loans and signed credit agreements

rog2

tonydav43 wrote: »

I was after advicve not your opinion, I am entitled to a copy of a true signed credit agreement, it does not matter if I have one sat in front of me, it is an entitlement that a company has to provide, if they don't supply it in the time set put by the consumer credit act, then they are committing a criminal offence and can be fined £7500.00, struck off the FSA register and also the courts can make the agreement non-enforeable. They can also be made to pay back any monies already paid. Company's HAVE to keep a signed copy of a credit agreement and by law they have to provide a copy when requested in a set time frame. As for being made bankrupt in the near future, dont think so as I have complied with the Credit agreement regulations and the 2 company's have not. If you can only supply opinions and not advice then please do me a favour and keep it to yourself

You are quite correct, tonydav - a creditor is legally obliged to supply you with a true copy of the original signed consumer credit agreement within 12 working days of your request.
If he fails to do so, then that agreement can not be enforced without a Court Order - Courts are unlikely to enforce an agreement once they are made aware of the fact that the creditor (or debt collection agency) did not supply the agreement within the time scale laid down in the Consumer Credit Act.
Furthermore, should the creditor not supply you with the cca within a further 30 days, they will have committed a criminal offence.

That said, it is normal for creditors to pursue the remaining joint debtor for the whole of the outstanding balance, should one party in a 'joint and several' agreement declare themselves bankrupt.

This does not give the creditor the right to ignore the Consumer Credit Act.

I_know_my_ABC_and_my_CMYK

ejones999 wrote: »

If the loans were joint surely you would have been there when they took them out.
Stopping payments will only result in you messing up your credit score/rating.

A joint loan means that both of you are responsible for repayments - is your ex making any contribution?

If the company in question cannot and does not provide you with a true copy of the credit agreement they CANNOT mark your credit file in any way. If you doubt this please call your local trading standards as I did recently.

OP
got to the consumer action group website and look on there. You will get far more supportive and correct advice on there. Out of curiosity how log ago did you take the loan out?

System

I think we are losing sight of the issue here.

The OP has stated that they took the loans, and that they have been making payments to them - an admission that the debts do indeed exist.

The CCA regulations in question are designed to protect people from being charged with debt they do not own, not for people to simply weasel out of paying a debt - in this case debts that the OP freely admits they own.

It is true that finance providers should have (and are legally obliged to have) all the relevant paperwork and that many of them are so incompetent that they lose or fail to maintain such paperwork. But this is not an excuse to stop paying a debt as agreed.

I really can't understand why people think it is fine not to fulfill their obligations to pay debts that they have willingly run up.

There is no 'dispute' over whether this debt exists, it clearly does. I honestly think the OP would have a hard time convincing a court that they should not have to pay the debt because the company in question did not fulfill a CCA request. How can you dispute a debt you have been recently paying towards - something that is easily proved.

On the point about CRA's, I think the OP will find that the finance company will be recording every occurrence of a missed payment and, if it gets far enough, a default. This information would have to be removed as part of any legal action - this will take alot of time and effort.

OP - I think you are on shaky ground, please tread carefully and make sure any advise you take is from professionals who know what they are talking about.

I'm not trying to stir up any bad feeling, just putting my opinion across, so no scathing replies please!!

Regards
UNDERGROUND

rog2

UNDERGROUND wrote: »

On the point about CRA's, I think the OP will find that the finance company will be recording every occurrence of a missed payment and, if it gets far enough, a default. This information would have to be removed as part of any legal action - this will take alot of time and effort.

OP - I think you are on shaky ground, please tread carefully and make sure any advise you take is from professionals who know what they are talking about.

I'm not trying to stir up any bad feeling, just putting my opinion across, so no scathing replies please!!

Regards
UNDERGROUND

No scathing reply from me, underground - your opinion is as valid as anyone's, as is your right to post it.

I would never reccomend that anyone ignores proffessional advice - I usually reccomend, in similar cases, that the 'debtor' seeks advice from one of the debt counselling charities, such as National Debtline, CAB or CCCS where they will receive professional, impartial and free advice.


In the case of the OP, however, he has posted after he had requested a true signed copy of the original cca, and after the expiry of the legally allowed period that the creditor is given to supply this information.

In the OP's case, the creditor has not complied with his legal obligations and, should he so wish, the OP has the right to take it further.

This is, intrinsically, no different from the way that most creditors would behave if the roles were reversed.

System

rog2 wrote: »

No scathing reply from me, underground - your opinion is as valid as anyone's, as is your right to post it.

I would never reccomend that anyone ignores proffessional advice - I usually reccomend, in similar cases, that the 'debtor' seeks advice from one of the debt counselling charities, such as National Debtline, CAB or CCCS where they will receive professional, impartial and free advice.


In the case of the OP, however, he has posted after he had requested a true signed copy of the original cca, and after the expiry of the legally allowed period that the creditor is given to supply this information.

In the OP's case, the creditor has not complied with his legal obligations and, should he so wish, the OP has the right to take it further

This is, intrinsically, no different from the way that most creditors would behave if the roles were reversed.

Thank you rog 2,

I agree that the OP has the right to take the issue of non-compliance further if he wishes to.

However, I don't believe that he has a right to withhold payment whilst the debt is 'in dispute' as it is clear that the OP is not disputing the fact that they owe the money only the fact that the finance provider cannot comply with a CCA request - this doesn't mean the debt ceases to exist.

Thanks for you balanced reply, it's refreshing! :rolleyes:

Regards
UNDERGROUND

I_know_my_ABC_and_my_CMYK

UNDERGROUND wrote: »

Thank you rog 2,

I agree that the OP has the right to take the issue of non-compliance further if he wishes to.

However, I don't believe that he has a right to withhold payment whilst the debt is 'in dispute' as it is clear that the OP is not disputing the fact that they owe the money only the fact that the finance provider cannot comply with a CCA request - this doesn't mean the debt ceases to exist.

Thanks for you balanced reply, it's refreshing! :rolleyes:

Regards
UNDERGROUND

The OP has a legal right to stop payment of the debt until the CA is produced. As he is standing now he doesn't owe this debt until the company prove he does, nor can it be enforced in court. There are some who are doing this with all their debts that have been passed onto a DCA and because a DCA cannot hold the CA they don;t have to pay them only original creditor has a legal right to the money. By doing this they are shuffling the debt around and waiting for it to become statute barred.

inmypocketnottheirs

UNDERGROUND wrote: »

Thank you rog 2,

.

However, I don't believe that he .....

Regards
UNDERGROUND

Whether or not you believe is irrelevant. The CCA lies down the regulations here, and if the OP has requested the information and the creditor has not complied, then the OP is entitled to withhold payment.

You may not believe it, you might not like it, but that is fact.

System

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

Whether or not you believe is irrelevant. The CCA lies down the regulations here, and if the OP has requested the information and the creditor has not complied, then the OP is entitled to withhold payment.

You may not believe it, you might not like it, but that is fact.

Well that's fine then.

In fact I think I'll stop paying all my bills from now on, I know I owe them money and I have a commitment to pay it back but who cares?? If they haven't got the right paperwork none of 'em are seeing another penny from me - I think EVERYBODY should do this then the economy will be in a great state.

I'm going to go on the hunt for some more laws to abuse now I think, there must be a way I can weasel out of a few more commitments, surely.

Cheers all

UNDERGROUND

inmypocketnottheirs

UNDERGROUND wrote: »

Well that's fine then.

In fact I think I'll stop paying all my bills from now on, I know I owe them money and I have a commitment to pay it back but who cares?? If they haven't got the right paperwork none of 'em are seeing another penny from me - I think EVERYBODY should do this then the economy will be in a great state.

I'm going to go on the hunt for some more laws to abuse now I think, there must be a way I can weasel out of a few more commitments, surely.

Cheers all

UNDERGROUND

Calm down dear!!

I did not write the CCA!

The real issue here is, if creditors adhered to the rules, then these loop holes could not be exploited. However, due to the slap dash mentality of various banks, finance and credit card companies and their determination to 'shaft' consumers, I can not say that I have any sympathy for them when they do not uphold their part of the bargain.

If they did their job properly, they would be able to provide the requested information, and there would not be the opportunity to avoid paying. Maybe this will force the banks etc to comply fully with the legislation. If not, it ain't my falut mate!

jay78

Where's the op? Underground I was thinking the same as you. I've got a huge loan out that I'm paying. If I request the original agreement and I don't receive it in 30 days then I don't have to pay it. I wonder why people haven't been doing this all along?