Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About captain2

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi there you wont need to go there if you just simply pay £1 a month - please dont let them take your house or your share in it for the sake of such a small sum being offered - they are obliged to accept any payment over £1 but does not stop them asking for more - you are on benefit so that should be sufficeint for the court to agree (if it ever gets that far) the payment if they press on with a bankruptcy they are in serious risk of being de licenced and fined. Creditors in the credit industry are supposed to operate fairly if you cant pay declare your income and outgoings and they really are
  2. Not much it seems - unless they have already given you a copy of an agreement which is defective - they can only concoct something and hope to pass it off if they have lost the orginal - i should think some creditors will now be wanting to lose any docs they know are unenforceable and then when challenged reconstruct them which is allowed now with the recent court decisions. But if you already have your they cannot get away with reconstructing or creating a brand new one.
  3. Hi Steve - mainstream unsecured creditors holding consumer credit licences or debt collection agencies acting on their behalf are not suppossed to use tactics like that. It is more likely to be a threat to cajole you into doing something. They are unsecured and threatening to cause the sale of you home would be seen as unacceptable by the OFT who may even fine them or refuse to renew their licence. The lowest amount they are legally required to accept is £1 a month as a regular payment, thus if you send them a regular minimum payment each month they would propbably accept it. If you are chall
  4. Hi I posted on here a few days back re my own revised position concerning agreements. I am entering a debt management plan and the aim will be as my business starts to recover in the next few years to pick off the enforceable agreements with much reduced sums in full and final settlements - this seems to be a route which does not involve the courts and if a creditor got a court order i'm quite sure the court would only order less or equivalent to what is in the DMP - ,my claims handling company is to use 'unenforceable' arguments to broker a better deal where the agreement is defective and arg
  5. Yes very worrying this Manchester situation - Ive now reconciled myself to adopting a different approach rather than relying on an erratic and rapidly moving set of goal posts the CCA has come to be -my approach is now centering on going into a debt management plan as a self employed businessman - the plan is self certified and the creditors have no realistic option but to go with it (other than issuing statutory demands and bankruptcy which the OFT and Court would frown on ) - once the plan has been established then it will serve as a collection point for all the other unsecured debt I have a
  6. Hi all - Due to the seemingly muddied waters produced by the Manchester cases I'm now agreeing a debt management programme with a specialist to get the creditors on hold pending then 'working behind the scenes' on each one and if unenforceable then removing them as that becomes confirmed and the others which prove to be enforceable(if any) to aim to offer a much reduced full and final offer when money is available - that seems to me to be the best strategy in my circumstances for now - if this is of any help or inspiration to anyone -
  7. Hi NB thanks for the help - but the judgement stated an agreement could be enforceable in the absence of a signature if the creditors procedures indicated that it would have been signed as part of the process to set up the account - In my own case I have around 7 accounts where I already have copy agreements which I have signed so they are beyond doubt and it looks as though the prescribed terms are stated incorrectly or are missing - I have 2 accounts where i know the agreements have been destroyed by the creditor - The 7 I have are thus incapable of being replaced by reconst
  8. Hi anyone there who knows whether the Manchester judgement is being appealed ? As I understand it after reading the full judgement if the creditor can demonstrate that their procedure is always to require a signed agreement before the account is finalised then a reconstituted agreement would suffice for enforcement by the court as the judge has said it can be enforced if the agreement WAS signed - and the agreement would be deemed to have been signed if the creditor can demonstrate presumably on a balance of probabilities that it WAS signed. To have the law changed in this way t
  9. Hi Newbloke - very interesting info - would be useful to get all this points into one template letter -
  10. Hi again thanks for your comments - as noted before if put back to square one and sums borrowed are to be repaid that will come off the sum already paid e.g. borrow £10k at 1.29 per month = £1548 interest x 10 years = £15480 but if in fact actually paid under increasingly high interest rates again as illustration only at double that rate = £30,960. Thus overpaid sum thus = £15480 current balance say £12000 then refund of £3480 would be due. This argument would esp be of benefit work where the term is 6 years i dont know whether under a running account whether the 6 year statute of limita
  11. Hi thanks for that info - Misrep back to square one would be fine as that way the interest rate would be what was agreed to and any current balances be recalculated to refelct what should have been the true sum outstanding under that rate - Seems the weak link now is the T&C's not being within the 'signature document' before it was assumed that the T&C's had to be within a signature document ? In order that T&C's outside signature doc can be included reference should be made to that ? i.e. see section 22 etc ? I understand that the prescribed terms are always to be w
  12. The CCA 74 as statute law cannot be eroded to the point of irrelevance by ANY court - if the agreement is produced with a signature from both parties and prescribed terms are there it is enforecable - if they are not it isn't. However as a court's interpretation of statutes and any statutory instrument refinements may affect the original act does the recent Manchester ruling allow where there is no orginal agreement for the court to enforce an agreement ? In my case I have all the signed copy agreements except for HSBC. So as far as I am concerned these agreements are defective so 2 scen
  13. Also if a reconstituted agreement is used in court where the creditor does not possess the original what happens where the debtor has a copy but which lacks the prescribed terms or maybe is signed by debtor but not by creditor - thus indicating it is 'the agreement' as opposed to the reconstituted version - Put another way - where an agreement is lost /missing the court can now substitute one except where the debtor already has a signed agreement in his possession but which may be defective - I presume the debtor signed version takes precedence ?
  14. Sorry missed a word out - hope it does 'Not' apply in court .....
  • Create New...