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

never-in-doubt

Anonymous000 wrote: »

Hi

Just wanted to know which judgement you quoted that from?

Thanks in advance.

Its OFT Draft Guidance, basically they have issued guidance to send to lenders to stop them sending any old junk to us. Came to light in line with the Manchester Test Cases...

I'll dig out the wording and post back in a moment...

Here you go - #3 (thanks fermi)

Numpty_Monkey

Niddy do you ever sleep:p

never-in-doubt

Numpty_Monkey wrote: »

Niddy do you ever sleep:p

Sleeping is for wimps matey :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Anonymous000

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Its OFT Draft Guidance, basically they have issued guidance to send to lenders to stop them sending any old junk to us. Came to light in line with the Manchester Test Cases...

I'll dig out the wording and post back in a moment...

Here you go - #3 (thanks fermi)

Again, you seem to have responded within the blink of an eye :T

This is leaving me slightly confused, i'm sure there is a reasonable explanation to it though. I now understand that if there has been a varied interest rate/terms then the actual original copy must be produced, bearing the signatures?

However, that gives rise to the issue of agreements where the interest rate has not varied. Where does this leave them?

I have read somewhere on these forums that if the case was to go to court they would still be requried to produce the actual original document? Is this correct? and is it just based on the standard s.127 authority?

never-in-doubt

Anonymous000 wrote: »

Again, you seem to have responded within the blink of an eye :T

This is leaving me slightly confused, i'm sure there is a reasonable explanation to it though. I now understand that if there has been a varied interest rate/terms then the actual original copy must be produced, bearing the signatures?

However, that gives rise to the issue of agreements where the interest rate has not varied. Where does this leave them?

I have read somewhere on these forums that if the case was to go to court they would still be requried to produce the actual original document? Is this correct? and is it just based on the standard s.127 authority?

Hiya

Yes, read the link above I posted (fermi's post) that clearly outlines the OFT guidance - also nothing has changed, a creditor must provide an original signed agreement must be provided prior to any enforcement action can be sought in court....

Stop worrying will you :eek:

Anonymous000

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya

Yes, read the link above I posted (fermi's post) that clearly outlines the OFT guidance - also nothing has changed, a creditor must provide an original signed agreement must be provided prior to any enforcement action can be sought in court....

Stop worrying will you :eek:

Haha

Thanks

really appreciated.

keggs

I'm new on this board but would like some advice.

I was contacted recently by a company offering to get my credit card debt wiped. They told me that under the Consumer Credit Act of 1974 if the credit card company increases the limit without first asking me if this is what I want, then they have broken the agreement signed by me originally.

The same company also told me that the credit card company only have to do this once (although they have done it on several occasions) for me to legitimately make a claim and get the debt written off.

I went to see the Citizens Advice today and have been given conflicting information. So I am now very confused.

The company also said they need an upfront fee which will be refunded if there is a problem (on the no win no fee basis).

Having read info on this site about not falling for the lure of 'wiping a debt' I'm not sure what to do now.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Steve

Numpty_Monkey

Have a read of Nids thread(s)
Unenforceability & Template Letters III
it helps explain what they are trying to sell to you

and the debt isn't wiped off, its made unenforceable