Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[enoughisenough]

Post it here then.

[kel123]

I would if I could remember it all...lol. but here goes

 

This artical is a misrepresentation of the facts. It is not a loop hole in the law, it is the banks not conforming with legislation. Where does it talk about the narrow confines of the ruling i.e. s77 only and that it's concerns are with redeemable unenforceable credit agreements. Also where does it take about the future test cases that may probably overturn this ruling.

 

Thats the general gist or atleast based around this. There are a few other points but for the life in me I cannot remember

 

Now anyone want to take the bet

[enoughisenough]

Now anyone want to take the bet?

 

Nah,...I'll keep my tenner!

[MARTIN3030]

Links to other sites whether commercial or not are clearly explained in site rules.

Its not a case of engineering moderation as it suits nor targetting specific discussion-the posting guidance is clear for all-and applied to all,theres nothing complicated about that.

What other websites choose to allow or what goes on there is their business-we have our own and members are expected to comply with them.

simple as.

[elsinore]

Daily Express | YourMoney :: Consumers set to gain from debt cases-

 

Els

[enoughisenough]

Is the Mail playing the old good cop, bad cop routine?

 

I think we should be told!

[alanfromderby]

Numerous posts have been removed from this thread due to being "off-topic", please ensure that future posts on this thread relate to the discussion of issues regarding the test case as outlined by the opening poster.

[letitbeme]

Daily Express | YourMoney :: Consumers set to gain from debt cases-

 

Els

An accurate news report, at lest some Journalists do research there subject matter.

[Baggio]

An accurate news report, at lest some Journalists do research there subject matter.

 

but do the CAB audit agreements?

 

no they don't, so not totally 100% factual.

[letitbeme]

but do the CAB audit agreements?

 

no they don't, so not totally 100% factual.

 

Good Point!

[B3rty]

Interesting point in this case where Mr Justice Flaux said in paragraph 60

 

In a number of such cases, the courts have recognised that, although the statute may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist, even if unenforceable by the creditor

 

Maybe one to quote at Cabot when they claim to have assigned the rights but not the duties?

[Tricky Dickie]

Interesting point in this case where Mr Justice Flaux said in paragraph 60

 

 

 

Maybe one to quote at Cabot when they claim to have assigned the rights but not the duties?

 

Wasn't Rankine using this argument so he could 'buy' peoples debts before the MoJ cancelled his registration.

[sunray001]

"In a number of such cases, the courts have recognised that, although the statute may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist, even if unenforceable by the creditor"

 

 

But what exactly does it mean......?

[car2403]

"In a number of such cases, the courts have recognised that, although the statute may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist, even if unenforceable by the creditor"

 

 

But what exactly does it mean......?

 

It's semantics.

 

No company is going to allow an unenforceable debt to exist on there books. It would be very damaging to their portfolio, overall, as what will they do if you don't pay? Ask nicely?

 

Pah!

 

If a debt is declared unenforceable, it's generally written off and not pursued.

 

The Judge is talking about the effect on the contract between the parties, where the debt is declared unenforceable. Of course, there is still a contract, as there are rights and obligations, but they cannot be enforced by a Court. As a Court is the last avenue to enforce rights and obligations, there's little value in keeping an enforceable debt on the books. In fact, there's more value in writing it off, as there is tax implications and HMRC should really focus on that, IMHO.

[letitbeme]

there's little value in keeping an enforceable debt on the books. In fact, there's more value in writing it off, as there is tax implications and HMRC should really focus on that, IMHO.

 

I wish they did.

LIBM

[noomill060]

When a creditor charges an account off, does it get tax relief on the whole amount of the loss?

 

ie: if Sharkleys charges off £4000, do Sharkleys get to keep hold of £4000 they would otherwise have had to pay to HMRC?

[Baggio]

When a creditor charges an account off, does it get tax relief on the whole amount of the loss?

 

ie: if Sharkleys charges off £4000, do Sharkleys get to keep hold of £4000 they would otherwise have had to pay to HMRC?

 

no it would not work like that

 

i think it works in that a bad debt or unenforceable debt could be tax deductable for a creditor???

 

e.g

 

lender A makes 1m pre-tax profit

 

lender A writes off 200k in bad debts

 

lender A has a tax liabilty on 800k

[Tricky Dickie]

When a creditor charges an account off, does it get tax relief on the whole amount of the loss?

 

ie: if Sharkleys charges off £4000, do Sharkleys get to keep hold of £4000 they would otherwise have had to pay to HMRC?

 

unless I am mistaken the 4k would go down as a loss in their profit and loss account so whatever profit they make will be reduced by 4k so they pay corporation tax on 4k less

[letitbeme]

More Conjecture

 

Could the debt write-off industry become a write-off? - MoneySavingExpert News

[gezwee]

More Conjecture

 

Could the debt write-off industry become a write-off? - MoneySavingExpert News

 

Coulda, shoulda chosen a slightly more consumer friendly tag line but all the main points are there.

 

Not the ideal people to quote but hey its a free (ish) country.

 

Gez

[SteEqWar]

OK here I am going to post something about UCA,s considering I work for one of the major claims companies in this field.

 

People are mentioning a company called Ultimate Law they have one of those freebie websites something like ultimatelaw.synthasite.computer take the end off you will find it Daniella Lipszyc is the director

She has some type of beef with a company she used to work for and is blowing everything out of all proportion.got herself in the news about it

 

Fact is claims are not on hold (Trust me I would know) but it is a good way for her allegedly to damage another business and make herself look good.

 

I am not saying that Judges have mentioned the case that credit agreements could be stayed.... Perfectly honest I cannot see how they could do that. there are over 400 lenders from before that timed deadline with approximalty 10,000 types of agreements.

 

From Experience the easiest credit agreements to get rid of are credit cards . The success rates are massive with about 80% of lenders at the 100% meaning totally screwed.

 

The one thing I have noticed on websites arround the UK is no-one really knows what makes them unenforcable.... Yes prescribed terms breaches but how do you figure out what is a breach and what is not ,

 

Claims companies use a three tiered system

1- Prescribed Terms Breach = Uneforcable

2 - Technical Breaches = A gamble

3- No Breaches = Enforcable Agreement.

 

What disturbs me a little is the recent news of a RBS case where RBS won and damaged the credit of the debtor this is purely sad the loan agreement in question should not have been taken to court. The company I work for would not have done so as the success rate is only arround the 40% mark as they are always technical breaches

 

I hope this gives you a little insight to what is happening

[sunray001]

Who dropped the clanger then? Why was it ever taken to court? You would think something this important would be deeply scrutinised by the legal seagulls before it got that far. RBS must have thought it was xmas.

 

regards

[sunray001]

Who dropped the clanger then? Why was it ever taken to court? You would think something this important would be deeply scrutinised by the legal seagulls before it got that far. RBS must have thought it was xmas.

[sunray001]

Whats going on with these posts. ORANGE??? The message seems ok until I post it.

[the main man]

It's because you made reference to another consumer website, any reference to it and up comes something very childish.....