Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
3.6 In addition, we operate the credit licensing regime under the 1974 Act.
This requires us to be satisfied that a person is fit to engage in consumer
credit activities. In doing so we must have regard to all relevant matters
including whether the trader, or an associate or former associate, has
contravened relevant legislation or
has engaged in business practices
which are deceitful or oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper,
whether unlawful or not.
3.7 The 2006 Act broadens the fitness test to include credit competence
The collective interest test (3.24 onwards) makes for very concerning reading for the banks.
Everyone on this forum should write to the address at the front and give examples of where the banks are collectively doing this to the whole damn marketplace.
3.24 Part 8 is not a means of pursuing individual redress. It applies only to
infringements which harm the collective interests of consumers. This
means that the breach must affect, or have the potential to affect, consumers generally or a group of consumers.
3.25 The unfair relationships provisions in section 140A apply to an individual relationship between a lender and a borrower. However, the lender may enter into such relationships with more than one consumer, and in doing so may, by virtue of acts or omissions giving rise to unfairness, have an adverse effect on a number of them.
3.26 It is not necessary for the harm to each consumer to be the same, or to be felt in the same way. And in some cases there may be a risk of harm which has yet to translate into actual detriment. It is not necessary to demonstrate actual loss to consumers for Part 8 action to be available.:grin:
3.27 In considering the scope for Part 8 action based upon the unfair relationships provisions, the OFT would consider whether there is a common factor which is likely to make a number of individual relationships 'unfair' and so harm the collective interests of consumers. It would not be necessary to demonstrate that there is more than one 'unfair relationship', or to adduce evidence to that effect, if it can be shown that the common element in the lender's behaviour may give rise to such a relationship in a number of cases.
3.28 For example, a lender may use standard terms in its agreements with consumers, or may operate in a common manner in respect of borrowers generally or a group of borrowers. The practice may give rise to unfairness in each case, or in a number of cases, and so may harm the collective interest. Again, it is not necessary for the practice to occur in all cases, or to have the same impact on borrowers. It may be sufficient that it gives rise to an unfair relationship in one case and has the potential to do so in others.
I'm off to get a copy of the 2006 CCA (I've already got the Enterprise Act), and get the proper wording - I might start kicking a**e on this front.
I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant
Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,
The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!
The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional. Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks and won hands down!
4.17 For example, the borrower may be unaware that a fee would be charged
in a particular case, or the level of the fee, or how this might impact on
the debt. He may also be unaware that rates might increase in particular circumstances, or were unlikely to reduce in line with changes in the market. The lender may have failed to disclose relevant information, or may have done so in an unclear or misleading manner. As a result, the consumer may not have entered into the transaction in full knowledge of the facts. He may also have had, in the circumstances, no real choice as to acceptance of the particular terms.
i.e. Accept our charges or we won't give you an account!
I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant
Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,
The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!
The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional. Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks and won hands down!
i.e. Accept our charges or we won't give you an account!
Or perhpas more importantly accept or no one will give you a bank account since their T&Cs all contain the same essence!
So in other words you have no choice as a consumer other than to be forced to accept those conditons because every bank/cc company includes the same terms.
Des that make it any worse for the bakns etc and better for us?
Glenn
Kick the shAbbey Habit
Where were you? Next time please
Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless
Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07 Barclaycard - Settled cheque received
Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07 Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07
GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty
MBNA - Settled in Full
GE Capital (1st National) Settled
Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07
MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here Glenn Vs MBNA
Read the FAQ section which explains WHY you're entitled to claim back the charges and HOW to do it...Once you've done all that you can get someone to check that your first letter is correct!
Where do you get your copies of the Acts, Surly? From online or in print/book form?
You can either buy them online from HMSO (slightly cheaper than ordering through Waterstones)...however, these are hard copies so cutting and pasting is a bit hard... the glue is a real b*tch to clean off your screen
Else, open the link on the website which brings up an HTML version of the Act... I then cut and paste all the pages into a Word document and then save locally. If you're not reproducing them for commercial gain, then you're not breaching Crown copyright if you quote them.
I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant
Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,
The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!
The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional. Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks and won hands down!
does anyone know if this applies to finance agreements as well ?
My partner has a vehicle on fiance - we asked to change to date
of the direct debit to suit is salary being paid but they only
would not allow us to pay on the date we requested.
The agreement states they can charge us £25 if we do not pay
on the agreed date. I have had some advice to say they may be
forcing him into default because they won't allow us to pay on
our preferred date. We pay the instalments every month, just
cannot do it when they want it because of all our other payments
We are thinking of challenging this term of the agreement if we can
probably best to start your own thread to get an answer to your question as I doubt you'll get that many replies on this thread which prior to yours the last post was some 3 and a half years ago.
OFT and unfair relationships
Reply With Quote
Re: OFT and unfair relationships
and won hands down!
Originally Posted by SurlyBonds
