Frightened about my future

swanfan02

savingwannabe wrote: »

Oh dear i think mrs nid has gone. I am going to watch criminal minds. Am shattered. cornettos are not good for diabetics. Why am i such a dork????

goodnight all. Welcome back Ann.

You are not a dork SW you are funny, chill out!!:D

mouseann

Just had a quick catch-up. So much chat going on took me all my time to read it!

SW, how on earth did you manage to eat all those cornettos?

Feel quite tired and washed out so am off to bed now.

Night all!

mouseann

swanfan02 wrote: »

You are not a dork SW you are funny, chill out!!:D

Think you should listen to Swanfan, SW.

You are by no mean a dork!

di3004

Well for those who watched Britain's got talent, what did you think?

Wow Spelbound were FAB.........:T scary and dangerous!!!

Yet they were all brill.:beer:

di3004

Where is 10past6 lately? :think:

Hope your okay 10past6.:)

di3004

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya

I am going to strip all this down and put a response in context, here: Template to Lloyds TSB - Upon their claim they have satisfied s.78

It is ongoing (ie taking me ages to do) cos it is a BLOODY NIGHTMARE (:p)trying to counter argue so many finer points of the act especially cos they flit between the CNCD and CCA all the time. Bascially if it is post 04/07 then yes, they can take a recon to court but you can defend it demanding an original - however as you cannot hide behind s.127 (unenforceable) this then becomes a civil case as to prove the actual enforceability based around contract law - which is why the OFT backed out of their pursual of this in what would have changed the act altogether!.... wimps!

So at present the lenders are confusing the acts within pre 04/07 agreements which obviously confuses everyone. If you have an agreement prior to April 2007 then you can utilise s.127 which means for a judge to actually pass judgement then the lender MUST have an original, if the agreement was after April 2007 then they can take a recon to court, and it would then be for you to prove that it was like the original and compliant.

Ergo, we don't tend to get involved in post April 2007 agreements as the lender tends to win - or at least the judges tend to actually find in their favour, as they are confused by all the legislation.

Make sense? (I'ts extremely confusing)......

Yes, think I'm getting there, although these issues do confuse me lol :D.

We have lots of pre 2007's agreements.

Cheers though.

swanfan02

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya

I am going to strip all this down and put a response in context, here: Template to Lloyds TSB - Upon their claim they have satisfied s.78

It is ongoing (ie taking me ages to do) cos it is a BLOODY NIGHTMARE (:p)trying to counter argue so many finer points of the act especially cos they flit between the CNCD and CCA all the time. Bascially if it is post 04/07 then yes, they can take a recon to court but you can defend it demanding an original - however as you cannot hide behind s.127 (unenforceable) this then becomes a civil case as to prove the actual enforceability based around contract law - which is why the OFT backed out of their pursual of this in what would have changed the act altogether!.... wimps!

So at present the lenders are confusing the acts within pre 04/07 agreements which obviously confuses everyone. If you have an agreement prior to April 2007 then you can utilise s.127 which means for a judge to actually pass judgement then the lender MUST have an original, if the agreement was after April 2007 then they can take a recon to court, and it would then be for you to prove that it was like the original and compliant.

Ergo, we don't tend to get involved in post April 2007 agreements as the lender tends to win - or at least the judges tend to actually find in their favour, as they are confused by all the legislation.

Make sense? (I'ts extremely confusing)......

Makes perfect sense to me, but perhaps i am a smart @rse & this is the alcohol talking(hic):rotfl:

never-in-doubt

di3004 wrote: »

Where is 10past6 lately? :think:

Hope your okay 10past6.:)

He's been online, i've PM'd him to check all is ok, but remember he does stick to PM's a lot of the time.

never-in-doubt

di3004 wrote: »

Yes, think I'm getting there, although these issues do confuse me lol :D.

We have lots of pre 2007's agreements.

Cheers though.

It is designed to confuse, ergo they flit between two separate acts all the time, but realistically the easiest way to work it is as follows:

Accounts opened before April 2007
These cannot be enforced without an original agreement, if the lender tries to take you to court without one they will lose. Provision of CCA to pay attention to is s.127(1) of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA 1974) which is subject to the restrictions imposed by sections 127(3) & (4). Those subsections set out the circumstances in which the court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) of the Act.

The lender may refuse to send a copy, at which point you utilise CPR31.14/CPR31.16 - see here: Understanding Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) - 31.14 & 31.16 to obtain a copy of any documents they plan on presenting the court, as they will not be able to present an original document you'd argue to the court this fact, who will then throw out their case - all from the comfort of your own home.

Now, in laymans this means without an agreement the court cannot pass judgement. Make sense?

Accounts opened after April 2007
The can be manipulated and basically the lender can and will present a reconstituted (cut/paste) agreement to the court, also as s.127 was repealed (removed) from the CCA for agreements after April 2007, you cannot argue enforceability so the only way to "get out" of paying a debt from after April 2007 is by taking civil action against the lender by trying to prove that the terms/agreement has changed since outset and proving that they are taking the mickey - this would only work in extreme cases, such as when you were offered a credit card or loan, without having to sign anything or tick any box (electronically) which is extremely rare to say the least.

I done this with HSBC funnily enough, on the phone - then a card came - hmmmm, only last year as well

Hope that makes sense of it for you?

never-in-doubt

The above has now also made it onto my thread - Clarity - Pre/Post April 2007 Agreements


Will come in handy for others - thanks for confuzzling me!!