why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement

[freethemice]

This is proving a nightmare for caggers.

 

Is there now in place any mechanism to find out if a Creditor has kept your original agreement when you disagree with the terms they state apply or believe what they have shown you is a forgery?

you must have a well constructed case when using CPR31.16 as this ruling has "tightened up" the requirement to ensure that it is not seen as a fishing excercise or "punt" as the judge described it- and that in his opinion- this might now be beyond the remit of a cagger and should be done with legal advice

 

How do we insist on our right to see the original agreement when court proceedings have been issued against us and the county court judge seems inclined to accept a 'reconstituted' agreement will do? i.e. what legislation and case law should we be researching to avoid soundbites?

 

What I believe is neccassary here is a system like Scotland where the Claimant has to produce the agreement on issuing of proceedings where money is claimed pursuant to an agreement. I have wrote to my mp on this issue and he has submitted this to the Secretary of State for Justice for review. I would urge other caggers to do the same.

 

I'll answer my own 1st point with DD's reply - could still do with some guidance on the second.

[emandcole]

This is from the Eversheds site.

 

Source: https://www.eversheds.com/uk/home/articles/index1.page?ArticleID=templatedata\Eversheds\articles\data\en\Financial_institutions\Alan_Kneale_v_Barclays_Bank_plc

The analysis at the end is in line with the general conclusions we have made. It is not good enough to simply apply under 31.16, there must be good reason to apply and this reason must be well documented and wholly plausible.

 

Justice Flaux has perhaps tightened the requirement up (no bad thing in some ways) resulting in any successful 31.16 application being a very powerful tool, just as it was intended to be.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

26-July-2010

Helpful pre-action disclosure guidance on CCA Claims: Alan Kneale v Barclays Bank plc

 

 

The High Court has handed down His Honour Judge Flaux's Judgment in the case of Alan Kneale v Barclays Bank plc (trading as Barclaycard) [2010] EWHC 1900 (Comm). The case concerned an appeal by Barclaycard against Judge Halbert's decision to grant an order for pre-action disclosure, compelling Barclaycard to provide an original or photocopy of Mr Kneale's signed credit agreement. Judge Flaux allowed the appeal, dismissing the application for pre-action disclosure and ordering that the Applicant pay Barclaycard's costs both at first instance and before him.

 

 

Background

 

The Applicant has been a customer of Barclaycard since March 1995. He requested a copy of his executed agreement under s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("CCA"). Barclaycard provided a reconstituted copy of the terms and conditions in place at the time the Applicant entered into the agreement, a copy of the terms and conditions currently in place in relation to his account and details of the Applicant's outstanding balance, credit limit and date and amount required for the next payment. Barclaycard had therefore complied with their CCA obligations.

 

 

The Applicant applied for pre-action disclosure of either the original or a copy of the original agreement which was signed by him. The basis of the application was that he could not be sure that the copy provided by Barclaycard was an exact copy of the agreement he signed. The application was supported by a witness statement (made by his solicitor) making reference to publicity generated by a recent 'Panorama' television programme and stating that "it is the Claimant's view from what he has seen and read a large percentage of credit card agreements that were issued before 6th April 2007…are unenforceable".

 

 

 

The Judge found it striking that this was the sum total of information provided by Mr Kneale, and particularly that there was no evidence from him as to whether he did or did not sign a credit agreement. Barclaycard, on the other hand, had provided statements from senior employees with considerable experience of Barclaycard's credit agreements.

In the County Court, Judge Halbert found in favour of Mr Kneale, allowing the application on the basis that it was necessary for the Applicant to see the original agreement to decipher whether it was enforceable. Judge Halbert allowed Barclaycard permission to appeal his decision.

 

Decision on Appeal

 

 

Judge Flaux found that there was no positive case advanced that Mr Kneale had not signed the agreement and it was not necessary for him to receive a direct copy of the actual executed credit agreement to see whether the particular agreement was enforceable because a Barclaycard official with considerable experience stated in her witness statement that she was confident that the terms and conditions which were sent to the Applicant were the correct ones.

 

 

 

Also, there was no suggestion advanced (nor were there any previous cases in which it had been suggested or proved) that Barclaycard had more than one set of terms and conditions in place at any one time. Judge Flaux found that, in these circumstances, the Court did not have the jurisdiction to make the order because there was no prospective claim for the Applicant; this was nothing more than a "speculative punt". Further, Judge Halbert had erred in the exercise of his discretion to grant the order.

 

 

Judge Flaux provided a considered and detailed judgment, which was split into three elements:

 

 

1. Did the Court have the jurisdiction to make the order?

 

Judge Flaux held that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the order. The rules surrounding pre-action disclosure are set out in CPR 31.16(3) and the current application failed to meet the requirements under those rules:

The application failed under CPR 31.16(3)(a) and (b). To satisfy the requirement that the Applicant and Respondent would both be likely to be parties to subsequent proceedings, there was a requirement that the Applicant must be able to prove that they had a prima facie case which was "more than just a speculative punt".

 

 

 

In this case, the Applicant was unable to meet this threshold. However, Judge Flaux, decided that an applicant does not have to meet the stricter criteria of proving a "real prospect of success" for the Court to have jurisdiction.

 

 

The application failed under CPR 31.16(3)(d). It must be "desirable" for the document to be disclosed to allow the case to be disposed of fairly at trial, to assist the dispute being resolved without the need for a trial or to save costs. On the basis that the Applicant had put forward no arguable case, nor had they put forward any evidence to suggest that they even had the beginnings of a case, this test was not satisfied.

 

 

The Court did not therefore have jurisdiction to allow the application under CPR 31.16(3)(a), (b) or (d).

 

 

2. Was the Court correct in exercising their discretion to make the order?

 

Even if Judge Flaux had found that the Court had jurisdiction to make the order, he would have had to consider the question of whether or not he should use his discretion to allow the order under CPR 31.16(3) - it was clarified that the Court had discretion as a result of the wording "the court may make an order if…".

 

 

Judge Flaux held that Judge Halbert's use of his discretion had "failed to take account of the speculative nature of the application and any possible claim" and had "taken account of something he ought not to…" by allowing Mr Kneale's argument of necessity. It was not necessary for Mr Kneale to see a copy of the original executed agreement; any case that Mr Kneale may have had could have been made on the basis of the materials which the bank had already produced to him.

 

 

The Court in the first instance had therefore erred in using their discretion to allow the application.

 

 

3. Costs

 

In the current case, the initial decision to allow pre-action disclosure was overturned, so the discussion regarding the initial order as to costs was academic. However, Judge Flaux commented on the basis that the issue was "of significance generally".

 

 

In the County Court, Judge Halbert required Barclaycard to pay Mr Kneale's costs in the application on the basis that they had acted unreasonably. The standard position is that the applicant pays all the costs in an application for pre-action disclosure. A 2007 Court of Appeal decision, SES Contracting Limited v UK Coal Plc [2007] EWCA 79 ("SES") involved a situation where the respondent in a pre-action disclosure application had acted unreasonably.

 

 

 

In this case the Court of Appeal was not willing to push the standard costs position any further than to order that the respondent pay their own costs. They refused to allow the applicant their costs. Indeed, Judge Flaux stated in relation to pre-action disclosure applications that "it appears [from SES] that there had never been a previous case in which a court, however unreasonable the respondent's conduct, had ever gone further than requiring the respondent to bear his own costs".

 

 

Judge Flaux held that there was "nothing in the manner of the bank's opposition which was so unreasonable as to warrant a departure from the normal order, let alone an order that the bank should pay all the costs". He would therefore have given the usual order as to costs had the application been successful, namely that Mr Kneale would have paid Barclaycard's costs.

 

 

Analysis

 

This decision is a thorough and well considered Judgment on the criteria for pre-action disclosure and the extent of the Court's jurisdiction and discretion in this area. As such, it will be of interest to anyone involved in litigation.

 

 

In the consumer credit sphere, this decision sends a firm message to those firms that are pursuing pre-action applications for copies of credit agreements. It will now only be possible to succeed in such an application by putting forward a positive case to suggest the executed agreement was non compliant.

 

 

 

Even then, the lender will usually be able to recover their costs and this decision removes any possibility of applicants recovering their costs unless there has been significant misconduct by the lender.

 

 

However, this decision is also of wider use to lenders in its general approach and robust analysis of the evidence put forward by Mr Kneale and Barclaycard. Many debtors are still seeking to defend consumer credit claims by requiring disclosure of the executed credit agreement and putting lenders to strict proof of proper execution. They rely on general assertions of widespread non-compliance by lenders and seek to question to veracity of the witnesses lenders put forward.

 

 

 

The Court's criticism of Mr Kneale's evidence and his failure to put forward information on his own recollections will therefore be useful, as will the Court's willingness to accept Barclaycard's evidence and the conclusion in this case that there was no need to see the executed document to decide whether the agreement was enforceable.

[bustthematrix]

...the conclusion in this case that there was no need to see the executed document to decide whether the agreement was enforceable.

Which of course is nonsense because you DO need to see the executed agreement!

 

The key thing here is the phrase "in this case". Justice Flaux did not feel that Kneale had done enough to show why CPR 31.16 should be complied with in this particular case.

 

He did NOT say that "there was no need to see the executed document to decide whether the agreement was enforceable" in every case, regardless of who is claimant or defendant.

 

We need to be extremely CLEAR on this point.

 

It only applied to THIS case (Kneale as claimant) and he DID affirm that had Kneale done certain things such as discredit the recon, aver his position on what he believed he signed or did not sign, he might have viewed it differently. Let's also remember, as I keep saying, that the District Judge DID think Kneale had done enough to use CPR 31.16, for the purpose it was intended and in the best interests of Justice for this case.

 

Also freethemice, when you/we are the defendant, remember that mechanisms for putting the claimant to strict proof on documentary evidence and proper execution have not been done away with. They are still there and always have been and some of the recent rulings, though not all with positive general outcomes, often have useful elements within them.

 

"They" certainly have not made it easy, but then is it supposed to be easy?

[bustthematrix]

This is from the Eversheds site.

 

Source: https://www.eversheds.com/uk/home/articles/index1.page?ArticleID=templatedata\Eversheds\articles\data\en\Financial_institutions\Alan_Kneale_v_Barclays_Bank_plc

The analysis at the end is in line with the general conclusions we have made. It is not good enough to simply apply under 31.16, there must be good reason to apply and this reason must be well documented and wholly plausible

 

Another nice find E

[FlyboyAgain]

Also on this site

Credit Today online

 

there's some very discouraging remarks

 

Indeed, and one James Carpenter has got his drawers in a right twist! Vindictive, bitter people.

[emandcole]

Indeed, and one James Carpenter has got his drawers in a right twist! Vindictive, bitter people.

 

Indeed. They simply fail to realise (deliberately I'm sure in most cases) that CAG would not exist if the financial industry and the parasitic DCA clones behaved themselves. The simple truth therefore is that

CAG was born from necessity

 

Like many great inventions of our age CAG is merely a response to a need, a need ironically created by themselves.

 

Like crones gathered around their cauldron they now have the bare faced cheek to point the figure at forum users when their beauty spell has finally been lifted by knowledge to reveal the ugliness and arrogance of capitalistic greed in all its splendour.

 

Suck it up Credit Today users, suck it up.

[FlyboyAgain]

Well said, emandcole.

 

Stunned at the progress of this thread in my lengthy absence!

[emandcole]

Well said, emandcole.

 

Stunned at the progress of this thread in my lengthy absence!

 

'No flies on us mate' would sum it up nicely I think

[bustthematrix]

Which of course is nonsense because you DO need to see the executed agreement!

 

The key thing here is the phrase "in this case". Justice Flaux did not feel that Kneale had done enough to show why CPR 31.16 should be complied with in this particular case.

 

He did NOT say that "there was no need to see the executed document to decide whether the agreement was enforceable" in every case, regardless of who is claimant or defendant.

 

We need to be extremely CLEAR on this point.

 

It only applied to THIS case (Kneale as claimant) and he DID affirm that had Kneale done certain things such as discredit the recon, aver his position on what he believed he signed or did not sign, he might have viewed it differently. Let's also remember, as I keep saying, that the District Judge DID think Kneale had done enough to use CPR 31.16, for the purpose it was intended and in the best interests of Justice for this case.

 

Also freethemice, when you/we are the defendant, remember that mechanisms for putting the claimant to strict proof on documentary evidence and proper execution have not been done away with. They are still there and always have been and some of the recent rulings, though not all with positive general outcomes, often have useful elements within them, which empower the defence against non-compliant CCAs.

 

"They" certainly have not made it easy, but then is it supposed to be easy?

[means2anend]

2. Was the Court correct in exercising their discretion to make the order?

 

Even if Judge Flaux had found that the Court had jurisdiction to make the order, he would have had to consider the question of whether or not he should use his discretion to allow the order under CPR 31.16(3) - it was clarified that the Court had discretion as a result of the wording "the court may make an order if…".

 

 

Judge Flaux held that Judge Halbert's use of his discretion had "failed to take account of the speculative nature of the application and any possible claim" and had "taken account of something he ought not to…" by allowing Mr Kneale's argument of necessity. It was not necessary for Mr Kneale to see a copy of the original executed agreement; any case that Mr Kneale may have had could have been made on the basis of the materials which the bank had already produced to him.

 

This is the problem though is it not...that it is on the absence of the materials that causes us mostly to ask to see them

[bustthematrix]

Judge Flaux held that Judge Halbert's use of his discretion had "failed to take account of the speculative nature of the application and any possible claim" and had "taken account of something he ought not to…" by allowing Mr Kneale's argument of necessity. It was not necessary for Mr Kneale to see a copy of the original executed agreement; any case that Mr Kneale may have had could have been made on the basis of the materials which the bank had already produced to him.

How the h*ck could he have done this reliably with a recon without prejudicing himself in some way and thus relying entirely on the trustworthiness of the creditor? It's asking a bit much isn't it? It seems that Flaux thinks creditors are entirely reasonable, honest and dependable and cares little about the massive potential for abuse and fraud by lenders in such matters.

This is the problem though is it not...that it is on the absence of the materials that causes us mostly to ask to see them

I touched on this in one of my earlier posts. This is where the objects of justice come into play and where, IMO, Halbert did a better job than Flaux. He simply reasoned that to make the order was a simple matter that would save everyone a lot of time hassle and costs and get to the truth very quickly!!! Quite sensible in my view and exactly what courts are there for - not smoke and mirrors nonsense!!!

 

As it happens, Kneale lost and has ended up in a terrible situation for a debt that he probably does not legally owe, under the CCA. Let's not forget that in all of this, no compliant executed agreement was ever produced by the creditor. That is clearly NOT in the interests of the consumer and was certainly not why the CCA was enacted.

 

At the end of the day, if the banks and the judiciary really want to stop all the CCA battles, they should repeal Wilson and the related cases or make the repeal of S127(3) fully retrospective.

 

It's very wrong to clearly state at Supreme Court/HOL level that an Agreement is Unenforceable under the CCA and the credit amounts to a gift. Then to allow lower courts to rule as they have under McGuffick which seems to flies in the face of such clear, higher level legal opinions.

[FlyboyAgain]

 

At the end of the day, if the banks and the judiciary really want to stop all the CCA battles, they should repeal Wilson and the related cases or make the repeal of S127(3) fully retrospective.

 

.

 

I wouldn't doubt that the latter would never happen. They, the banks, ad nauseam, have gotten the goal posts moved once; what's to stop them, with their cosy wee golf course and luncheon chats with the judiciary and Camerlegg, to stop them getting their way again.

 

And the law? Well, you can bend it like Beckham if you're able to do so, if you catch my drift! That said, thank God for the Law Lords.

[bustthematrix]

I wouldn't doubt that the latter would never happen. They, the banks, ad nauseam, have gotten the goal posts moved once; what's to stop them, with their cosy wee golf course and luncheon chats with the judiciary and Camerlegg, to stop them getting their way again.

 

And the law? Well, you can bend it like Beckham if you're able to do so, if you catch my drift! That said, thank God for the Law Lords.

That's precisely what I mean, rather than perverting and 'abusing' the law as it currently stands thereby misleading people and creating a mass of confusion and complaints, THEY, who have the control and the clout to change the law and 'move the goal posts', should simply do so. They win. Full stop. Everybody back in their place your Lordships.

[the_shadow]

if you catch my drift! That said, thank God for the Law Lords.

 

Hmmmm arent they trying to abolish the house of lords??? ;-)

 

S.

[FlyboyAgain]

For all their faults the highest court in the land has had its existence justified time and time again! That said, if the banks try to get any more goal posts moved then that would be seen as further closing of loopholes and if the Law Lords found in favour of that, then I'd be off to Brussels!!

 

Somehow, I don't think that will happen. But one never knows.

[basa48]

It's very wrong to clearly state at Supreme Court/HOL level that an Agreement is Unenforceable under the CCA and the credit amounts to a gift. Then to allow lower courts to rule as they have under McGuffick which seems to flies in the face of such clear, higher level legal opinions.

 

Wilson and McGuffick look at very different aspects of the CCA.

 

McGuffick only states that temporary lack of an agreement pursuant to a s78 request doesn't make an agreement irredeemably unenforceable. (Well duh!).

 

Wilson, as everyone knows, re-affirms that a document that doesn't satisfy s.61 is unenforceable due to 127.

 

Carey doesn't go contrary to Wilson either.

 

I think all three cases sit quite happily together. What's the beef?

[Peterbard]

I touched on this in one of my earlier posts. This is where the objects of justice come into play and where, IMO, Halbert did a better job than Flaux. He simply reasoned that to make the order was a simple matter that would save everyone a lot of time hassle and costs and get to the truth very quickly!!! Quite sensible in my view and exactly what courts are there for - not smoke and mirrors nonsense!!!

 

As it happens, Kneale lost and has ended up in a terrible situation for a debt that he probably does not legally owe, under the CCA. Let's not forget that in all of this, no compliant executed agreement was ever produced by the creditor. That is clearly NOT in the interests of the consumer and was certainly not why the CCA was enacted.

 

At the end of the day, if the banks and the judiciary really want to stop all the CCA battles, they should repeal Wilson and the related cases or make the repeal of S127(3) fully retrospective.

 

It's very wrong to clearly state at Supreme Court/HOL level that an Agreement is Unenforceable under the CCA and the credit amounts to a gift. Then to allow lower courts to rule as they have under McGuffick which seems to flies in the face of such clear, higher level legal opinions.

 

Ho

Hi

This is a common misconception of the high court ruling .It does not say that because an agreement is unenforceable the credit under the agreement is a gift, it in fact says the opposite.

It concludes that if it where a gift it would contravene the individuals basic human rights to the peaceful enjoyment of his property. You have to read the judgement in full.

Just because an agreement is unenforceable does not mean the money is not owed just that the court cannot assist in collecting it

Peter

[Fingers60]

Hi

You miss my point.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opiniion on here, but it must always be treated to adegree of scrutiny by other posters.

Because of the nature of PTs posts any dissagreement is treated with abuse.

　

I showed this thread to a friend of mine who is a solicitor when it first came out, he said a solicitor would have to be mad to risk this.

I kept my mouth shut because of the stick I got from questioning his logic on other threads.

Perhaps I should have bit the bullet.

Peter

 

Hi Peter

 

Barclays are not sending credit agreements out in response to 77/78 requests and now following the kneale judgement, how would you go about obtaining a copy of your original credit agreement from here?

 

F

[Peterbard]

Hi Peter

 

Barclays are not sending credit agreements out in response to 77/78 requests and now following the kneale judgement, how would you go about obtaining a copy of your original credit agreement from here?

 

F

 

If the account is covered bythe CCA they still have to respond to a Section 77 request.

 

Do you believe that you never signed an agreement or that you have been mistreated in some other way.

 

I think we now have to srart thiking about what it is that the creditor has done wrong before we start any action.

 

If a bill arives on your door step that you know nothing about then you have the right to see proof that you owe the money, if this is the case then you can use any method you want to pursue the creditor,if however you are just fishing for a reason to put off pament of a legitimate debt then this is no longer the route.

 

Peter

[emandcole]

Hi Peter

 

Barclays are not sending credit agreements out in response to 77/78 requests and now following the kneale judgement, how would you go about obtaining a copy of your original credit agreement from here?

 

F

 

Agree, Barclaycard refuse to issue anything despite a wait of more than 20 months. They are now hiding behind the obvious fact that they do not even appear to have copies of any agreements. Very poor.

 

Before this Kneale case I did use 31.16 but laid out a list of reasons as to why I wished to inspect a copy of the agreement. Unlike the Kneale case which appeared to have just asked for it with no actual reasoned principle behind it (the fishing trip) I detailed concerns about interest rates etc stating from memeory that I thought the rates offered were different to that shown on statements etc.

 

I gave a few reasons anyway, all supported further by their lack of CCA compliance from an original request.

 

Still waiting for a response, even an acknowledgement. I believe 31.16 is still very usable but also believe you must supply ample reason for the request once they've failed to respond to a CCA request.

 

We'll see what happens but I'd not be surprised if BC now choose to hide behind this Kneale farce to escape all of their duties. We'll see I guess.

[means2anend]

HHJ Flaux oviously gave a forensically examined inspection of CPR 31 16...And it appears therefore that the two Judges approached the question from 2 different Rules of Interpretation/Constructio

 

Halbert J @ first instance approached it on the Purposive Basis..in other words the overriding objective of CPR in Part 1 whereas HHJ Flaux applied a Literal Consrtruction...

 

I think that Halbert J was more consistent in remaining close to the preamble of Part 1 and the CPR's introductions in relation to it's PURPOSE.

[bustthematrix]

HHJ Flaux oviously gave a forensically examined inspection of CPR 31 16...And it appears therefore that the two Judges approached the question from 2 different Rules of Interpretation/Constructio

 

Halbert J @ first instance approached it on the Purposive Basis..in other words the overriding objective of CPR in Part 1 whereas HHJ Flaux applied a Literal Consrtruction...

 

I think that Halbert J was more consistent in remaining close to the preamble of Part 1 and the CPR's introductions in relation to it's PURPOSE.

Agreed - I think he bent over backwards to give it to them, not that the CMC plonkers made it hard for him to rule for the lender! ...a Claimant with no clear cause of action!!!

[bustthematrix]

Agree, Barclaycard refuse to issue anything despite a wait of more than 20 months. They are now hiding behind the obvious fact that they do not even appear to have copies of any agreements. Very poor.

Very poor indeed. It is miffing how so many judges seem to be missing the injustice of this simple point and the extent to which consumers are open to abuse. The sort of thing the CCA was conceived to regulate.

Before this Kneale case I did use 31.16 but laid out a list of reasons as to why I wished to inspect a copy of the agreement. Unlike the Kneale case which appeared to have just asked for it with no actual reasoned principle behind it (the fishing trip) I detailed concerns about interest rates etc stating from memeory that I thought the rates offered were different to that shown on statements etc.

 

I gave a few reasons anyway, all supported further by their lack of CCA compliance from an original request.

 

Still waiting for a response, even an acknowledgement. I believe 31.16 is still very usable but also believe you must supply ample reason for the request once they've failed to respond to a CCA request.

I would agree. It's the fact that some plan to enforce a claim should the OC not comply that opens the door to trouble, imo. Sometimes, it's better to let the non-compliance stand as evidence to be used later should the need arise.

We'll see what happens but I'd not be surprised if BC now choose to hide behind this Kneale farce to escape all of their duties. We'll see I guess.

Of course they'll try. But, clever boy that you are, you will point out the differences between your request and Kneale. And where will that leave them? At some point, these guys will either have to play ball or change the game completely but they cannot keeping bending the rules as they do.

[diddydicky]

In a nutshell- LIP's should never (IMO) START actions against creditors (unless they have deep pockets).

 

Even when defending as LIP's - unless the LIP KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS the arguments and the legal basis of what he is proposing or defending- it is a bad idea.

 

too may LIP's are trying to act on "soundbite" legal arguments without really knowing what they are talking about

 

yet again, in this case "generalised" situations were proposed as the basis of the argument rather than specific admissions and/or denials

 

the result of ill informed actions and defences by LIP's is to make it harder for other LIP's to get results

[emandcole]

In a nutshell- LIP's should never (IMO) START actions against creditors (unless they have deep pockets).

 

Even when defending as LIP's - unless the LIP KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS the arguments and the legal basis of what he is proposing or defending- it is a bad idea.

 

too may LIP's are trying to act on "soundbite" legal arguments without really knowing what they are talking about

 

yet again, in this case "generalised" situations were proposed as the basis of the argument rather than specific admissions and/or denials

 

the result of ill informed actions and defences by LIP's is to make it harder for other LIP's to get results

 

Would agree, however this goes to show that actually the creditor debtor relationship is far from a level playing ground and this is wrong on so many levels.

 

Is there any other scenario where one party ignores rafts of regulation and 'consumer protection' to issue legal notices incorrectly that are subsequently registered for the world to see with no real recompense for the injured party?

 

I mean, have you tried getting an invalid default removed after a creditor has terminated? Course most of you have

 

You get a wave of excuse, typically along the lines of:

 

• No it's not invalid.
  
• It might be invalid but what are you going to do about it?
  
• Yes it's invalid but we don't have to remove it.
  

The CRA's are just as weak. Clearly not wanting to upset their 'customer base' they readily accept any excuse the registering party offer as to why it should stay there 'as an accurate record of your payment conduct'. The CRA's are not a government agency yet seem empowered beyond their means knowing the banks have got their backs.

 

They deny its anything to do with them, they just do what they're told by the creditor so 'You'll have to take it up with them'. Cue more ignorance.

 

We're all familiar with the letter tennis that can run to month after month and if you get nowhere you can always go to the 'authorities' . They must love sticking that cruddy leaflet into the final response envelope knowing you're screwed.

 

Ha ha, more months of form filling and waiting just to have an overworked and under powered 'investigations officer' issue a template letter full of excuses and waffle.

 

It is so one sided when a creditor makes an error however if a debtor does the same the creditor leans on all sorts of allowances to make it cost you. In reality where a creditor has messed up there seems little you can do other than risk a protracted and risky (in view of sufficient judge ignorance and bias) legal battle just to get something corrected!

 

There really needs to be a change and a new line of action open that doesn't automatically write off the next 18 months of your life purely to get a creditor to comply with very basic and well established regulation. Makes me mad.

 

We really need to work co-operatively on a new or revised line to take. This cannot go on.