Creditor Cannot Supply Credit Agreement

SPELLKASTER

My original creditor, Shop Direct, sold my £280 debt onto TDX Group back in 2012.

I have written on at least 4 occasion to TDX Group asking for a copy of the credit agreement.

After many months of trying to fob me off, I received a letter yesterday admitting that they could not locate a valid signed agreement.

Shop Direct sold the debt on without an agreement, is that even legal!?

TDX have said they wont remove the default either even though there is no valid agreement.

However, they are recalling the debt back to Shop Direct, and have offered me £200 compensation, which I am happy to accept.

Does anyone know what now I can do if Shop Direct now contact me even though there is no agreement for the debt!?

sourcrates

Yes, I know what you can say.


You can say get stuffed shop direct, no agreement essentially means they can still ask you to pay, but all legal remedy to enforce the debt, has been taken away from them.


In other words, you can either offer them 50p to settle in full, or you can ignore them from now on.


Debts get sold on like this every day, sold without one shred of evidence they are legally enforceable, the only time when anyone checks to see if enforceable paperwork exists, unbelievably, is when an individual makes a CCA request.


They can still register information about you with the CRA`s though, such is the beauty of the current system.

SPELLKASTER

sourcrates wrote: »

Yes, I know what you can say.


You can say get stuffed shop direct, no agreement essentially means they can still ask you to pay, but all legal remedy to enforce the debt, has been taken away from them.


In other words, you can either offer them 50p to settle in full, or you can ignore them from now on.


Debts get sold on like this every day, sold without one shred of evidence they are legally enforceable, the only time when anyone checks to see if enforceable paperwork exists, unbelievably, is when an individual makes a CCA request.


They can still register information about you with the CRA`s though, such is the beauty of the current system.

So, can I ask Shop Direct to write the debt off as there is no valid agreement!?

sourcrates

They won't write it off, they will say it's valid and due.

The fact no agreement exists only precludes them from legal action.

You can try, but otherwise just allow time to run out and concentrate on the valid accounts you may have.

jonesMUFCforever

SPELLKASTER wrote: »

Why should I pay when there is no credit agreement!?

This comes under a section 75 for failing to supply when requested.

I'm not paying simple as that.

You should pay because You know that you bought their goods.
You are in a good position because they cannot legally enforce it - I think you have had a result and should be grateful for what you have got so far.

Did you know that they COULD have sent you a blank reconstituted agreement WITHOUT your signature and a court would uphold this as legitimate.
Think on.

SPELLKASTER

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

You should pay because You know that you bought their goods.
You are in a good position because they cannot legally enforce it - I think you have had a result and should be grateful for what you have got so far.

Did you know that they COULD have sent you a blank reconstituted agreement WITHOUT your signature and a court would uphold this as legitimate.
Think on.

I am going to accept their offer £200 goodwill gesture.

They did not send me anything apart from some accounting of the debt and when they bought the debt.

Yes, I know they cannot enforce without an agreement.

I am going to sign over printed so they can't lift my signature.

sourcrates

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Did you know that they COULD have sent you a blank reconstituted agreement WITHOUT your signature and a court would uphold this as legitimate.
Think on.

I doubt that very much, an agreement, if supplied, must be legible.

A blank document would not be legible by its very nature.
Plus it must still contain the prescribed terms and conditions in force when the agreement was signed.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement to be honest.

jonesMUFCforever

sourcrates wrote: »

I doubt that very much, an agreement, if supplied, must be legible.

A blank document would not be legible by its very nature.
Plus it must still contain the prescribed terms and conditions in force when the agreement was signed.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement to be honest.

This has been tested in court by RBS over an unpaid personal loan. I do not have the case details to hand but it is true.
The bank were able to show that they lent the money to their customer and that their customer had used the money and the judge ruled in RBS ' favour.
I could spend a lot of time searching on these forums for confirmation for you but I don't think you want me to.

rizla_king

looking as past threads, their Littlewoods/ShopDirect debt agreement predates april 2007, so a judge is not allowed to just accept a reconstituted agreement if it is plausible that no such agreement was actually signed.

ShopDirect did not used to get people to sign in those days. they just sent a blank copy and lent without getting anything signed back. most shop direct debts of that age are legally unenforceable permanently under s127.

the mugiffick or carey case vs RB or HSBC doesnt change that.

Karonher

blisteringblue wrote: »

Been a while since we've seen a keyboard warrior trolling our debt free forum. :rotfl: Obviously "billy no mates" on this glorious Sunday.

I think a lot of people share the view that if the money is owed, and the poster has admitted that it is, then it should be paid back. Often they don't post that view because of the warrior and troll comments.

In some cases people are not asking for help to pay back their debts when they are in a difficult position but just trying to keep money that they should have paid back.

You can't blame people for thinking that is wrong.

sourcrates

Karonher wrote: »

I think a lot of people share the view that if the money is owed, and the poster has admitted that it is, then it should be paid back. Often they don't post that view because of the warrior and troll comments.

In some cases people are not asking for help to pay back their debts when they are in a difficult position but just trying to keep money that they should have paid back.

You can't blame people for thinking that is wrong.

But it's ok for the banks to waste billions of pounds of taxpayers money being bailed out of a financial crisis, of there own making, because they were too damm greedy and negligent to be bothered to do affordability checks on the people they lent to.

Not to mention the billions of pounds in PPI. Premiums they illegally took from there customers on the basis of a blatant lie.

Ah yes, now I understand completely !!

Let's all screw the little guy because he hasn't repaid his £280.00 quid !!
That should just about cover a bankers lunch bill, big deal !!!!