Challenging loans/credit card debts themselves. Opinions?

apf666

cca 2006 ends irredeemably unenforceable agreements, but does not apply retrospectively, any agreement pre april 07 will still be unenforceable if missing prescribed terms, one example of this would be no signed credit agreement

post april 07 agreements, district judges at the county courts will decide on enforceability

with regards to people not wanting to pay for goods bought via catalogue where there is no signed credit agreement, this is a double edged sword, recovery methods from theses types of debt are often the most vigorous even when thy are fully aware that they cannot enforce through the county courts

catalogues are fully aware of the requirements laid down by law, they choose not to adhere, mainly to cost save, not wanting to paint a picture or a stereotype,(i think i am anyway) but users of catalogues are predominantly those on low incomes and quite often fall into difficulty making payments, most i would imagine want to continue making affordable payments but some catalogues, unlike other financial institutions quite often refuse to freeze interest and charges, any payments made will have little impact on the balance, unenforceability is one defence against this

unenforceability does not mean that customers are necessarily left in peace, they can still be pestered with post, tel calls or debt recovery agents, but if excessive a complaint about harassment can be made

with regards to websites offering to check on unenforceability, not to sure on this, concerned about where it leads on no win no fee, and possible consequences of poor advice.

most cab's should be able to provide assistance to those in financial difficulty, normally by referral to a debt casework specialist, this advice will be free to anyone who asks and will be impartial

those on low incomes may seek legal help(aid) via a solicitor

just my 2p worth, other points of view welcome

esmerellda

This section has been repealled (not applying retrospectively)

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement
((3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)
(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the
prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the
prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the
prescribed manner).
(4) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a
cancellable agreement if—
(5) Where an enforcement order is made in a case to which subsection (3) applies, the
order may direct that the regulated agreement is to have effect as if it did not include a term
omitted from the document signed by the debtor or hirer.
(a) a provision of section 62 or 63 was not complied with, and the creditor or
owner did not give a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other
document referred to in it, to the debtor or hirer before the commencement
of the proceedings in which the order is sought, or
(b) section 64(1) was not complied with.

ontheup_3

Claiming unlawful bank charges is one thing , but i feel if this sort of action was to become a part of everyday life then where would it leave the lenders ?? !!!

My guess is the lenders would lose a hell of a lot of money , and at the end of the day do you think they will sit and take the loss !! i think not , there will be more charges and higher rates to pay for this , so in the end we will end up paying for it !!


And at the end of the day if you borrow then you should pay it back !!! i understand that sometimes things happen and people get into a mess but just getting out of paying back what you have had is as unlawful as the charges !!

So i am against it !!

martint123

I'm against as well.
Someone will have to pay for the people who wiggle out of their responsibilities and that will be us in the long run.
I see the 'ambulance chasers' are there already, just like the IVA 30%ers.

golddigger_3

Its interesting that this has come up again now - we had a discussion on this a little while back.

I did some digging around - if you want to follow this link, you will see what I found out about the company. (post 19, but the whole thread makes interesting reading)

Only my thoughts, but I think I would leave well alone.

Really pleased MArtin picked up on it though as everyones comments seem to put it to bed.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=4604021&highlight=unenforceable#post4604021

there's a reply from "bryan" who works for the company also

golddigger_3

Found Bryan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6450000/newsid_6454700/6454735.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm#

mmm....

frugalpam

golddigger wrote: »

Found Bryan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6450000/newsid_6454700/6454735.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm#

mmm....

Thanks for posting that, golddigger!

Pam

frugalpam

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Your thoughts

Above are my very basic, unresearched mullings. I've not really checked out the technicalities, the veracity of the site, or legitimacy of the claims yet, but the theory is interesting. I would love MoneySavers views.... what would you do if you were me?

Martin

I'm curious to know whether this site really is legitimate - I'd prefer a site to be available where consumers could check out credit agreements for a smaller charge, if not for free.

For my own part - if I've borrowed money, then I expect to pay it back with interest - and it's my choice whether or not to take out an agreement.
However, there are some very dodgy finance companies out there who are disguising the true APR's on their agreements, and being very cagey about the penalties of settling loans early together with refusing to give details about settlement figures. I'm dealing with one such company at the moment who have caused me no end of stress (if you search my posts, you'll see who I'm talking about...) I've reported them to the Financial Leasing Authority, who are investigating them. A legal friend has looked at my credit agreement and said there are more holes in it than a colander. I think a company like this deserves all it gets, truthfully. Even so, I am prepared to pay a realistic settlement figure - but object to being ripped off - which is what they are attempting to do to me.

Pam

golddigger_3

....bump....

lotte123

My opinion is that there is a great difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. The law is there to protect people against unfair and exploitative acts and practices. Using the law to protect those being exploited is just. Using the law to get out of paying money back that you have borrowed in my eyes is legalised theft and makes a mockery of the law. If I was you Martin I would not promote it.