Challenging loans/credit card debts themselves. Opinions?

dmdevlin

from what ive heard about NO WIN NO FEE i think it sounds like a mixed blessing people will just end up moving there debt over..

they charge a silly amount for there efforts, so if you owe £5000 and they get your debt wiped, how much will they want from you for there services. 75% so you could end up £4000 in debt with them..

just wondering...

j1mgg

dmdevlin wrote: »

from what ive heard about NO WIN NO FEE i think it sounds like a mixed blessing people will just end up moving there debt over..

they charge a silly amount for there efforts, so if you owe £5000 and they get your debt wiped, how much will they want from you for there services. 75% so you could end up £4000 in debt with them..

just wondering...

i hope if anyone was going to use a "no win, no fee" company that they agreed the percentage before hand so they know how much it will roughly be.

Mark7799

I have concerns about the ramifications of this.

Apart from the fact that it may encourage some people to look for loopholes and avoid responsibilities, I think it will make a loan application a far more involved process.

I remember when the Consumer Credit Act took effect in the early 1980's. The cooling off period for loan agreements not signed at branches meant people had to wait up to ten days for a loan to be set up. The Bank I worked in at the time decided to bring in a policy that if we had spoken to a customer who asked if the loan could be set up immediately then we would breach the CCA. I can see issues like this returning. If people want to try and look for every loophole then the process may become far more complicated and quick agreements may be a thing of the past - no more instant agreements to increase overdrafts?

jiggles607

I do not have a definate position on this issue but consider this:

Do you think that an insurance company, that has assets of 10's of billions of pounds, would have a moral issue with rejecting an obviously honest and legitimate claim for life, critical illness, payment protection on the basis of their "interpretation" of certain clauses? Even if you have paid all your premiums upto date. They would have no problem with this at all!

If they could wiggle out of a claim on the basis of a visit you made to a GP for a cold (hyperbole!) they would.

This isn't meant to justify. This is meant to show that there should be a "level playing field". They have firms of solicitors or legal departments whose whole reason for being there is to find a way of protecting themselves commercially. (if you don't beleive me watch a film noir called "Double Indemnity" with Barbara Stanwyke & Edward G Robinson!) As a consumer, in comparision, we have next to nothing - although things are improving.

Jigs

pete-in-london

According to the website of the financial company the fee is (typically) 25%

golddigger_3

Are they the only company offering this service -if so - why? You'd think they would be all on to this by now?

masonic

It seems to me that if there are certain unfair or unsound terms in the agreement, then it should be those that were expunged, not the balance of the loan itself. If the whole agreement is suspect, then there is no agreement at all, and the money on loan to the individual is surely reclaimable, just as any unfair costs already paid by the individual would be reclaimable. As I see it, it would be the courts job to come up with a fair means of ensuring both parties got their money back. Of course, if the CAB has gotten debts written off by this means already, perhaps that just isn't the way it works.

However, imagine the converse, where banks could close down peoples savings accounts for making a mistake or minor embellishment on their application form, keeping their savings. After all, the agreement would be invalidated through fault of the saver, so this is exactly analogous to an invalid loan agreement where the bank was at fault.

If the law is currently working like this, then something just isn't right. :think:

kfer_kaz

I've been reading this with interest and thought I would try the link that martin put in his message. I have a credit agreement with Provident, I found the form to fill in really complicated, ok i'm not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to finance. Another thing that hampered me was the fact that the writing on our copy of the agreement was really really faint and in places totally unreadable.
I'm not sure which side of the fence I sit on with this one, I agree that if you borrow the money you should be prepared to pay it back, but at an APR of 102.7%, I don't even understand what this means!!!!!!
If I were going to use this new regulation I would have to have it relayed to me in the most basic of laymans terms. Maybe this is why I tend to get myself into debt really easy is because I don't understand the terms layed out to me. I should have been born blonde.

golddigger_3

is there any more news on this martin?

Twinkly

Regarding loans forced on people by the banks to purely cover overdrafts consisting in the main of unfair charges then yes, they should be ripped to shreds. Same goes for credit cards increasing the credit limits thereby extending the debt to cover charges incurred. I've just directed a poster on this very subject to this thread in the hope it will help them. I think Martin should take up this aspect of the matter if nothing else.