We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Did I hear the man from MSE on R4 say only about 6 unenforcebility cases had success
ILW
Posts: 18,333 Forumite
Sure I heard a Matt from MSE say this on moneybox today.
0
Comments
-
The news article that came out a few days ago was that the courts had looked at 6 cases on a test basis for unenforceability and found none in favour of the consumer. They court also decided that the lenders do not need to produce a CCA agreement and that a recreation using the personal details would be fine.
Whether it was that I am not sure but the figure of 6 is consistent and its on the same subject.
There was another media article a few months back that stated that claims companies were not having much success and some, unnamed, had confirmed that they had not had one success yet. This is despite what the claims companies will tell you regarding their success rates.
edit: here is the link on the more recent news
Cartel say its good news but I cant see that to be honest. However, their whole pyramid scheme needs success or their business model fails.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
This was about people who try to get out of legitimate credit card debts. AFAIK the judge has ruled that the banks do not need to produce the original agreement. This is not about unfair charges, this is about people trying to wriggle out of paying back debt they have racked up on their credit cards. It looks as if common sense may have broken out at last. With any luck the claim companies will get seriously burned.I used to think that good grammar is important, but now I know that good wine is importanter.0
-
iolanthe07 wrote: »This was about people who try to get out of legitimate credit card debts. AFAIK the judge has ruled that the banks do not need to produce the original agreement. This is not about unfair charges, this is about people trying to wriggle out of paying back debt they have racked up on their credit cards. It looks as if common sense may have broken out at last. With any luck the claim companies will get seriously burned.
I would suspect that if the business models of the claims companies collapse, they will just liquidate the companies, the directors will already have withdrawn any money that was taken as upfront fees, and the claimants will generaly be at least £500 worse of than before they started. Most will probably have trashed credit files as well.0 -
I would suspect that if the business models of the claims companies collapse, they will just liquidate the companies, the directors will already have withdrawn any money that was taken as upfront fees, and the claimants will generaly be at least £500 worse of than before they started. Most will probably have trashed credit files as well.
That is already happening with some claims companies going into administration. They are going to suffer cashflow problems sooner or later as the income is based on success and up front fees. If the success doenst come then they are in trouble. If they also rebate some or all of the initial charge, the money will probably not be there (in full) and they will go into administration.
I wonder if this is why so many claims companies told people to put the initial charge on their credit card?I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
You guys are talking about this judgement:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards