Lender has terminated my loan in error, where do I stand

Apples2

We have had a Conrad on here before who ranted pointless trolling arguments.

Maybe he was ppr'd and so gave birth to conrad2.

Just a thought.

Conrad2

pvt wrote: »

This is nonsense, but let's just go along with it for a moment:

You said this all started when they wrote to you and asked for the debt to be repaid. You assert the debt and the agreement are separate. So why does them requesting you repay the debt have any effect on the agreement?

No, I didn't state that. As mentioned a couple of times, I was informed of a default, which I dispute, and the lender have now terminated the agreement and sought full recovery of the debt.

RESPONSE TO YOUR POINT ABOUT DEBT AND AGREEMENT

If there is an agreement in place, there is no need for a collection agency to seek to recover the full debt. The agreement is the, er, agreed method of recovering the monies owed.

If the agreement is still in place during an attempt to recover the debt, the lender are attempting to recover the debt twice, which is unethical. They therefore must ensure that the agreement is terminated before attempting to recover the debt.

Now, the debt exists because I have possession of monies loaned to me by the lender. When they loaned me the money, they came to the original agreement with me as a method of collecting that money. Having now terminated that agreement, they have left me with the debt, but no agreed method of paying it back. From this, I hope you can see that the debt and the payment are separate, and despite what you say, this is how the law sees it.

The lender will will not dispute what I have written above, though people on this forum may.

Now, the lender has every right to recover that debt. I do not dispute that. But as they have no agreement, they must now seek one of the following: a new agreement with me; recover the money through the courts; or write off the debt.

The bank cannot force an agreement on me, but the courts can.

I could go to the bank and say 'can we just start again', but given their actions, I am not inclined to do so. I have been and remain an exemplary customer, and am not happy with them at the moment. I have no need to make a complaint about them, I have the money, and they want it back, but if they make a complaint against me, I feel that I have enough information to demonstrate that the original agreement was broken unfairly (I was not given even the time the lender stipulated was available to me to correct the situation), and am more than happy to take this to court, and seek an agreement that is more beneficial to me than the previous one.

I am afraid that much of the advice I have been given on this forum, though given in good faith, has assumed that, despite what I have said, I have in some way omitted important information, or it has just ignored important information that was thought to be irrelevant but was actually key. As I said in my first post, this is a very unusual case, and many people cannot seem to grasp it.

And yes, there has been some good advice as well, which I am grateful for.

Conrad2

Apples2 wrote: »

We have had a Conrad on here before who ranted pointless trolling arguments.

Maybe he was ppr'd and so gave birth to conrad2.

Just a thought.

No, not me.

But your pointless trolling argument is noted.;)

Conrad2

Eonel wrote: »

I suspect that you do know the Lenders reasons for the default, but disagree with it so feel there is no relevance to putting it in this post.

No, this happened completely out of the blue. And all my payments have been made on time. I have been completely honest here, though I realise that some mistakes made in my first post have caused confusion.

Frankly, if I was reading this about someone else, I would be a tad suspicious too. The only reason I can believe it has happened, and so quickly, is because it happened to to me!:(

bangersnmash

I agree with your analysis of this Conrad, and I agree that that is poor behaviour on the part of the lender.

I'm sorry but I don't know much about such things.

The various banking problems that I've had previously over the years don't particularly relate to this.

Several times I had to get on the phone to them at length repeatedly trying to sort out various stuff. Once or twice I've taken the line with them that I'm not taking no for answer. Mostly that doesn't work or achieve anything but one time I dug my heels in and took it further. I asked to speak to a supervisor and when they tried to brush me off I asked to talk to their manager. I refused to let him get off the phone for 50 minutes, till about 5.45pm. He resisted me continuously and said a flat no.

Then miraculously he called me back the next morning at 8.50 am and said yes. I can only guess why he changed his mind - he did a complete 180 degree turn, over night, which was rather splendid. A bit of luck for once instead of the usual dismal failure that I'm mostly used to.

That's about the only time I can remember that I have managed to get joy out of them though, all the other times I just had to put up with various negative experiences eg being suddenly told to repay several thousand of overdraft out of the blue within about, what was it, just a week or ten days or something like that. What a nuisance. I managed it but it was an effort. The blighters.

So, sorry, I don't have anything practical to suggest, all I can say is keep pressing forward and try to get satisfaction out of them. Which I hope you do in one way or another.

Good luck.

Kernel_Sanders

Conrad2 wrote: »

I realise this is getting very confused, mainly because of vaguaries only first message.

And also because you have not adequately checked your posts to see if there are any typos, factual errors or just to see if the sentences actually make sense (and that one doesn't).

Conrad2

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

And also because you have not adequately checked your posts to see if there are any typos, factual errors or just to see if the sentences actually make sense (and that one doesn't).

You've not been drinking enough!

Indefensible use of not the English language; never was its greatest exponent.

Wow, just agreed with someone on this forum!

Conrad2

pvt wrote: »

Oooooh! I think you probably know that isn't the case.

The lender is probably invoking (albeit in error) clauses in the agreement that say "if you fall into arrears we have the right to demand all our money back". That's far from cancelling the agreement.

Taking your argument to its extreme, if the agreement is cancelled then there is nothing that requires you pay them any further money at all. Which, of course, is nonsense.

Oooooh! I think I probably know that that is the case.

Please see my post above.

But seriously, this is an example of how people in general do not understand the law on this. You say it is nonesense, but if there is no agreement in place, there really is nothing that requires a debtor to pay back a debt. Yes, there is a debt, and yes, the lender can seek to enforce repayment through the courts, recouping interest, etc. and probably will, but until they do that, if no agreement exists, there is no requirement to pay the debt. That is a stone cold fact.

Angry_Bear

Conrad2 wrote: »

.... and the lender have now terminated the agreement ...

I'm defintiely no legal expert,but I suspect this is wrong. I would have thought that the lender has invoked a clause in the agreement that allows for them to demand immediate repayment if the terms are broken. If there was NO agreement at all, then you wouldn't have to pay them a penny.

If the agreement is still in place during an attempt to recover the debt, the lender are attempting to recover the debt twice, which is unethical. They therefore must ensure that the agreement is terminated before attempting to recover the debt.

This I also suspect is just wrong. They aren't trying to recover the debt twice, they are trying to recover it once through two different means.

Don't get me wrong, I've had some pretty terrible service on occasion and trying to get banks to fix their own mistakes is painful to say the least. But I really do think you will just cause more pain for yourself if you continue down this route. Making repayments as agreed and treating the default error as a separate issue would be the smoothest route to a resolution imo.

Hanky_Panky

Conrad2 before I start I would just like to let you know that in a previous life I was the last point of contact at a large retail bank before complaints were escalated to the Ombudsman so have a lot of experience dealing with often very technical complaints, particularly in similar situtions to yours.

I'm certainly prepared to take what you say at face value and believe you when you state you were paying on time originally and in the first instance were the victim however your subsequent actions are compounding the problem making it worse and far more importantly are undermining your argument significantly. Please see some of my responses to your quote below.

Conrad2 wrote: »

No, I didn't state that. As mentioned a couple of times, I was informed of a default, which I dispute, and the lender have now terminated the agreement No - they haven't terminated your agreement they have defaulted it which is simply not the same at all and sought full recovery of the debt.

RESPONSE TO YOUR POINT ABOUT DEBT AND AGREEMENT

If there is an agreement in place, there is no need for a collection agency to seek to recover the full debt. The agreement is the, er, agreed method of recovering the monies owed. Not quite but unimportant so I'll let it slide.

If the agreement is still in place during an attempt to recover the debt, the lender are attempting to recover the debt twice, which is unethical. They therefore must ensure that the agreement is terminated before attempting to recover the debt. Completely incorrect as per my comment above they certainly have not terminated the agreement.

Now, the debt exists because I have possession of monies loaned to me by the lender. When they loaned me the money, they came to the original agreement with me as a method of collecting that money. Having now terminated No they haven't. that agreement, they have left me with the debt, but no agreed method of paying it back If they have defaulted the debt then the whole balance is now due. From this, I hope you can see that the debt and the payment are separate, and despite what you say, this is how the law sees it.

The lender will will not dispute what I have written above, though people on this forum may. They most certainly will is at is wholly inaccurate

Now, the lender has every right to recover that debt. I do not dispute that. But as they have no agreement Yes they have., they must now seek one of the following: a new agreement with me; recover the money through the courts; or write off the debt.

The bank cannot force an agreement on me,They won't want to and don't need to. but the courts can.

I could go to the bank and say 'can we just start again', but given their actions, I am not inclined to do so. I have been and remain an exemplary customer Honestly - you're probably not right now. , and am not happy with them at the moment. I have no need to make a complaint about them, I have the money, and they want it back, but if they make a complaint against me Who would they complain to ?, I feel that I have enough information to demonstrate that the original agreement was broken unfairly (I was not given even the time the lender stipulated was available to me to correct the situation), and am more than happy to take this to court, and seek an agreement that is more beneficial to me than the previous one This will not happen - as of now, assuming the default was issued correctly the whole balance is due. .

I am afraid that much of the advice I have been given on this forum, though given in good faith, has assumed that, despite what I have said, I have in some way omitted important information, or it has just ignored important information that was thought to be irrelevant but was actually key. As I said in my first post, this is a very unusual case, and many people cannot seem to grasp it.

And yes, there has been some good advice as well, which I am grateful for.

So to summarise:
You have taken action based on some quite odd assumptions that you seem to be claiming are law - not quite sure where you are getting this advice from but it is seriously flawed.

The bank have made a mistake - something has gone wrong with your account for some reason - none of us, even you know why. Through the actions you have taken on the belief that the agreement is terminated you have now technically defaulted on the original agreement by cancelling the direct debit and preventing them from taking payments due. This compounded the problem rather than help in any way. It seems they have issued a default notice.

Now there are some mitigating factors in your favour: you were up to date at the time of the initial contact and it seems to be an administrative error on their part. The default and timings may not have been followed correctly. They have not responded to your previous correspondance.

You are questioning why you should have to sort out this problem and seem to think you are in a position of strength. Quite simply you are contributing to the problem by not following the common sense approach to get this resolved once and for all and by your previous actions. For a court to take you seriously (if it went that far) it has to see that you have done everything in your power to solve the problem as well. Currently you are refusing to make contact with the lender as you already have in the past - not really good enough. This will be having an impact on your credit file however by communicating with them you can sort this out but honestly you have to stop being so belligerent.

Use the mitigating factors above to correctly assert your position of the victim and engage them to help you get it sorted - communication, communication, communication ! They really will help if you follow the correct course of action.

Good luck !