Radio 4 "You & Yours"

[Huff&Puff]

Should be worth a listen to tomorrow (Thursday, 9th) - apparently they have an MP on the case of the DCA's activitie now

[worried parent]

Sounds very interesting.

 

Yet another one against DCA's. Getting quite frequent now.

[Huff&Puff]

Th usual carp being spouted, I'm sorry to say. But pleased do have a listen when they get round to posting it up on the site:

 

BBC - Radio 4 You and Yours - Wednesday

 

Unenforceability is a "loophole" apparently, it's got nothing to do with the banks not complying with the express provisions of the law

[Stephan56]

In all honesty, there is no such thing as a "loophole". There are badly drafted agreements and procedures that have not been followed, but these are serious flaws that can make agreements unenforceable. It is a matter of law! If banks and others, that seek to enforce agreements, are found to have "rubbish agreements" (and don't forget they drafted them in the first place) then too bad for them

[Huff&Puff]

It is on iPlayer here, though they show no signs of putting it on the original link that I posted

 

BBC iPlayer - You and Yours: 14/10/2009

[andydd]

Th usual carp being spouted, I'm sorry to say. But pleased do have a listen when they get round to posting it up on the site:

 

BBC - Radio 4 You and Yours - Wednesday

 

Unenforceability is a "loophole" apparently, it's got nothing to do with the banks not complying with the express provisions of the law

 

I know there are other threads going refering to this 'new' case..ggrr..I find it annoying to read/listen about it when they all talk rubbish.

 

There has be no major changes to the current situation, if your aggrement is unenforceable it will be almost impossible to force you to hand over any money, but of course they can write to you and ask you for the money, on the Times site it mentioned other ways of getting the debt but the only valid one I saw was using the off set provisions which only apply if you do your banking with the same company, most of us of course are well aware of this.

 

Andy

[cashins]

I must admit this 'loophole' nonesense gets me going as well.

 

The banks and finance houses cannot seem to follow what is a pretty basic set of instructions, that for the most part have been around for better than 30 years and that's a loophole?

 

WTF, they have legal departments, company lawyers and can afford to retain just about any firm of solicitors they like - and they STILL can't get it right.

 

What it boils down to is: They can scream to they're sick but when it comes to getting paid, tough.

 

David

[merlin100]

I must admit this 'loophole' nonesense gets me going as well.

 

The banks and finance houses cannot seem to follow what is a pretty basic set of instructions, that for the most part have been around for better than 30 years and that's a loophole?

 

WTF, they have legal departments, company lawyers and can afford to retain just about any firm of solicitors they like - and they STILL can't get it right.

 

What it boils down to is: They can scream to they're sick but when it comes to getting paid, tough.

 

David

 

Couldnt have put it better cashins - nice comment!

[spamheed]

It's all about playing by the rules.

 

This is their game

These are their rules

 

However,

if they don't know all of the rules, they can't call "foul" when someone uses their own rules against them.

 

How many CCJ's, Charging Orders and other enforcement Orders have been awarded on teachnicalities, or even worse by default because they have bamboozled some poor old lady with jargo, or told her that the case has been dropped when it hadn't etc, etc and so forth

[ajax95]

It's all about playing by the rules.

 

This is their game

These are their rules

 

I'd agree. I've experienced this all too often in the past, if there's an opportunity to move the goalposts they'll take it

 

However, if they don't know all of the rules, they can't call "foul" when someone uses their own rules against them.

 

True again, but until their backsides are given a proper kicking this won't change :-|

Edited October 15, 2009 by ajax95

[vint1954]

A carefully selected case to put before the commercial court.

 

There was a signed agreement though in this case.

 

Has to be remembered that the commercial court is lower in the pecking order than House of Lords rulings.

[Huff&Puff]

They've actually gone and mentioned the E word for once. And, surprise, surprise, a lawyer is saying that the enforceability of agreements needs to be determined by a lawyer

 

BBC - Radio 4 You and Yours - Thursday

[lickthewallfatboy]

well,a lawyer would do,wouldn't they?

 

[spamheed]

They've actually gone and mentioned the E word for once. And, surprise, surprise, a lawyer is saying that the enforceability of agreements needs to be determined by a lawyer

 

BBC - Radio 4 You and Yours - Thursday

 

 

The rest of us being illetrate maybe?

[Basil Fawlty]

They've taken it off now

[Hardupnotfedup]

basil it is still there, just read it

[Basil Fawlty]

basil it is still there, just read it

 

 

Cheers Hardup.... didnt realise you could read it too.

 

BF