Thread: Barclaycards' wierd view of the Law

Carry On...Send your cards to all the DCA's

Hi RTR,

I don't think your example is particularly accurate with what is essentially a moral dilemma.

BC are using their interpretation of the CCA 1974 to avoid sending out credit agreements, maybe because they are unavailable or unenforceable.

But surely the majority of a/c holders will have received and willingly used their cards to spend money.

Hi RTR,

Yep, I realised the point you wanted to make. I was just saying there's a big moral dilemma tied up here too.

Without going into the finer detail, BC are using CCA 1974 to show that, where the original agreement terms have been varied, they are entitled to supply a current "statement of account" and the current T&C's.

Originally Posted by slick132

Hi RTR,
Without going into the finer detail, BC are using CCA 1974 to show that, where the original agreement terms have been varied, they are entitled to supply a current "statement of account" and the current T&C's.

Hi Slick, RTR,
Surely this depends on whether it's an 'original' Barclaycard that a person has accepted and used, OR it's an 'assigned' Barclaycard that was previously (say) Goldfish or Morgan Stanley and was 'assigned' when BC bought the accounts. I see no moral dilemma when it's an 'assigned' card.
Cheers,
LL

Hi LL,

I disagree.

When I say the terms have been varied, I mean changes to the a/c's T&C, not the card morphing from Goldfish or MSDW into BC.

Eg, where there is a change of interest rate, or maybe a change in the interest-free period before interest kicks in.

The moral dilemma I refer to is whether it's ok to avoid repaying money that you have spent.

Hi Slick,
I take the view that it's not proper to turn around to an existing creditor and say 'Forget it, I won't pay you because you have lost your CCA. HAha!' I would not expect a magistrate to be sympathetic to this either.

I take the view that a creditor who has bought your debt for a fraction of its book value but has not bothered to take care of the paperwork properly, then tries to enrich itself by ignoring your personal circumstances and charging almost 30% APR knowing you cannot possibly afford to pay that, is completely out of order, and therefore the lack of a CCA and consequent non-repayment by the debtor is nobody's fault but the creditor itself.

In the former case I would side with the creditor. In the latter case ... BC are a good example : they bully - they insist you are bound by CCA74 without a CCA but are not prepared themselves to be bound by it when they are in default. Etcetera etcetera.

Cheers,
LL

Noted, and I agree with your views about a debt "purchased" by a DCA.

I would not expect a magistrate to be sympathetic to this either.

A judge may have no option BUT to agree that a debt is legally unenforceable, if the documents are not as they should be and the case is presented well.

Originally Posted by RoadToRecovery

OK, so anyone who has made a request for a true copy of thier original credit agreement is likely to have had the standard old twaddle from Barclaycard. They claim that a copy of recent terms and conditions satisfies thier obligation under the Consumer Credit Act.

If this were true, the following would be entirely possible (I am not sugesting for one moment Barclaycard do this.).
1) A company sets itself up with the required credit licences to trade as a credit copany. Known as "Spoofacard".
2) Obtains names and addresses of potential new clients.
3) Sets up fictitious balances with thier 'new clients'.
4) Sends overdue balance request to thier 'new clients'.
5) 'New clients' have no idea about the accounts in question. Request details from "Spoofacard" as per s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
6) "Spoofacard" reply with an up to date statement and a copy of the current terms and conditions saying they have satisfied the request, please pay up or else.
Ok, the above is a very simplisitic view but using the law as Barclaycard see it is entirely possible and lawful. How can this be right, how can Barclaycard even consider it to be right.

My OH and I realised this 'plan' as well, to be honest we don't understand why BC don't send something to everyone on the planet given their view of how the CCA74 is interpreted. Then they just have to stick to their guns and harass harass harass - it's a numbers game, nothing personal.

Luckily there are resources and genuine understanding and interpretation of ALL the regulations that appertain to these matters. It's a sheer delight to me that there are these proper safeguards in the (albeit sometimes flawed) legislation that these bullies HAVE to recognise when a Judge says 'Pay attention!'. Thank Heaven for CAG, it's a great comfort.

Originally Posted by RoadToRecovery

Do the laws of the land mean nothing to these financial companies?

Apparently not! It seems that being really ignorant of the regulations (or, far far worse, pretending to be really ignorant of the regulations) is to their strong advantage ... so long as the consumer is as well or less well informed and also in genuine fear of collectors and court action because of their lack of knowledge and/or experience.

CAG has taken away all the worry and fear I used to experience. Nice one!

Must get back to my own thread.
Cheers,
LL.

Originally Posted by Coactum

Now I ask you to consider all those morality questions.
Was Bob morally wrong to accept the credit and spend the money?

There is no moral judgement to be made here. Bob was free to accept the credit and manage the credit and could ask them to reduce his credit limit at any time as part of managing his finances. It's up to him to manage the risks of being exposed to debt this way.

Originally Posted by Coactum

Is Bob morally wrong to explore if he can exploit the legal loophole so that he does not need to repay?

Again there is no moral judgement to be made. Bob is free to apply the law to his position, as is the creditor. Because the interpretation of the law rests with the judges, a (presumed trustworthy/honest) 3rd Party each side is able to make a case or defend a case and so devolve judgement to the 3rd party.

Originally Posted by Coactum

Was the original lender morally wrong to extend credit that Bob could not afford to repay?

Again there is no moral judgement to be made. Bob can refuse more credit, or seek more credit, as he wishes. The creditor can 'trust' Bob or 'entice' Bob as it wishes : Bob is the one at risk financially because the creditor is already wealthy and so its risk is very small. And often offset by past business to a zero risk financially. Unlike Bob, who depends on good health and retaining his job, etcetera, to keep his risk small.

Originally Posted by Coactum

Was the lender morally wrong to charge penalistic rates of interest?

Here we reach more shady ground.
When the penalties for late payment are applied because payment has not been managed or despatched when it could have been (i.e. the debtor does not care to pay) they could be considered reasonable as long as they are within pre-agreed limits or values, e.g. as part of a CCA.
When the penalties for late payment are applied despite the creditor making his position clear (e.g. now on incapacity benefit, unable to manage ongoing account, must pay off as a reducing balance) yet being completely ignored by the creditor who increases both interest and pressure as Bob gets into trouble then they have to be considered unreasonable : self-enrichment by unlawful behaviour on the back of someone's bad fortune is obviously not reasonable.

Originally Posted by Coactum

Are Barclaycard morally wrong to expect repayment of the full balance?

I think not if they have acted properly throughout.
As soon as they start ignoring Bob's true plight they are in the wrong.
As soon as they start harassing Bob in an unlawful manner they are in the wrong.
Making Bob worse off by not taking note of his plight puts them in the wrong.

Notwithstanding the expectation to complete the business they have arranged with Bob, they also have to accept the risk to that business, e.g. Bob has a bad back and cannot work, and cannot repay the credit extended to him. Not his fault, not their fault, but still the true nature of the situation.

If they are in any dispute, the court should decide the outcome. Not the creditor, who has to respect the nature of a dispute. It is unlawful to take someone's benefits from their account, it is unlawful not to recognise that the debtor is no longer able to maintain the contractual agreement.

There's no sentiment in business, they say, but the laws of the land require creditors to act properly, fairly and honestly. Debtors also, yet the law seeks to protect them from unscupulous creditors as well as the other way round, and there is undoubtedly a need for proper regulation of both sides. One day ... perhaps as porcines glide by.

In my humble opinion.
LL

To avoid hijacking of RTR's thread, the general discussion could be continued on a separate thread if anyone wants to discuss further.

Doh, sorry I thought this was a normal thread which got hijacked.

I'll leave ya to it.