We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

384k Debt Pardon

2»

Comments

  • it makes perfect sense - sadly. From what i'd heard the solicitor garble briefly the loan was unenforcible because the agreement didnt comply with the CCA. This seems to fit with what you say and thats why it was written off.

    So where has all the extortionate credit bargin stuff come from, was this an aside by the judge or is it part of the decision? The press have a lot to answer for....

    Also dont have speakers on my computer, when is moneybox repeated or have i missed it?
  • it makes perfect sense - sadly.  From what i'd heard the solicitor garble briefly the loan was unenforcible because the agreement didnt comply with the CCA.  This seems to fit with what you say and thats why it was written off.

    So where has all the extortionate credit bargin stuff come from, was this an aside by the judge or is it part of the decision?  The press have a lot to answer for....

    I've no doubt that the Meadows described it as such  ;)

    The Judge certainly used the word "extortionate" - but not in relation to the APR, alone. He actually said

    "Where the rate concerned is as high as 34.9 per cent it seems to me that the combination of factors is so potentially exorbitant that it is grossly so and does grossly contravene the ordinary principles of fair dealing."

    He added: "This is one of the few credit bargains which is extortionate."

    In particular, he was referring to the fact that the APR applied to the charges that were added to the loan when the Meadows failed to make the repayments.

    However ... I'm not convinced that the word "extortionate" was part of the ruling itself. I believe it was "obiter dictum" ... an aside, but not part of the formal judgement. Comments made obiter dictum are not part of the binding precedent (and this wasn't binding anyway).

    The text is quoted from the Telegraph, here

    http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/29/ndebt29.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/10/29/ixportal.html
    Also dont have speakers on my computer, when is moneybox repeated or have i missed it?

    Annoyingly, it was repeated the following day. I do wish the BBC would put a text transcript of the recordings on the site - grrrr >:(
    Warning ..... I'm a peri-menopausal axe-wielding maniac ;)
  • Dan29
    Dan29 Posts: 4,768 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Also dont have speakers on my computer, when is moneybox repeated or have i missed it?

    You've missed the repeat, but can read the transcript on BBCi (the same link as above).
    .
  • Or this one

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/money_box/transcripts/04_10_30.txt

    Thanks Dan - hadn't spotted the "transcript" link. Apologies to Auntie :)
    Warning ..... I'm a peri-menopausal axe-wielding maniac ;)
  • Jen_Jen_5
    Jen_Jen_5 Posts: 174 Forumite
    Thank you
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.