of chill then.....:D.

Glad your still around though, don't often agree with you post but I would fight to the death to preserve your right to say it.....;)......(sounds a bit dramatic don't it?)

Apples2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

- keep us updated.

I wish somebody would!

Despite all this bollox about unenforceability, I don't recall seeing any evidence that anyone has actually walked away scott free.

never-in-doubt

Apples2 wrote: »

Despite all this bollox about unenforceability, I don't recall seeing any evidence that anyone has actually walked away scott free.

LOL, then you evidently don't read the news much do you? Or these forums? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: