well surprise surprise , my agreement does not show the above at all ,.. and if interst rate changes then no definate figure on total amount payable

Void - a void contract is one that cannot be performed or completed at all. A void contract is void from the beginning (ab initio - see the Latin terms below) and the normal remedy, if possible, is to put things back to where they were before the contract. Contracts are void where one party lacks the capacity to perform the contracted task, it is based on a mistake, or it is illegal. and as my account was put into arrears from day one , I was put into a situation were I could not preform the contract as arrears added to balance so contract could not end on the agreed dates in question ,.. it is based on lenders mistake ,..

after reading last few posts ,.. thats what I was saying and thinking regarding commissions and brokers fees ,.. carrots ,.. you will only get back what you have paid out anyway ,.. that is not justice , thats why I am going along the void lines ,.. void the agreement everything dissolved anyway ( all monies prepaid returned) so kill many birds with 1 stone ,.. they is no room to wriggle from a void contract due to lenders breach , if the breach is not looked upon as a mistake then it is totally illegal ,... Void - a void contract is one that cannot be performed or completed at all. A void contract is void from the beginning (ab initio - see the Latin terms below) and the normal remedy, if possible, is to put things back to where they were before the contract. Contracts are void where one party lacks the capacity to perform the contracted task, it is based on a mistake, or it is illegal.

Hi , Definately know how you feel , done the same chasing about myself a few weeks back and could get no info what so ever , point blank refused the underwriters sheets plus letter in reply saying prove a secret commission , takeit up with broker , but might find if not successful that its probably as they do not trade anymore ,.. every route we took dead ends ,.. so have decided to attack and end my agreement due to breach of contract , placing my account into arrears from day one , and all charges snowballed from they ,.. can not be bothered chasing dead ends , as these are taking my mind off a great line of attack which seems the easy route , as all prepayments would be refunded due to they breach ,.. Void - a void contract is one that cannot be performed or completed at all. A void contract is void from the beginning (ab initio - see the Latin terms ) and the normal remedy, if possible, is to put things back to where they were before the contract. Contracts are void where one party lacks the capacity to perform the contracted task, it is based on a mistake, or it is illegal. I lacked the capacity to perform the contracted task,(of completing on agreed date as contracted,and due to mistake at START of the agreement would have no end date insight) so either admitt to a mistake or risk the laws of the land as will be illegal

What year would your agreement be dated? as trying to see which solicitors they would be using in 2003 ,.. as definately worth a try as if looking active sure they will get active and address the problems they have caused , putting account into arrears from day one ,.. legal robbery ,.. as interest charge each month applied to balance ,..

Re: Credit Agreement faked G E MONEY My thread on G E and probably the most Shocking CCA you will ever see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/246274-credit-agreement-faked-g-2.html#post2765885

Hi there again , thanks for the info and nice to see what underwriters sheet looks like , (very interesting in deed) ,.. 1 question , and I only ask this as seen my own agreement **altered** ,.. is the underwriters sheet(copy) lodged in company house ? ,. otherwise could this not be altered ? to suit ,.. I do not put nothing past them ,..

Hi there again Frettful,.. I will discuss it all day long with you , I now believe that the PPI & Secret commissions are the wrong route as yes I believe judges are lender friendly , and you will recieve the amount paid plus interest ,.. but agreement still in place , and no problem lenders will recoup the said monies lost in the long run ,. you situation is very like mine , non-regulated , above £25k , and not included in new no limits credit ,.. for weeks I have looked into things and finally have the answer to all concerns ,.. and the best bit you need to be unregulated to get the benefits of this cover ,.. and it is right that APR will change to keep the commissions secret ,.. but this slyness is they undoing ,.. as if the monthly payment increases , then you must be informed at the earliest opportunity Providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or a supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded so each time you see a rate change you should of been informed of this change as this will effect the monthly payment , which if your payments do not change then this small amount will put your account into arrears and give the lenders the rights to charge you a monthly interest charge ,which is covered over as added onto balance end of each month ,.. and this secretly stacks up over the years and you are expected to pay this amount when last payment on agreement is due ,.. absolute [problem] , no ther words for it ,.. and all the secrets why? because they know its a [problem] to take more than what is entitled to them

So how would I get to know the solicitors involved? as surely G E will not give contact details for them ,.. the address they give for my suppose broker was wrong , but got all the info i needed after a few days chasing things up ,.. will not give brokers name (a part from company used) (wrong company) managed to get directors name , who just happens to be owner of the company who trade at the address G E give me ,.. I have lots of evidence against G E , just looking for best attack as need a compliant letter sorting out over the weekend to give G E the final change to clean things up and restore account to true reflection of previous payments without the 7 years of unlawful charges, which is well over£14k I will be calling for my agreement to end , pay back what i owe minus what is owed to me ,... and in my book that would be them owing us £0000 , and going by the unfair regulations , I would of had this option once interest rates changed and I could not afford to continue payments that were not part the agreement ,.. lender would need to advise of the change as costs would alter ,.. and that is when you can exercise your rights to cancel ,.. thats why lenders are happy leaving payments the same and adding the arrears to balance which attracts interest ,.. pure concealment ,... I feel unfair relationship is the safest route to get rid of these sharks and get justice ,.. i think commissions and ppi's are just carrots , to get you to strike or attack on a small percent of the unlawful balance ,.. they are smart ,.. unfair conditions will sort out all the other things , like commissions, ppi , all these will be returnable as contract will be dissolved , so everything within dissolved ,..

Think you have hit the nail on the head , this is how they do business , you ar also correct totally refused to send underwriters sheet , and said prove secret commisiions ,.. well my agreement does not show i paid commission to broker (which i did by the way ) it certainly does not show lenders paid brokers ,.. so who did ? and considering my broker were tied to they lenders ,.. then why would they lenders pass on our customer to another company especially as they are paying brokers ,.. and then expect us to believe no commissions pass hands ,.. and like you say its proving it ,.. and as judges are lender friendly might be even harder ,.. so thats why unfair relationship is a killer to attack and great as a defence ,.. Unfair Terms 5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was. (5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair. Assessment of unfair terms 6. - (1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent. (2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate- (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange. Written contracts 7. - (1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12. Effect of unfair term 8. - (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer. (2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term. INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR 1. Terms which have the object or effect of- (a) excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier; (b) inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him; © making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone; (NOT advising about the ppi ~ as a service sold in the form of payment protection insurance , should not on my realisation of my own will ,) (d) permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract; (e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation; My high compensation payments £220 per month rising to £450 per month at present day ,.. and due to G E MONEY's mistake (f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract; (g) enabling the seller or supplier to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice except where there are serious grounds for doing so; (h) automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the consumer does not indicate otherwise, when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire not to extend the contract is unreasonably early; (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract; (j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract; (k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided; (l) providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded; The rise in interest rates increased the price for services and was never given corresponding rights to cancel the agreement ,as the unexpected rate rise would of left final price too high in relations to price agreed and forcing me into breach without my rights been offered to cancel the said agreement in question (m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract; (n) limiting the seller's or supplier's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality; (o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his; (p) giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter's agreement; (q) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract. Mis-leading us to contact OFT knowing our agreement was before OFT regulation dates ,.. 2. Scope of paragraphs 1(g), (j) and (l) (a) Paragraph 1(g) is without hindrance to terms by which a supplier of financial services reserves the right to terminate unilaterally a contract of indeterminate duration without notice where there is a valid reason, provided that the supplier is required to inform the other contracting party or parties thereof immediately. (b) Paragraph 1(j) is without hindrance to terms under which a supplier of financial services reserves the right to alter the rate of interest payable by the consumer or due to the latter, or the amount of other charges for financial services without notice where there is a valid reason, provided that the supplier is required to inform the other contracting party or parties thereof at the earliest opportunity and that the latter are free to dissolve the contract immediately. Without a valid reason I should of been informed of interest rate rises as monies payable would alter also ,.. I should be informed at the earliest opportunity and that I had a option to dissolve the contract Paragraph 1(j) is also without hindrance to terms under which a seller or supplier reserves the right to alter unilaterally the conditions of a contract of indeterminate duration, provided that he is required to inform the consumer with reasonable notice and that the consumer is free to dissolve the contract. indeterminate duration ,... this will point to the fact that my agreement quoted in contract had no indeterminate durtion / end date in sight due to unlawful charges added to account at the start of agreement © Paragraphs 1(g), (j) and (l) do not apply to: - transactions in transferable securities, financial instruments and other products or services where the price is linked to fluctuations in a stock exchange quotation or index or a financial market rate that the seller or supplier does not control; - contracts for the purchase or sale of foreign currency, traveller's cheques or international money orders denominated in foreign currency; (d) Paragraph 1(l) is without hindrance to price indexation clauses, where lawful, provided that the method by which prices vary is explicitly described.

Hello and thanks for your thoughts and time ,.. I would never believe a word they say after many phone calls telling them it was recorded which it was ,.. they say anything to please you at the time to get you off the phone and sound as if they care ,.. I have not claimed arrears charges , as none in place , just the monthly interest charge based off the balance ,.. a **dubious** balance as placed into arrears from day one , and only just learnt this the other week , so 7 years of hitting us every month for £000 per month ,.. and the mistake is definately to they benefit , £50,000+ , unreal ,.. it will be a good read and hopefully it gets national headlines ,.. as quite shocking how £250 can cost a consumer £50,000 ,.. but more like £100,000 , as the next 18 years are based from the hike in balance after 7 years ,.. but its compond so in next few years will be £1000 per month just in a secret charge getting secretly added to balance to raise the monthly charge ,..,.. scary really when you think about it ,.. but on the other side the coin how can it be fair???? fair is the killer word

We never used a solicitor ,.. we found Ocean online and applied with them ,.. they brokered a deal / agreement with First National ,.. I have tried to get info from Ocean , who plainly **misled** saying I cancelled with them ,.. and my broker some company not in business now ,.. directors name given , same name as the company trading at the address for **EDIT**brokers ,.. same company name apart from middle word ,.. and now this company say they no longer deal with G E MONEY ,.. The PPI i had , the company involved state they do not deal with G E MONEY,... seems like everyone is distancing themselves from G E MONEY,.. at the ladies store I worked , we use to have to sell store cards to customers but no longer part the contract ,.. G E financed the cards at a whooping 30% , seems like lots of lost business for G E ,.. so if so fair and respected , then why are business running from this company ,.. I have contacted a local & national paper to see if I can get this [problem] out in the open ,.. from unfair conditions , to concealment of informations , fraud documents, double signatures , mis-leading information in recent contact ,. placing account into arrears to collect £0000 in interest charges , Charges that will cost the consumer £50,000 over £220 interest charge wrongly charged ,.. the national paper is quite interested not sure about local paper ,.. and even recently we offered them the chance to put things right and remove the** dubioius** arrears , arrears that stacked up when told payments and interest frozen whilst in dispute due to increasing balance ,.. but no , not interested ,.. well hopefully they will see that we intend to fight this all the way , well have no option as not giving up the family home ,.. well not without a fight and letting as many people as possible know about they business practises and the way they rip off the consumer ,..

well 5 days and no thoughts on the way forward ,.. come on folks ,..

Valid reason for credit card interest rate alterations ,.. Yeah to Rip you off ,.. and keep you in debt ,..

The PPI will only be a small part of my concerns with more serious ones explained in full , but for the PPI I will highlight that if it was not mis-sold to us and had real value , why did we get arrears when we had paid for protection???? why were we not advised of this option ? as surely to the lenders benefit also as this would cover the payments they required ,.. and saved us a lot of interest payments , which are secretly added to balance as a secret nest egg for the benefit of the lenders , and this benefit would continue to grow each month over the years ,.. but even if they did play ball and let you use your protection whilst times were bad (what cost £2200+ by the way) they still would collect an interest payment each month of at least £220 rising to £450 due to the mistake in placing the account into arrears ,.. a mistake that will likely cost £50,000 + for me ,.. and it really does show the real intentions of the lenders , as not only do they not advise about the PPI (as worthless) , they strike straight for eviction ,.. when it is know court and eviction should be the last option ,.. other avenues to consider , . Interest only , Defered payments , holiday payments ,.. nothing considered at all straight for evictions ,.. and even though my ppi expired 2 years ago , I am still paying for cover ,.. cover i do not have ,.. and to think i will need to pay this for another 3 years is totally unfair conditions to the extreme,.. extreme as I could really use the proctection I continue to pay for ,.. and whilst i continue to pay this , I am been charged high interest charges each month ,.. is this fair ???????

well short question ,.. if prescrided terms are missing off agreement for the ppi , will this be unenforceable as the law states , plus many other unfair condition ?

Well think this will address our situation ,.. why fight secret commissions ,.. why waste time contesting the broker ,.. especially as judges are lender friendly ,.. will just shoot for unfair conditions but still contact the FOS as diddled kindly pointed out ,.. well below is very important should things become complicated ,.. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 What will the new regime mean for lenders? One of the most controversial elements of the latest Consumer Credit Act, is the new concept of an ‘unfair credit transaction’. This will come into force on 6 April 2007 and empower consumers to challenge a wide range of contract terms and lender practices as unfair. It is designed to replace the existing ‘extortionate credit’ test under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act), which has been criticised as too narrow. Also from 6 April 2007, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) jurisdiction is extended to encompass all consumer credit lending. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to how the new law will be implemented and in particular, whether we can expect to see more agreements being found to be unenforceable. The need for change Under the 1974 Act, a credit bargain is extortionate if it requires the borrower to make payments which are ‘grossly exorbitant ’ or otherwise ‘grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing’. The court may re-open an agreement found to be extortionate so as to do justice between the parties. The extortionate credit test has been widely criticised. According to the DTI, since the inception of the Act ‘only about 30 extortionate credit cases are known to have reached the courts and, of those, only ten were proven’ (‘Fair Clear and Competitive – the consumer credit market in the 21st century’ DTI White Paper December 2003). The White Paper, which led to the changes under the 2006 Act, proposed to redress what it saw as the key failings of the test by; *allowing consumers to challenge lender behaviour after an agreement is made shifting the focus from cost to take in other factors, such as the level of security required, default charges and lack of transparent information *making it easier faster and cheaper to challenge an agreement with a new Alternative Dispute Resolution (via the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The new unfairness test The Consumer Credit Act 2006 aims to ‘enhance consumer rights and redress by empowering consumers to challenge unfair lending and through more effective options for resolving disputes.’ The new, more flexible, framework under clause 19 provides that an agreement may be found to be ‘unfair’ because of; its terms, or the terms of any related agreement (i.e any previous agreement with the lender consolidated by the new agreement and any linked transaction, such as payment protection insurance the way on which the creditor has exercised or enforced his rights under the agreement or any related agreement anything else done, or not done, by or on behalf of the creditor (before or after the agreement, or any related agreement, is made) Some commentators have contrasted the systems on the basis that the extortionate test was about cost and the new test takes in all aspects of the relationship. The reality is more complex. Although charges are central to the notion of an extortionate bargain they have never been a prerequisite to a successful claim. Under the old test an agreement could be struck down if it ‘grossly contravened the principles of fair dealing’ even if the borrower’s financial obligations were not ‘grossly exorbitant’. Relevant factors included the age, health, capacity and business experience of the debtor, whether they were under financial pressure, the creditor’s risk, relevant to the value of any security and any other relevant considerations. The key difference is that when deciding if an agreement was extortionate, these factors were only taken into account at the time the agreement was made. The new test is much broader. The court can have regard to all matters it considers relevant any stage during the relationship, i.e. when the loan is sold, when it is entered into, when it is in force and after it has ended. Remedies If the court finds that the relationship between borrower and lender is unfair, it has a wide range of remedies including; *requiring the creditor to repay any sum paid by the debtor *ordering the creditor to act or cease to act in a particular way in connection with the agreement *reducing the amount payable under the agreement *directing the return of any security under the agreement *altering any of the terms of the agreement. Key Concerns There are a number of areas of concern about the new provisions: Wide scope This is an extremely wide provision – any agreement providing credit of any amount is captured. Regulated mortgage contracts are excluded under section 19(5), however, this only covers FSA regulated mortgage contracts. Those entered into before 31 October 2004 will come under the new test. The entire relationship is subject to the unfairness rules; i.e. all dealings before, during and after the contract is made. There is no limit as to time, either. Expired agreements may be subject to a claim. Section 19(4) expressly provides that ‘a determination may be made in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended’ Actions under the unfairness provision may be brought by consumers individually and by the OFT exercising its powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. This enables the OFT to take enforcement action against lenders where unfair relationships affect consumers generally. Examples given in the House of Lords include where a lender uses standard terms or operates in a common manner in respect of borrowers generally so as to make each relationship unfair. OFT guidance will provide further information on how these powers will be used. Uncertainty The lack of definition or guidance as to what will constitute an unfair relationship is undesirable for consumers and lenders. All the indications, from the White Paper to more recent DTI and government publications, as well as Parliamentary comment, suggest that the courts and the FOS are to be encouraged to take the widest possible view of the term ‘unfair relationship.’ The Government rejected attempts to amend the Bill to require regulations to be made indicating the circumstances in which the relationship between the creditor and debtor may be regarded unfair. They have argued that this would undermine the flexibility of the provisions. They contend that to give undue emphasis to some things by spelling them out would necessarily limit the range of issues that the court may consider and risk creating a ‘box-ticking’ mentality amongst lenders which would shift emphasis from the substance to the form of the lender/borrower relationship. For lenders, it is a question of trying to piece together available information to try and anticipate how the courts will intrpret the provision. Fairness clearly goes beyond the transparency of the agreement. If not, compliance with the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2004 would be sufficient to make any agreement fair. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (24 October 2005) offered some views on where lenders should look for guidance: ‘We consider there to be suitable guidance available to the meaning of ‘unfair’ in the case-law interpreting the same term in other, closely analagous statutory contexts, in particular the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The House of Lords in a recent decision (The Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52) gave extensive consideration to the meaning of ‘unfair’ in those Regulations in the specific context of a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.’ Under the 1999 Regulations (regulation 4 and schedule 2) a term is unfair if it; *causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations *to the detriment of the consumer and *is contrary to good faith. Examples include; forcing a consumer in breach to pay disproportionately high compensation irrevocably binding a consumer on terms with which he had no opportunity to become familiar before the conclusion of the contract allowing the seller/supplier to alter unilaterally, without valid reason, any characteristics of the product or service provided. The House of Lords expanded upon these principles in the First National case, suggesting that fairness required; no significant imbalance between the parties. This may arise where the supplier is granted a beneficial option or discretion or power, or a disadvantageous burden, risk or duty is imposed upon the consumer *fair and open dealings *full, clear and legible terms with no concealed pitfalls or traps *appropriate prominence for terms which might disadvantage the consumer not taking advantage, deliberately or unconsciously, of the consumer's necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, weak bargaining position or any other relevant factor. These illustrations are a good starting point, but policy makers comments suggest that the interpretation of unfairness may go much further. Taken to its most extreme, the new regime may impose a requirement on lenders to undertake and verify fact finds about potential borrowers. Not only about their financial circumstances, but about their personal circumstances, their health, and medical history. Lenders can anticipate a considerable period of uncertainty until some decisions on what constitutes unfairness start to filter through. A piecemeal and unsatisfactory solution. Of even greater concern is that fact that the standard will not be established by the courts alone – FOS, a rather different animal, and, most importantly, free to consumers, is likely to be their first port of call, and therefore to set precedents. The Financial Services Ombudsman One of the most significant changes for lenders is that all customers of consumer credit licence holder will have access, free of charge, to an Alternative Dispute Mechanism in the form of the Financial Services Ombudsman (FOS). FOS will have jurisdiction over any act or omission by a consumer credit licensee in the course of a licensed business. To date, only customers of FSA-regulated lenders have been able to go to FOS, and there have been relatively few consumer credit cases. However, this may change when consumers are able to take claims of unfair relationships to FOS under the new regime. While only a court may make an order under the new section 140B (the powers of the court in relation to unfair relationships) FOS has significant powers of redress. Particularly as it is not bound by legal precedent, as confirmed in the recent case of IFG Financial Services Limited v Financial Ombudsman Services Ltd [2005]. Here, the High Court held that the relevant law was only one of a number of factors which FOS is required to consider in reaching a decision and that FOS may legitimately ‘depart from the result mandated by the law if he considered that another result provided the result that was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.’ Furthermore, FOS’s decision is final. There is no right of appeal for the regulated entity, only the option of judicial review to challenge the decision-making process, rather than the decision itself. Although FOS is a more informal body than the courts, in practice it wields enormous power. Financial services providers who refuse to comply with decisions against them face court enforcement action and face disciplinary proceedings by their regulator. Retrospectivity The Act will apply to: credit agreements entered into after the Act becomes law credit agreements in existence when the Act becomes law which are ongoing at the end of the transitional period (one year after the commencement date). However, for agreements in this category, the Court will be limited to granting relief in relation to: *payments demanded or sums charged after the Act becomes law *conduct on the part of the lender that makes any repayment of the debt, interest, fees or charges unreasonably high after the Act becomes law; or *any other obligation on the borrower that is unfair under the new test and has to be complied with after the Act becomes law. The Court may set aside credit agreements where there has been unfairness prior to the Act becoming law, but only if the unfairness manifests after the Act becomes law; and with effect from the date on which the Act becomes law. The financial exposure of lenders is limited by only permitting the Court to give relief in respect of unfairness or excessive costs that occurs after the Act becomes law. Nevertheless, lenders who have advanced medium-long term loans should be reviewing all those which are likely to extend beyond the transitional period to double check they do not include terms which are likely to fall foul of the widened unfairness test. The partial retrospectivity has triggered another debate, concerning its impact on the securitization market. Many personal loans, mortgages and credit cards, entered into before lenders became aware of the new requirements, have been securitised under arrangements, which could not have contemplated that they would become subject to the new unfair relationship provisions. In the House of Lords, it was argued that the UK securitisation market (which has has brought in some £235 million of new funds to UK lending markets) relies on the underlying loans having stable and consistent terms and conditions and a pre-determined risk profile. Case law which defines unfairness too broadly risks triggering a buy-back scramble under securitised deals. This could destabalise the credit market, increasing capital costs for lenders which would be passed on to borrowers as higher charges. This has cut no ice with the Government. It has reponded that it would be unreasonable to exclude long term agreements – of up to 20 years plus – simply because they were concluded prior to the commencement date. On the securitisation issue it was opined that no funding arrangements should be based, even in part, on the inability of consumers effectively to seek redress for behaviour by lenders that cause them harm. The burden of proof This rests on the creditor. An amendment to place the burden of proof on the debtor if it is proven that the terms of the agreement were in plain, intelligible language was rejected on the grounds that the proposed new Section 140B(10) provides that the debtor must allege that an unfair relationship exists before the creditor must show that it is not. The government felt that lenders are better placed to show that their conduct is not unfair and that consumers will find it difficult to access relevant information. In practical terms, this obligation imposes a massive obligation on creditors to keep accurate records. What is more, records must be kept for a significant period, given the possibility of claims after the agreement has expired. Unfairness and Irresponsible Lending Throughout the legislative process there have been calls from consumer groups and politicians for irresponsible lending to be linked directly to unfairness, so lending irresponsibly would automatically render an agreement unfair. This was resisted, along with attempts to seek guidance generally, in the interests of retaining maximum flexibility. However, on the third reading of the Bill before the House of Lords on 21 March 2006, an obligation to lend responsibly crept in under a slightly different guise. Rather than introducing a direct duty on lenders, an amendment was passed to ensure that the OFT can take into account include practices in the carrying on of a consumer credit business that appear to the OFT to involve irresponsible lending in determining fitness to hold a licence under the Act: Lord Borrie spelt it out in debate thus; ‘Lending to those who are already overcommitted with debt is irresponsible. I trust that this new provision will incentivise lenders and potential lenders to take a good deal of care in checking out the borrower's means to repay and the extent to which repayment may be inhibited by the obligations that the borrower has to other lenders’. Aside from issues of OFT accountability, in particular the concern that the OFT will define its own powers and then enforce them without consultation, this amendment is likely to impact on fairness. Overlap between the two concepts is anticipated. A finding that a lender has acted irresponsibly is likely to trigger allegations of unfairness and vice versa. Summary Lenders cannot afford to be complacent about the new regime. It is likely that more borrowers will be encouraged to try their hand at alleging unfairness, because it can be used as a sword as well as a shield; a borrower will not have to wait until they are facing enforcement proceedings to raise the issue. They don’t even have to be in arrears. Depending on the approach taken by FOS and the courts in the early days, lender could face a wave of speculative claims. As endowment providers have already discovered, in the absence of contemporaneous records to evidence exchanges with customers, it is more difficult to dispute the customer’s version of events. All dealings, including meetings, telephone calls and emails, need to be documented to enable the creditor to evidence what was said/done if a customer alleges unfairness. In addition, it is possible that lenders will need to be able demonstrate that they took steps to ascertain that the borrower had the means to repay the loan, not only in terms of income but all outgoings, including other credit commitments, or risk having contracts overturned. Depending on how paternalistic the courts and FOS are prepared to be, we may be just a short time away from compulsory detailed factfinds and suitability certification for every loan.

Thanks again diddled ,.. your posts certainly sent me on a research buzz , and very pleased in what we found , it has openned up our eyes to a better option which most likely will go in our favour , as difinately unfair on many aspects , and as earlier date not under new CCA act , the decision is not in the judges hands to decide (lender friendly) if its enforceable or not ,... and we can start the ball rolling ,.. we do not have to wait for a courtcase , or wait for arrears , we can strike as soon as , and intend too ,.. best wishes

Hi there again , then i will chase this up again , i either got a lazy rep or heard it wrong , but sure i supplied the dates , companies involved and amount , well thanks for pointing this out , see all little bits of info help , thank you

when was the agreement dated ? as my way back in 2003, and was advised the FOS reg agreements 2004 /& above

it is not legal ,.. the FOS can not get involved as above £25k , It looks like I will have to fight it myself , as everywhere we have turned , its the same story "Sorry we can not get involved" above the limit , not regulated , company not under our duristriction on them dates , if i never knew better one would think all conected , and it gets better , have only scratched the surface , they is now nearly £6000 worth of arrears , I dispute my account begining of 2008, was told it would be dealt with in house , as my balance continued to grow after recieving statements,.. just befor xmas 2009 (just gone) decided that they wanted to evict us ,..for the £6000 arrears (what had built up whilst they delt with my concerns , the account was frozen as advised at the time,.. so not only did they not deal with my compliant , they popped back up with £6000 debt ,.. I can not wait to hear why it was left like this for such a long period ? and why the arrears if debt was frozen ,.. surely they can not be silly enough to try and kid the judge otherwise are they ? and considering we were on an IVA suspended possession order ,.. 15 month later big bill !!!!!! by the time we are in court will be nearly 2 years ,.. just need to get the best plan of attack ,.. all thoughts welcome

no thoughts anyone ???????

Hi do you have a link to that info , definately worth a read ,.. thanks

Hi just copied and pasted it ,.. and if i left in the figures would it not be easily figured out who's agreement it is from the guest's who visit with the sole purpose of seeing the evidence/case against them ( G E )

Hi there again Frettful , yes this was with photobucket, am i doing something wrong ?