MSE News: OFT warning over 'debt write-off' claims

pepe2008

never-in-doubt wrote: »

It cannot stand up in court that is the whole point of this argument!

vroom, vroom, honk, honk.....truck coming through:rotfl::rotfl:

DarkConvict

The OFT also states that any true agreement must resemble the original agreement. Obviously without the original agreement, how can you prove it is a true copy of the original. In which case, you need the original anyway!

A copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points, but cannot be a conjectured reconstruction.
If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a ‘true copy’, since nobody would know what was in the original

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2035647

Yorkshire_Bred

martinjohn wrote: »

why is the OFT saying that they can supply you with a recreated fairtale agreement, and saying this suffices as long as its accurate,,, isnt it your word against theres in which case i think we know who wins.... they do?

Not in this case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/feb/02/banks.consumeraffairs

Numpty_Monkey

I think I maybe starting to understand this :eek:

I know this is a clever persons thread:o:cool::T

A creditor can send what they want (and legal mumbo jumbo letters) as a CCA
The OFT says thats ok
So you pay up
or
A creditor can send what they want (and legal mumbo jumbo letters) as a CCA
you say up yours (with legal mumbo jumbo letters)

If It goes to court, they still need to supply the original CCA in court:huh:

pepe2008

....unfortunately there is sometimes a Judge who isnt up to speed on the CCA. or who takes the 'you spent it, you pay it back' attitude. Which is why this Forum is so important.

never-in-doubt

Numpty_Monkey wrote: »

I think I maybe starting to understand this :eek:

I know this is a clever persons thread:o:cool::T

A creditor can send what they want (and legal mumbo jumbo letters) as a CCA
The OFT says thats ok
So you pay up
or
A creditor can send what they want (and legal mumbo jumbo letters) as a CCA
you say up yours (with legal mumbo jumbo letters)

If It goes to court, they still need to supply the original CCA in court:huh:

You got it mate - well done :T:T:T:T:T

The agreement should be properly executed as defined in s.61(1) of the CCA 1974; meaning it can only be enforced by a court order under s.65, thus a court cannot enforce the agreement because s.127(3) says they can only enforce an agreement under s.65 if it has the debtors signature AND Prescribed Terms in the same document.

A reconstituted CCA would fail the above - quite simply.

never-in-doubt

Yorkshire_Bred wrote: »

Not in this case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/feb/02/banks.consumeraffairs

That is Paul Walton from CAG ;)

immoral_angeluk

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Can I point out, if you have clients then they ought to leave and leave fast cos you like most others have been suckered into this false claim that the 'so called loophole' has been closed - it has not!

It is not a false belief at all, it is quite true that you can have a debt made unenforceable if the lender does not comply. What part of that don't you grasp exactly and we'll no doubt spell it out for you?

Like I said, fair enough in some circumstances they may be able to go through with it. But for the mass majority of people it gives false hope and promise of having debt written off that A) they've run up and therefore morally should pay back would be better off looking at realistic options of dealing with their debt than long winded court claims with little chance of success.

Apologies if I've in any way offended anyone, I just much prefer to deal with realistic solutions that I can provide my clients. If they want to go down the avenue of claiming CCAs etc I will advise them but in the majority of cases I see it's no appropriate anyway. I do however point them to a solicitor should they want to look into it further as I am not legally trained to a level where I could make a sound judgement as to whether a CCA is valid or not.

Oh and without instigating an argument I don't appreciate being told that my clients should 'leave and leave fast'.

never-in-doubt

immoral_angeluk wrote: »

Like I said, fair enough in some circumstances they may be able to go through with it. But for the mass majority of people it gives false hope and promise of having debt written off that A) they've run up and therefore morally should pay back would be better off looking at realistic options of dealing with their debt than long winded court claims with little chance of success.

Apologies if I've in any way offended anyone, I just much prefer to deal with realistic solutions that I can provide my clients. If they want to go down the avenue of claiming CCAs etc I will advise them but in the majority of cases I see it's no appropriate anyway. I do however point them to a solicitor should they want to look into it further as I am not legally trained to a level where I could make a sound judgement as to whether a CCA is valid or not.

Oh and without instigating an argument I don't appreciate being told that my clients should 'leave and leave fast'.

Sorry, i'll reiterate for you - it is realistic, it is lawful and it happens! ANYONE that says otherwise does not have a clue and the reason I said any clients you have should leave is because you evidently do not understand this field so you'd be giving them false hopes.

Bring them here and we'll sort them out for free - false hopes? pah - that's what the referral to solicitors usually does:rotfl:

I reiterate that the agreement should be properly executed as defined in s.61(1) of the CCA 1974; meaning it can only be enforced by a court order under s.65, thus a court cannot enforce the agreement because s.127(3) says they can only enforce an agreement under s.65 if it has the debtors signature AND Prescribed Terms in the same document.

That is what you need to say to your clients, that explains it fully, accurately and factually.

Final point, morals do not win in court - law wins in court!

immoral_angeluk

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Sorry, i'll reiterate for you - it is realistic, it is lawful and it happens! ANYONE that says otherwise does not have a clue and the reason I said any clients you have should leave is because you evidently do not understand this field so you'd be giving them false hopes.

Bring them here and we'll sort them out for free - false hopes? pah - that's what the referral to solicitors usually does:rotfl:

I reiterate that the agreement should be properly executed as defined in s.61(1) of the CCA 1974; meaning it can only be enforced by a court order under s.65, thus a court cannot enforce the agreement because s.127(3) says they can only enforce an agreement under s.65 if it has the debtors signature AND Prescribed Terms in the same document.

That is what you need to say to your clients, that explains it fully, accurately and factually.

Final point, morals do not win in court - law wins in court!

Well with all due respect my job isn't to write people's debt off. My job is to help people deal with their debt efficiently and effectively. If I believe that a client has a strong case to be able to have their debt written off for some legitimate reason I will.
You don't know my job, so therefore shouldn't pass unfair judgement on my ability to give them advice and assistance.