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

WRINKLES

Well said an agreement can not be enforced without a signature full stop

immoral_angeluk

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Fair play and respect - you guys give a great service to the community and I do respect that......... :T:T

Sorry, was being a little cheeky earlier - I understand what you mean and appreciate your input, as always

In fairness my style of talking/writing is often misconstrued as I tend to just write first and think later.. I didn't intend for it to come across like I was saying CCA requests shouldn't be done/are wrong etc so if it came across like that I apologise!

Anonymous000

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Fair play and respect - you guys give a great service to the community and I do respect that......... :T:T

Sorry, was being a little cheeky earlier - I understand what you mean and appreciate your input, as always

Hi

I have been looking into this topic for a short while.

In your signature and your posts (and various other people) keep referring to s.127(3).

From what I know, it may be wrong or its implications might be non-existant - the specific subsections (3) to (5) of the said section were repealed by Schedule 4, para 1 of the 2006 Act.

Does this not affect people's claims? Its kind of thrown me off, just looking for some advice. Because i'm pretty sure people are still having their debt written off on a regular occurance up till this day.

Also, is there anywhere on the net that I can find a comprehensive analysis or summary of the relevent laws and conditions that have to be met by creditors for the debts to remain enforceable? (besides trawling through loads and loads of threads on this wonderful site )

One final request - under what specific part of the act, is the creditor prevented from reporting any further details to credit reference agencies?

Thanks in advance, all help will be appreciated.

never-in-doubt

Anonymous000 wrote: »

Hi

I have been looking into this topic for a short while.

In your signature and your posts (and various other people) keep referring to s.127(3).

From what I know, it may be wrong or its implications might be non-existant - the specific subsections (3) to (5) of the said section were repealed by Schedule 4, para 1 of the 2006 Act.

Post April 2007, it is retrospective before then. That is why we always state unenforceability can only be claimed for pre-2007 debts.

Anonymous000 wrote: »

Also, is there anywhere on the net that I can find a comprehensive analysis or summary of the relevent laws and conditions that have to be met by creditors for the debts to remain enforceable? (besides trawling through loads and loads of threads on this wonderful site )

Unfortunately you have to spend a lot of time reading.....

Anonymous000 wrote: »

One final request - under what specific part of the act, is the creditor prevented from reporting any further details to credit reference agencies?

They can now, after the recent McGuffick v RBS case which allows a creditor to report the account conduct to the CRA's - in the past it would have been referred to s.10 DPA(1998).

s.10 of the Data Protection Act (1998) is a request to cease processing any data in relation to the account with immediate effect.

Anonymous000

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Post April 2007, it is retrospective before then. That is why we always state unenforceability can only be claimed for pre-2007 debts.



Unfortunately you have to spend a lot of time reading.....



They can now, after the recent McGuffick v RBS case which allows a creditor to report the account conduct to the CRA's - in the past it would have been referred to s.10 DPA(1998).

Thanks for that, yeah stupid me i should have realised about the pre-2007 thing is pretty obvious.

I found your other thread which contains a lot of info, good work.

I haven't read up the McGuffick case in full, but I will do as soon as I am able to. Though, do you think it is still possible to argue the DPA line in letters to the OC and saying they aren't allowed to report to the CRA? Is there anything in the judgement which alludes that the judgement doesn't apply to normal cases and only to the facts of the McGuffick case? Or are there any points which could be raised to distinguish the McGuffic facts or principle from a normal CCA request?

Sorry for all the questions, but you seem very knowledgable about the topic and the best person to ask.

Yorkshire_Bred

Quick question for anyone that knows.... Is the McGuffick case being appealed?

never-in-doubt

Anonymous000 wrote: »

I haven't read up the McGuffick case in full, but I will do as soon as I am able to. Though, do you think it is still possible to argue the DPA line in letters to the OC and saying they aren't allowed to report to the CRA? Is there anything in the judgement which alludes that the judgement doesn't apply to normal cases and only to the facts of the McGuffick case? Or are there any points which could be raised to distinguish the McGuffic facts or principle from a normal CCA request?

Sorry for all the questions, but you seem very knowledgable about the topic and the best person to ask.

Hiya

The McGuffick judgement is here:

Originally Posted by McGuffick v RBS
This case was a unique case in its entirety being that there were specific exclusions to the norm. In a nutshell, the Judgment clarified that a lender can report account conduct (i.e a default) to the CRA's even though the debt is unenforceable.This is not the last of this, more to follow as and when we get updates.

Taken from: Unenforceability & Template Letters II

Have a read of that link and you'll find all the answers and letter templates you need, including one to send the CRA's regards to default removal (it is allowed, we cannot argue that unless there was issues with the actual DN itself)...

Alternatively, I found useful stuff over on CAG - have a read of this post: whish explains all: #1775

Anonymous000

DarkConvict wrote: »

That is a good statement. SO many times a bank has sent a reply saying it is enforceable when it is clearly not. There is now a ruling that can be stated in a return reply.




Also since most of the time, the interest rate changes, they still need the original copy!

Hi

Just wanted to know which judgement you quoted that from?

Thanks in advance.

never-in-doubt

Yorkshire_Bred wrote: »

Quick question for anyone that knows.... Is the McGuffick case being appealed?

Rumour has it yes, possibly. Not 100% certain right now......

Anonymous000

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya

The McGuffick judgement is here:


[/I]

Taken from:

Have a read of that link and you'll find all the answers and letter templates you need, including one to send the CRA's regards to default removal (it is allowed, we cannot argue that unless there was issues with the actual DN itself)...

Alternatively, I found useful stuff over on CAG - have a read of this post: whish explains all: #

Wow, quick reply mate

Thanks for that and that was the thread I was referring to in my post, I have been through it briefly already. Didn't have enough time before, but I will look through it.