minicredit help

Emmzi

jj89 wrote: »

i came here for HELP not to recieve sarcasm, so please keep your sarcasm to yourself enfieldian as it is not appreciated :mad:

You are getting help. You just aren't recognising anything other than "how to wriggle out of it" (of which there are no ways) as help.

The sooner you realie you have to pay this back the sooner you can have help doing that.

dougyd

RichGold wrote: »

I think you'll find that it does. That is the very way that it becomes legally enforceable and you automatically agree to the terms and conditions and form a binding contact based on them when you take out the loan.

Unbelievable.

That's not true though is it, just because something is written in a contract that you agree to doesn't mean that it's fair. And it's on the grounds of fairness that a contract like this isn't legally enforceable.

The charges levied aren't related to the cost of servicing the default.

I think there's also an argument about the term of the contract and charges being levied. Something along the lines of the agreement expiring after 31 days and therefore charges applied after that time can't be valid as the contract has expired.

But i'm not well versed enough to state specifics or whether it's a real argument.

Please note, i'm not condoning 'wriggling out' of the debt or telling the OP not to pay anything. The OP does have an obligation I just don't think it's anything like the total amount being billed.

RichGold

dougyd wrote: »

That's not true though is it, just because something is written in a contract that you agree to doesn't mean that it's fair. And it's on the grounds of fairness that a contract like this isn't legally enforceable.

I never said the agreements were fair, only that they were legally binding and the person entering the agreement either should have made themselves aware of the terms or found another provider where the terms and conditions were more to their liking. You cant alter a contract after the fact, and it sounds like you're saying that should be allowed.
Are you saying agreements entered into in this way are legally worthless?
Give your head a shake.

dougyd

RichGold wrote: »

I never said the agreements were fair, only that they were legally binding and the person entering the agreement either should have made themselves aware of the terms or found another provider where the terms and conditions were more to their liking. You cant alter a contract after the fact, and it sounds like you're saying that should be allowed.
Are you saying agreements entered into in this way are legally worthless?
Give your head a shake.

I'll be careful how I word this as I don't think i've shown myself to be that diplomatic.

I appreciate what you are saying and no I don't think agreements like this are legally worthless.

I do however think that there are sections of such agreements which aren't legally enforceable due to their fairness.

Most importantly in my argument - That doesn't mean that the OP or anyone else who enters in to such an agreement is exempt from owing the original debt (amount borrowed, plus agreed interst rate).

I also think that if someone defaults then charges should be levied, but these should be representative of true costs incurred on the debt. However these should be clear/fair and capped.

For instance, it's not fair for a PDL to charge £***'s as a solicitor's cost when they are dealing with it in house through their arrear's section which is something other companies do. I've even seen multiple instances of companies pretending to hand a debt over to a DCA or Bailiffs when it's really the same company fronting as someone else.

It's also not fair to charge someone £5 per time for a failed debit card attempt and try 20 times in a day.

It's also not fair for a £100 loan to end up allegedly costing someone £1000 (which is often the case with this company and some of the other harsh PDL companies).

It's worth noting that I don't have a problem with all PDL companies or their practices, but these companies operate on the edge of legality and quite often drift in to illegality. Operating without a license, disturbing levels of harassment etc... Hence why I said to the OP to keep copies of all correspondence and forward on to the OFT/Trading services.
If you look at a similar company - Tooth Fairy Finance, they have been in deep trouble with trading bodies and have been threatened multiple times with having their license revoked, they haven't changed any of their practices in at least a year.

As a final comment I have been involved in court proceedings with some of these companies and read about a lot of other cases that have made it to court or at least had papers issued. I've never read of a judge issuing a CCJ to a consumer. Most of the cases have been thrown out and some have been recommended for mediation.
That's not to say things won't change, but it is my experience.

RichGold

dougyd wrote: »

I do however think that there are sections of such agreements which aren't legally enforceable due to their fairness.

What do we consider fair these days? Life isn't fair, that's for sure. Its the responsibility of each person to mitigate the risk of others being "unfair" to them, and they do that by not just taking the first loan they can get and then not repaying.
Let's remember we are talking about people who have taken loans and not re payed in the first instance. That's is what has caused this "unfairness".

If a potential borrower thinks the T+C's are unfair, they can vote with their feet and go somewhere else. Once the loan has been accepted they don't have an unfair leg to stand on.

SavvyMail

RichGold wrote: »

Once the loan has been accepted they don't have an unfair leg to stand on.

You are wrong. (see me bold that bit so I look every bit as patronising as you are?)

Please do not respond to me saying I am wrong, because you evidently do not know basic law.

A court can rule that specific terms with an agreement can be classed as unfair and not enforceable.

RichGold

They can, but I was making the point that people shouldn't sign up to something if they either don't understand it or it isn't to their liking. They signed up to in the first instance after all.

And as an aside by the time it gets to a court the person in question will already be in quite a knot with it all. Why put yourself through that?