Well said. I fear that some individuals on these boards who benefit psychologically from feeling like the expert, when in fact they could be leading people down the garden path. Concerning in the extreme.

The same question could be posed back, what do you get out of keeping someone on these forums rather than allowing them to take advantage of an offer of pro-bono representation? Perhaps it appeals to your vanity, to feel like you're the saviour and the expert, and the "responsible adult", rather than allow an OP to be the one to consider whether an offer of free representation is in their best interests. Do you think a QC would be making money by forbearing to do their usual work on corporate tax so they can help someone with a piddly county court consumer credit recovery? Do you really think that's a net gain for them financially?

What do you mean could I "counter argue" Carey? What aspect of Carey would they be raising, and in response to what?

"so what does John Smith QC at ABC Chambers get out of this?" What does anyone on here get out of helping someone? Why do any lawyers or doctors ever act pro-bono? Frankly, I think this forum's management should be taking a long hard look at itself for blocking an OP getting real, professional help for free where it was in fact offered, because of their own suspicious attitude and belief that the OP is not an adult who could evaluate an offer of help made on its merits.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, much appreciated. I just wanted to clarify the above, sorry if I'm coming across as a bit thick. Would it be permitted for me to PM an OP and say "I spoke to a friend of mine about your case, and he's happy to give you 100% pro-bono advice / representation on this matter. Just call John Smith QC at ABC Chambers, tell him you're the person MostUncivilised discussed with him, and he'll take it from there". The OP would tell the thread that a certain lawyer has offered their services for the case, and keep the thread updated with all the aspects of the case, the details, the outcome, and so on. I think the reasoning behind PMing instead of putting it on the public channel is that sometimes a lawyer may not want their name put out on the internet in connection with a particular case. Is this within the rules?

I'm guessing this is a response to the thread I posted, so thought I'd clarify myself and apologise for being so strident. I take your points entirely about ensuring that everyone benefits from seeing the information and tactics used in cases and what results they render. And I see what you're saying about all the people who have contributed being able to see the results of their help, and making available that information as widely as possible. I wasn't trying to have a go at the individual mod or the forum generally (or rather, I jumped the gun and could have thought about what I said more carefully). But I was very disappointed as the two colleagues/friends I had in mind are very good lawyers, and would be doing it on a purely pro-bono basis. It also upset me a little to be labelled a possible tout or troll as my only motivation was to help the OP, and that with more people on the case, including legal professionals, they'd really be able to obtain the best possible outcome. I suppose I'd be keen to know whether it is permitted to put an OP in touch with particular lawyer/s for pro-bono help on a one-off basis (on the understanding that they provide all the information about the outcomes to the forum)? Also, whether it is okay to provide people with caselaw and extracts of legal texts from legal databases that they otherwise cannot access.

Curiouser and curiouser. You continually appear to encourage people to do less rather than more, and give factually incorrect legal advice like claiming that interest charges are not enforceable in court. They are enforceable and they are enforced all the time, and it is highly irresponsible to claim otherwise. With regards to local MPs, you don't know until you try. If someone is, for example, a single mother or a pensioner, there is a good chance they may obtain assistance from their MP in dealing with the PDL, and when I did a vac posting in an MPs constituency office we did help quite a few people with utility companies and the like. Even if they don't receive direct assistance, it always helps for MPs to be getting this feedback from their staff as it will help to develop the MPs position on PDLs. I think you should be more careful about the advice you're giving; it's simply irresponsible to be posting factually incorrect legal advice and encouraging people to limit their options and narrow the scope of the manner in which they attempt to reduce their liability.

I'm curious what expertise you bring to the table to be able to conclude this? And yet you were claiming that in fact they were breaching data protection? Immoral is creating an entire industry out of loan-sharking rates that would embarass the mafia. If the PDL industry is too cheap and scummy to bother even to ensure that their contracts are properly drafted legally, then they deserve to suffer the consequences. This is exactly the same as evidence being non-admissible in criminal trials when it has been obtained by torture, illegal wiretapping, or baseless hearsay. This is a way to judicially regulate bad behaviour on the part of prosecutors and the police (some would call this "getting off on a technicality"; perhaps you would, it seems so) What is not immoral is using every argument, technicality and circumstantial advantage to assist someone on here; I have no sympathy whatsoever for these human misery merchants in the PDL industry and I don't shrink for a bit from trying to help people to get the best possible outcome they can. I find your attitude quite extraordinary and rather curious in terms of why you're so eager that people not do whatever they need to in order to obtain the best outcome, and your claim that it is "legally" wrong for someone to obtain a good outcome where a PDL company has messed up with their T&Cs is utterly inexplicable and factually incorrect.

Cheers matey Payday lenders and recovery agents rely heavily on the fact that most of the people they deal with are not particularly well-informed about the law or their rights, they don't have access to legal databases and caselaw, they're not confident about their rights and able to identify misrepresentations when they encounter them. I suspect that MH will have a fit when they realise not only that they can't bully or intimidate me into paying their pie in the sky demand, but it taking on this debt may actually cost them money.

Cheers I suspect this letter will cause them to kick the dog, as it were. It has enough legal red meat in there that they may need to get a lawyer rather than an admin to take a look at it. I actually subsequently picked up a few other irregularities on their part / the part of their client, withdrew my offer for final settlement for £1 and tentatively said that I would allow full and final settlement if they paid me £100. Will see how they respond ;-) As I said above to sillygirl1, I'm not going to them as a supplicant; I'm 100% going on the offensive and that's the best way to go about it imho. I'll most definitely tell you how it turns out (unless they make an offer which is favourable to me but requires non-disclosure; I hope you'd understand there if I go for it).

The breach of contract is where we have modified the bargain, and the "consideration" (the contractual promise) on my part is forbearance from regulatory complaint (a practical benefit in the Roffey Bros sense), and then I breach on that promise. I'm not talking about breach of the original loan agreement. I'm curious how you think the Law Society would view pre-meditatively and deceptively contracting with another party, and then breaching? This is quite serious misconduct. If I am offering MH a deal that includes my forbearance in terms of complaints to regulators as contractual consideration for full and final satisfaction of the debt on the terms mentioned above, it would be unethical (not to mention an indisputable legal breach of contract) to subsequently complain to regulators. In terms of your opinion that my strategy is not a good one, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and I suppose we'll see how I do. I'm confident that I'm in a pretty strong position, and the reasonableness or lack thereof of the £ figure they're claiming is the least compelling point in my email. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm often circumspect about saying this, but I'm skeptical you understood many of the points in my email, as I feel you would not be as dismissive of the other assertions if you understood the implications of what I was claiming.

The credit check linking is unproblematic as far as I can see. However, the general nature of the contract and seeming failure to spell out the most basic, core contract terms such as the amount of the principal and the repayment date could lead to some to conclude that it is an improperly executed agreement and thus unenforceable (though not voidable). Some might conclude that; of course, I have no opinion on the matter. Certainly something to ponder. This is not legal advice; it is for educational purposes only and I accept no liability for its accuracy. Always seek advice from a legal professional with a practicing certificate etc etc

Speak to your local CAB; Minicredit are hardcore when it comes to recovering consumer credit debts (see my post "That's gotta hurt"; I'm 6 months down the track). They will not budge an inch and I consider myself a very effective advocate for my own interests. However, their stubbornness is also their greatest weakness, and leaves them open to regulatory censure. The OFT guidelines on the recovery of consumer credit debts state quite clearly that 2.2 In general terms, businesses should • treat debtors fairly – debtors should not be subjected to aggressive practices, inappropriate coercion, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not • be transparent in their dealings with debtors and others – information provided should be clear and should not be confusing or misleading • exercise forbearance and consideration – in particular towards debtors experiencing difficulty - we would expect businesses to work with debtors with a view to providing them with reasonable time and opportunity to repay debts and, where appropriate, to signpost them to sources of free independent debt advice • act proportionately when seeking to recover debts, taking into account debtors' circumstances - actions taken in respect of http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT664Rev.pdf Their clear failure to act in accordance with OFT guidance, the failure to attempt to mitigate their loss, to act in a reasonable manner; they can't possibly be helpful if they were the subject of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman and OFT on the basis of s140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Some of their actions could also be construed as aggressive or misleading business practices under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. You might also consider looking at whether they have observed the formalities required in a consumer credit contract; if it is improperly executed (does not contain all the required contract terms) it is unenforceable by virtue of s65 and s127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I would emphasise that I am not saying that they have contravened these statutes and regulations, or encouraging you to take any particular course of action (except to consult the CAB or a lawyer); however, I would venture that to take the positions they have on a debt of £120 and to continue to purport that penalties and interests are accruing while you're off work due to illness, requires an especially acquisitive and soulless person. Also, email your MP and see if you can have someone from their constituency office assist you. This isn't legal advice and is merely for educational purposes. Always consult a legal professional prior to acting on such information

I suppose I'd have to wait for their response. Forbearing to pursue legal action or a regulatory complaint is good consideration in contractual terms; a fair construction of my letter would indicate that I am proposing to exchange final settlement of the existing debt on the proposed terms in exchange for my forbearance in relation to the actions mentioned in the final paragraph. If we contracted on those terms, and then I made a subsequent complaint, it could leave me liable for breach of contract, and considering my industry could be a breach of professional ethics. But I do take your point; the payday lender industry in the UK is totally out of control, and the regulators and policy makers will only act when they see a popular groundswell demanding it.

Same story as everyone else on here. Totally unreasonable and ridiculous conduct on the part of Minicredit. I got a letter from Muck Hall demanding almost £1000 (on a principal of £150) I chained myself to the beast; Westlaw and the White Book on one monitor and Gmail on the other, and got to work. This is not legal advice; it is for educational purposes only and I accept no liability for the accuracy of the claims. Always seek advice from a legal professional before making decisions about legal matters