Creditor Cannot Supply Credit Agreement

Karonher

sourcrates wrote: »

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 !!!!

Where do I say that it is OK for the banks to be bailed out or that PPI was OK? You seem to be making remarks about comments I have not made rather than the ones I did make. I am not sure what you think you understand.

Bankers were wrong and not enough were punished for what happened. There are ways for people to pay back at reduced rates and with interest stopped.

You seem to think that it is wrong of the banks but OK for others to keep money they owe. I think both are wrong.

When you talk of the bankers and how they are doing well - and it always seems to be the well paid ones that are mentioned - remember the high up will always do well. When banks need to make savings it is the front line staff who will lose out. Money is not repaid = banks lose money = branches close and staff become unemployed. My local branch has closed, and for some without a car it is going to be difficult for them to pay in and draw out. This is the consequence of the little guy not paying back what he owes. And no I dont mean this one case of £280.

As I said before - I think both are wrong.

[Deleted User]

sourcrates wrote: »

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 !!!!

I don't agree with what the banks did either but that has nothing to do with this.

The OP even admitted they owed the money! It would be a different scenario if they disputed owing anything.

These forums are full of people who knowingly took loans and credit cards that they couldn't pay back or just plain don't want to pay back and now expect to be debt free because of those "nasty" banks.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? You could just imagine the screaming blue murder if banks refused to lend to anyone who didn't have squeaky clean credit records.

SPELLKASTER

I've just spoken with National Debtline for clarification.

They said that once a creditor admits in writing that there is no signed agreement, they cannot persue the debts through the Courts.

If I receive anything I have to ask the Court for a stay on proceedings until the creditor can comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

I am perfectly entitled to stop paying the money as a result.

Found National Debtline very helpful and made me feel a more easier about the situation.

fatbelly

rizla_king wrote: »

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.

This is correct - many catalogue debts of that era are 'irredeemably unenforceable' and the major groups like Shop Direct and JD Williams will accept that if pushed.

SPELLKASTER

I know I have £174 in commission though on my account how do I get that back!?

Thrugelmir

SPELLKASTER wrote: »

I know I have £174 in commission though on my account how do I get that back!?

Do you have a signed contract?

sourcrates

SPELLKASTER wrote: »

I know I have £174 in commission though on my account how do I get that back!?

Oh dear, you don't unfortunatly, your debt has just reduced to £106 !!!

SPELLKASTER

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Do you have a signed contract?

No, but on the info provided on statement of account it says there
is commission.