Validity of claims management companies? Moved from "Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice"

[Tricky Dickie]

And the banks being, in large part, in public ownership and funded from the treasury, they could end up getting it back twice.

 

Hiking interest rates will only serve to force more decent people into a situation where they have no option but to default.

 

The thing to keep hold of is that we are not the criminals.

 

They wrote the agreements

They indulge in deceipt to avoid the consequences of their actions

They designed the credit reference system

They invented the bonus culture

They invented sub-prime

They screwed the economy

they drove the nation (globe) into recession

They created an environment where ordinary people were forced out of work in droves

They went to the government with the begging bowl

They plead poverty whilst coveting their bonus funded wealth

They took huge salaries and pensions (and still do )

 

Then they have the tumerity to stand before the HOL and claim that this is right and they should condone it or risk dire consequence (how much worse can it get???)

 

The little people will eventually pick up the tab, one way or the other.

 

Rant over (sorry)

 

Rant forgiven but lets not forget the most fundamental aspect of the whole charade-they lent you money which did not exist until you agreed to borrow it off them and by implication promised to pay them back.They created the money on the security of your promise to pay it back .

The whole system is fundamentally bankrupt and the only reason it stumbles on is that most people just accept it rather than looking at what is really going on.

I do not think that will carry on for ever then we'll have real problems

[underdog13]

There seems to be a consensus that where the 2006 CCA applies creditors will be more inclined to issue proceeding on the assumption that with the revocation of sec 127 (shame on you Labour) they have a better chance of enforcing the previously unenforceable.

 

IMHO creditors would be making a monumental mistake in that the 4th Chamber of the European Court has decreed that when any such matter is put before a national court that court MUST consider all of the terms & conditions of that agreement whether complained of or not by the consumer

 

Therefore my advice to any of the opposition reading these threads is don't be so quick to litigate otherwise you could find it very counter productive in that should 1 of your agreements be found wanting what with the power of the internet it won't be long before many more are challenged

 

That's really interesting Jon Cris.

 

Could we cite this in our defences in any debt/agreement litigation? Forgive me if I'm being dim - I'm not terribly legally minded:oops:.

 

In addition, what would the implications be if the original T&Cs cannot be supplied?

[Redfish]

Interesting thread this, thanks Trickie Dickie for persisting with it. I think there are many persuasive arguments for finding the good CMCs/solicitors firms...I'm only thinking about the ones who won't charge of course, as per PT's posts.

 

Basically, I'd love to DIY my credit agreements, and I have been doing so up till now. Got one agreement with MBNA that I've found a fault in the prescribed terms, and the others have not responded in the time limit to my CCAs so they are in default.

 

But I see that more and more creditors are taking us to court, even when they have rubbish cases. Also if we go in as LiPs then we sometimes have a very difficult time convincing the judge to listen to us...plus some of us, me included, don't think we would perform well arguing our own cases in court without a barrister. I think a lot of people on here have been suggesting it's better these days to get a barrister if you need to go to court.

 

So that brings us to the issue that if we have then to pay a barrister, we are now having to fork out money that by chosing to go DIY, we were trying to prevent. I have to admit I've been a bit frightened hearing what others have spent for barristers. Also I read about one poster's case where her barrister did a weak argument for her, she wanted the senior barrister but got his junior instead, and she lost the case.

 

So my thinking is that if we find a strong solicitor's firm with a good reputation it would be them who make sure they get the best barrister on the case. It feels as if it is all tied up with them, the best CMCs would work with the best solicitors firms, and those solicitors firms would work with the best barristers ... everyone interested in keeping their reputation as the best. So the hunt is to find out which are the best CMCs or best solicitors firms. Anyone more experienced in this field please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I don't know if PT or others in the field would like to comment on this point...does it make a difference if the consumer approaches the solicitors firm directly, or is it better to approach the CMC? Does it give you any advantages on doing the latter? I just wonder if the CMC sells on a bunch of 'leads' to the solicitors they deal with, is there some kind of sense in the solicitors office that those leads are treated differently because of the 'package deal'?

 

Anyway, to continue. My understanding is that if we get the right CMC/solicitors then we wouldn't be paying the barristers upfront when/if the claimant takes us to court. So in the long run it might work out to get a no win no fee CMC/solicitor because they would get the barrister and deal with that fee. I for one have no money, so if I was doing it all DIY, then I would be borrowing again just to pay for a barrister if my claimants took me to court.

 

Pity we can't find PT's firm or firms that have the same operating principles and ethos...but at least he's given us their principles as a benchmark. I think that we should be looking for firms which

 

1. Don't charge an upfront fee

2. Operate on a no win no fee basis

3. Don't take their fees out of the compensation if they win the case

 

And of course look at their track record. In particular the barristers they hire and how well those barristers argue their cases - there's often mention of Bradley Say's arguments, so I'm actually trying to see if I can find the solicitors who would appoint Bradley Say to their consumer cases.

 

So far I've only been successful at locating one that does okay on the 3 points above - not a Bradley Say referal, but I saw the solicitor did share a panel with Bradley Say at some university lecture on consumer credit. This is Andrew Leakey from Stephensons solicitors, but I see on their website that they only take cases with a minimum £5,000 loan, and also only take cases where the prescribed terms are faulty ... i.e. they don't take cases where the agreement is improperly executed on other issues, e.g. T&Cs etc. Andrew Leakey I can see was on a Panorama programme just last week, along with the Rankines, hopefully providing the 'better' side of the issue. It might mean, given that publicity, they are now inundated with cases.

 

I'm a bit reticent, not too happy about their only taking cases that deal with faulty prescribed terms, it shows to me they are not very 'pioneering', just safe. Whereas I would say that Bradley Say is more pioneering - he is creative about how he argues cases. So I'm still hunting.

[Tricky Dickie]

Interesting thread this, thanks Trickie Dickie for persisting with it. I think there are many persuasive arguments for finding the good CMCs/solicitors firms...I'm only thinking about the ones who won't charge of course, as per PT's posts.

 

Basically, I'd love to DIY my credit agreements, and I have been doing so up till now. Got one agreement with MBNA that I've found a fault in the prescribed terms, and the others have not responded in the time limit to my CCAs so they are in default.

 

But I see that more and more creditors are taking us to court, even when they have rubbish cases. Also if we go in as LiPs then we sometimes have a very difficult time convincing the judge to listen to us...plus some of us, me included, don't think we would perform well arguing our own cases in court without a barrister. I think a lot of people on here have been suggesting it's better these days to get a barrister if you need to go to court.

 

So that brings us to the issue that if we have then to pay a barrister, we are now having to fork out money that by chosing to go DIY, we were trying to prevent. I have to admit I've been a bit frightened hearing what others have spent for barristers. Also I read about one poster's case where her barrister did a weak argument for her, she wanted the senior barrister but got his junior instead, and she lost the case.

 

So my thinking is that if we find a strong solicitor's firm with a good reputation it would be them who make sure they get the best barrister on the case. It feels as if it is all tied up with them, the best CMCs would work with the best solicitors firms, and those solicitors firms would work with the best barristers ... everyone interested in keeping their reputation as the best. So the hunt is to find out which are the best CMCs or best solicitors firms. Anyone more experienced in this field please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I don't know if PT or others in the field would like to comment on this point...does it make a difference if the consumer approaches the solicitors firm directly, or is it better to approach the CMC? Does it give you any advantages on doing the latter? I just wonder if the CMC sells on a bunch of 'leads' to the solicitors they deal with, is there some kind of sense in the solicitors office that those leads are treated differently because of the 'package deal'?

 

Anyway, to continue. My understanding is that if we get the right CMC/solicitors then we wouldn't be paying the barristers upfront when/if the claimant takes us to court. So in the long run it might work out to get a no win no fee CMC/solicitor because they would get the barrister and deal with that fee. I for one have no money, so if I was doing it all DIY, then I would be borrowing again just to pay for a barrister if my claimants took me to court.

 

Pity we can't find PT's firm or firms that have the same operating principles and ethos...but at least he's given us their principles as a benchmark. I think that we should be looking for firms which

 

1. Don't charge an upfront fee

2. Operate on a no win no fee basis

3. Don't take their fees out of the compensation if they win the case

 

And of course look at their track record. In particular the barristers they hire and how well those barristers argue their cases - there's often mention of Bradley Say's arguments, so I'm actually trying to see if I can find the solicitors who would appoint Bradley Say to their consumer cases.

 

So far I've only been successful at locating one that does okay on the 3 points above - not a Bradley Say referal, but I saw the solicitor did share a panel with Bradley Say at some university lecture on consumer credit. This is Andrew Leakey from Stephensons solicitors, but I see on their website that they only take cases with a minimum £5,000 loan, and also only take cases where the prescribed terms are faulty ... i.e. they don't take cases where the agreement is improperly executed on other issues, e.g. T&Cs etc. Andrew Leakey I can see was on a Panorama programme just last week, along with the Rankines, hopefully providing the 'better' side of the issue. It might mean, given that publicity, they are now inundated with cases.

 

I'm a bit reticent, not too happy about their only taking cases that deal with faulty prescribed terms, it shows to me they are not very 'pioneering', just safe. Whereas I would say that Bradley Say is more pioneering - he is creative about how he argues cases. So I'm still hunting.

 

You make some very good points Redfish in particular about being represented in court and paying for it.

Surely its better to be represented in court by a barrister on a conditional fee agreement as they will be trying that much harder to win knowing that if they lose they don't get paid.

And for sure a good track record is essential whats the point of going with a company that doesn't get results just because they don't charge an upfront fee.

My feeling is that if a company has a good track record there is no problem charging a reasonable upfront fee as long as this is refunded if they can't wipe out the debt and they offer a free or subsidised service to people in financial difficulty which can be subsidised by the fees paid by those who can afford it.

After all that would probably still be a lot cheaper than going down the DIY route and then employing a barrister to represent you in court.

Bit confused about your mention of taking fees out of compensation in successful cases,I thought the best that could be achieved would be wiping out the debt not claiming compensation.

If a solictor takes on a case on a conditional fee agreement and wins the costs are paid by the other side and the winner can also claima success fee of up to 100% of the costs-thats where the big pay day is for successful solicitors.

The problem is this is very new and there is still a lot of reticence on the part of some solicitors to pursue the argument aggressively enough and also not enough with the expertise required.

[Redfish]

Yes, I agree with you TD, if the only option was to pay an upfront fee and then get the rest on a no win no fee basis that might be okay.

 

But as PT has said his firm doesn't even charge an upfront fee and I think we all agree his firm appears to know their stuff and fight aggressively on the side of the consumer for their rights. So it means there are firms out there that don't charge the upfront fee and would do a very good job for the consumer. If I didn't have that evidence, that there are firms like that, then I would consider paying the upfront fee worthwhile.

 

I still haven't ruled out the upfront fee firms. If I can't find a solicitor's firm or CMC that shows it can deliver without that fee I will definitely consider the ones, like the one you are going with, who do charge that fee. As I have some time to do my investigations I'm going to wait until I have exhausted my search to decide!

 

Sorry I didn't mean that compensation was more than simply wiping out the remaining balance of the debt, I think some companies say they will take their fee out of that debt balance (so in effect it would be reducing your debt not removing it completely).

[diddydicky]

Interesting thread this, thanks Trickie Dickie for persisting with it. I think there are many persuasive arguments for finding the good CMCs/solicitors firms...I'm only thinking about the ones who won't charge of course, as per PT's posts.

 

Basically, I'd love to DIY my credit agreements, and I have been doing so up till now. Got one agreement with MBNA that I've found a fault in the prescribed terms, and the others have not responded in the time limit to my CCAs so they are in default.

 

But I see that more and more creditors are taking us to court, even when they have rubbish cases. Also if we go in as LiPs then we sometimes have a very difficult time convincing the judge to listen to us...plus some of us, me included, don't think we would perform well arguing our own cases in court without a barrister. I think a lot of people on here have been suggesting it's better these days to get a barrister if you need to go to court.

 

So that brings us to the issue that if we have then to pay a barrister, we are now having to fork out money that by chosing to go DIY, we were trying to prevent. I have to admit I've been a bit frightened hearing what others have spent for barristers. Also I read about one poster's case where her barrister did a weak argument for her, she wanted the senior barrister but got his junior instead, and she lost the case.

 

So my thinking is that if we find a strong solicitor's firm with a good reputation it would be them who make sure they get the best barrister on the case. It feels as if it is all tied up with them, the best CMCs would work with the best solicitors firms, and those solicitors firms would work with the best barristers ... everyone interested in keeping their reputation as the best. So the hunt is to find out which are the best CMCs or best solicitors firms. Anyone more experienced in this field please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I don't know if PT or others in the field would like to comment on this point...does it make a difference if the consumer approaches the solicitors firm directly, or is it better to approach the CMC? Does it give you any advantages on doing the latter? I just wonder if the CMC sells on a bunch of 'leads' to the solicitors they deal with, is there some kind of sense in the solicitors office that those leads are treated differently because of the 'package deal'?

 

Anyway, to continue. My understanding is that if we get the right CMC/solicitors then we wouldn't be paying the barristers upfront when/if the claimant takes us to court. So in the long run it might work out to get a no win no fee CMC/solicitor because they would get the barrister and deal with that fee. I for one have no money, so if I was doing it all DIY, then I would be borrowing again just to pay for a barrister if my claimants took me to court.

 

Pity we can't find PT's firm or firms that have the same operating principles and ethos...but at least he's given us their principles as a benchmark. I think that we should be looking for firms which

 

1. Don't charge an upfront fee

2. Operate on a no win no fee basis

3. Don't take their fees out of the compensation if they win the case

 

And of course look at their track record. In particular the barristers they hire and how well those barristers argue their cases - there's often mention of Bradley Say's arguments, so I'm actually trying to see if I can find the solicitors who would appoint Bradley Say to their consumer cases.

 

So far I've only been successful at locating one that does okay on the 3 points above - not a Bradley Say referal, but I saw the solicitor did share a panel with Bradley Say at some university lecture on consumer credit. This is Andrew Leakey from Stephensons solicitors, but I see on their website that they only take cases with a minimum £5,000 loan, and also only take cases where the prescribed terms are faulty ... i.e. they don't take cases where the agreement is improperly executed on other issues, e.g. T&Cs etc. Andrew Leakey I can see was on a Panorama programme just last week, along with the Rankines, hopefully providing the 'better' side of the issue. It might mean, given that publicity, they are now inundated with cases.

 

I'm a bit reticent, not too happy about their only taking cases that deal with faulty prescribed terms, it shows to me they are not very 'pioneering', just safe. Whereas I would say that Bradley Say is more pioneering - he is creative about how he argues cases. So I'm still hunting.

 

there is no "better side" if the rankines are involved (IMO)

[Redfish]

there is no "better side" if the rankines are involved (IMO)

 

 

I meant the better side to the unenforceable agreements issue, not the better side to the Rankines!

[henderson50]

Can anyone assist. I have requested my CCA from Barclaycard 4 times including the £1 fee. They have not provided this. What do I do know-and would it be better to find a lawyer or CMC at this stage. The card has a balnace of 17k.

 

Regards

Henderson50

[cymruambyth]

Just had a call from 017992762552. THey are a company 'regulated by the Minitery of Justice' and can help claim back any money from mis-sold financial products for the last 30 years.'

He seemed quite surprised that I didn't want to take him up on his offer - even though he was Welsh

[diddydicky]

Can anyone assist. I have requested my CCA from Barclaycard 4 times including the £1 fee. They have not provided this. What do I do know-and would it be better to find a lawyer or CMC at this stage. The card has a balnace of 17k.

 

Regards

Henderson50

 

you dont need a cmc justs send the account in dispute letter

 

have you sent the 4 x one pound? if so ask for 3 back in the letter

 

if you sent the first request 1st class and recorded delivery then count 14 working days from the date of the letter and that' their deadline after which they are in default and all the time they remain in default they may not enforce the terms of the contract

 

no interest no charges.

 

continue to send a reminder letter once a month short and sweet -no need to keep sending them recorded after the first one just get a proof of posting slip stamped

[diddydicky]

if no response after say 6 months then you could write demanding to know if they really have a cca at all but i think they would be in contact with you long before that

 

all the time you are making payments they will ignore you

 

soon as you miss one they;l be on the case

[Spamalot]

Can anyone assist. I have requested my CCA from Barclaycard 4 times including the £1 fee. They have not provided this. What do I do know-and would it be better to find a lawyer or CMC at this stage. The card has a balnace of 17k.

 

Regards

Henderson50

 

Along with DD's advice I'd just like to make you aware that BC are notorious for ignoring CA requests and just sending out current T&C's stating they've complied with your request by doing that... you will see it time and time again in the Barclaycard Forum.

 

It seems the only sure way to get sight of an agreement through them is by using the CPR route as in this thread,

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/195898-cpr-strategy-important-success.html

 

Good luck with them because it would appear these people believe they are above the law.

 

Spam.

[Tricky Dickie]

Just had a call from 017992762552. THey are a company 'regulated by the Minitery of Justice' and can help claim back any money from mis-sold financial products for the last 30 years.'

He seemed quite surprised that I didn't want to take him up on his offer - even though he was Welsh

 

 

If they are regulated by the MoJ then they should know that the MoJ specifically prohibit cold calling of any kind to promote such claims services but such instances do seem to be cropping up more and more regularly

[Stubie]

If they are regulated by the MoJ then they should know that the MoJ specifically prohibit cold calling of any kind to promote such claims services but such instances do seem to be cropping up more and more regularly

 

I think all of the CMCs are regulated by the MoJ.

 

Some of them are due to find out the downside of this regulation fairly soon, if not already.

[Redfish]

Found this interesting 'insider's story' about CMCs:

 

"We keep hearing reports of this area of law ('get your loan written off'', 'cancel my loan if over £7,000 and under £25,000 and before 2007', 'reduce my debt', 'clear my debt for life' etc.. etc..), being the new potentially big money spinner for a lot of law firms, and have been keeping track of recent developments. A candidate has recently sent us the following feedback from working for one of the operators in this field..."I had been working for x Solicitors who are linked to a claims management firm. As I worked there it became increasingly obvious that there was a lack of independence for us to advise our clients as to the strengths and weaknesses of their claims. Many files did not have claims at all but we were actively discouraged from telling clients upfront that there was no defect in the agreement. Management asked us to advise clients whose files had weak or very poor legal arguments that their files were being sent for further investigation. This delayed refunding clients who had already waited for long periods of time for their files to be addressed.

 

One day in particular a couple of weeks ago I had a client on the phone screaming at me because I felt I could not tell her she was due for a refund as there was no real prospects of success. I told her it was being further reviewed. She screamed 'you're my solicitor why can't you update me'.? She was perfectly correct.

 

Many of the difficulties stem from the fact that the representatives tell customers that agreements can be written off or deemed unenforceable and build up false hopes. Many files come through with very poor legal basis for claims.

 

One argument apparently is being appealed at Court of Appeal later this year. However we were actively encouraged to pursue claims based on a case hopefully being overturned in CA.

 

This was a firm with poor working practices and sullies the image or profile of those firms who operate in a correct and professional way. There are genuine issues under the Consumer Credit Act but they need to be tackled professionally in order to maintain the public's trust."

[Tricky Dickie]

UPDATE.

I am being taken to court by MBNA to enforce a credit agreement and am being defended by a solicitor appointed by a CMC.

The date for the trial hearing is the 10th August in the Chester County Court however yesterday MBNA called my solicitor to ask if they would agree to an adjournment because they have not had time to prepare their witness statements which appears to be a tactic to buy some time as witness statements are not relevant to the basic point which is that the signed agreement does not contain the prescribed terms(exactly the same as the Mitchell case in June).

I am disappointed as I was looking forward to the trip to court on Monday however I can at least take more confidence from the fact that MBNA are starting to get windy.

I hope the case does go to trial but it seems increasingly likely that MBNA will concede the case prior to any trial however I have an undertaking from my solicitor that if that is the case there will not be any restrictions upon me making public the details of any out of court settlement.

[lilly white]

Tricky Dickie

 

May I wish the very best of luck?

I have read with great interest you posts in all areas I see that that you started

With the summons from MBNA.

May I asked when did you decided to engage the cmc, I have look at their web site

And of course I presume it the same CMC as THE MITCHELL CASE.

I note that you where looking at 1/ the Apr and 2/ Separate terms on unsigned separate sheet with no refences to the signature page.

I also see that you will be defended by a barrister from the CMC are they using the defence in regards 1 and 2,

I asked these questions to seek clarity.

Did the CMC prepare the defence as outline in you post summons from MBNA.

Again my fellow gagger I wish all the very best please keep us posted

The very best regards

Lilly white

[Redfish]

The same as Lilly White, I'm routing for you TD. Would love to hear more details of the case specifics and also how the CMC are handling it, what contact you have with your solicitor (who are your solicitors in fact) and what kinds of things they have asked you for, a whole blow by blow account of the process would be soooo interesting!

 

I think we need to find the ethical CMCs out there and the only way we can do that is if we get inside info from people who go down that route. What's the name of your barrister if you don't mind me asking? And do you think it makes a difference about how much your debt is?

[Kraken1]

anyone see breakfast news this morning? CMCs are spawn of satan and free advice is available from the CAB and certain (unnamed) websites.

[car2403]

BBC NEWS | UK | Debt service consumer warning

[izzitme101]

I just hope this isnt going to effect an irreversible change in law that goes against the consumer in some way

[diddydicky]

I just hope this isnt going to effect an irreversible change in law that goes against the consumer in some way

 

i don't think so- i think they are rightly highlighting the firms taking 300-400 quid which after all the hype is stripped away is for simply sending the s78 and sar requests off

 

the truth of the matter is IMO that only around 10% of agreements are unenforceable (not accounting for agreements that do not exist of course) and not the 80% some of these people claim

[Tricky Dickie]

Thanks for the support guys I will give everyone who wants it chapter and verse when the whole saga is over and everything settled.

I may choose to do that via pm as don't forget that CMCs are the spawn of the devil and I don't want to end up as a pariah on here .

Interesting to see another BBC report about the MoJ and CMCs and the usual warnings about misleading statements,does no-one else think that the whole situation regarding CMC's and the MoJ is really strange?

Over the past 12 months the MoJ has granted thousands of registrations for licenses to practice financial claims,why is this if most of the companies applying are not legitimate yet the MoJ constantly tries to give the impression that most CMC's are not behaving legitimately without actually saying that?

The strange thing is that unless the person applying has a criminal record or has been guilty of some other financial or corporate misdemeanour then they are virtually certain to be granted a licence.

Any criminal could simply find someone without a criminal record to act as a front,the application process is very simple the only problem being the length of time it takes presumably this is just an admin situation due to the increasing numbers of applications.

The MoJ has according to their website since they first came into being revoked or suspended the registration of a total of less than 100 registered businesses in all categories of claims management so the figure would be considerably less for those only engaged in financial claims management.

Where did the BBC get the figures they quoted its not difficult to check the MoJ website?

It would appear that virtually all of these have had their registration suspended or cancelled for making misleading statements about unenforceable agreements and similar issues.

In fact that seems all that the MoJ is worried about,they issue warning after warning about misleading statements with detailed guidlines about what is and is not permissible to include in promotional material and now and again they find a CMC stupid enough not to have checked their guidelines and made an erroneous statement(like quoting 80% of all credit agreements prior to April 2007 are unenforceable) and they then cancel their registration.

Presumably said CMC then finds someone else willing to lend their name and start up a new business with a new name and address and away they go.

So what about all the CMC's who do not breach the MoJ guidelines and take money off people without the resources or even the intention of actually pursuing a claim?As far as I can see the MoJ have neither the ability or the will to take any action.

There are numerous instances of people on forums and blogs citing that they have paid a CMC several hundred pounds to take on a claim and have never even had a letter of acknowledgement over 12 months later.

Claims companies who have no solicitors have taken on thousands of claims and then hawked them around solicitors or even other CMC's desperately trying to find some legal representation.

Complaints to the MoJ are met with 'we will look into it"then nothing.

The MoJ rules state that sourcing debt solutions by cold calling is strictly forbidden however unsolicited phone calls offering such services have increased massively in the past few months.

If crooked CMC's are such a problem why does the MoJ not suspend all applications for new licenses whilst they clean everything up?

The whole thing stinks and I am convinced that the government by their inaction through the MoJ is actively encouraging the proliferation of crooked CMC's as a smokescreen to prevent the vast majority of people in this country understanding that the issue of unenforceable agreements is real.

I do not know if the 80% figure of unenforceability is correct but the point is neither does anyone else including the MoJ as there is no reliable source of statistics and thats why the MoJ prohibits such statements and until there is statistical evidence such statements will continue to be prohibited.

What I can say without any fear of contradiction is that a specialist solicitor who has completed a detailed audit of thousands of agreements produced prior to April 2007 has found that less than 200 have been properly executed in accordance with the 1974 CCA.

All the rest are improperly executed and therefore at least have the possibility of being challenged regarding unenforceability.

On that basis I would argue that an estimate of 10% of agreements being unenforceable is very low.

The banks and governments are desperate to keep this information under wraps and will do anything to prevent this knowledge becoming widespread amongst the population.

If this situation was generally accepted then all major lenders would have to write off many billions as even more bad debts and any prospect of a recovery from economic depression would be put back years as many of these financial companies would either bite the dust or have to be bailed out again.

What will happen is that the banks will continue to fight a rearguard action with the government and media support to prevent widespread acceptance that unenforceability is real and just waiting for time to pass by to diminsih the impact.

The major banks already seem to have made a policy decision not to reply to CMC's section 77/78 requests to slow the agreement audit process down and I would not be surprised if at some stage there was a deliberate attempt either by legislation or some other means to prevent the unenforceability issue being a way to wipe out debt at all.

In any case the banks will continue to defend cases where a borrower argues unenforceability no matter how much it costs them as they simply have no choice even if they know eventually they have to concede.

As cases stack up in the court system I can see a situation arising where there will be a real problem for the courts dealing with the volume of cases and the process will take longer and longer,fine by the lenders the longer it takes the better.

CMC customers and anyone else for that matter will then find they have to wait longer and longer to have their cases settled,however there is an interesting pattern developing in some cases with CMC customers.

When some CMC customers have arrived at the stage of having their agreement audited and having found that the agreement has not been properly executed they have(against the advice of CMC and solicitors) stopped paying the lender.

The usual threats and letters etc have ensued however in many cases where the CMC customer has informed the lender,DCA etc that they believe the Agreement to be improperly executed and in some cases sent a copy of the audit to support that belief the threat of court action by the lender has not materialised even though the menacing phone calls and correspondence continues.

As we have seen with DCA's they like to go for the easy pickings and I suspect that a lender faced with a borrower with even a possibility of having a legitimate case will move on to an easier target in preference.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Tricky Dickie

[creditman09]

It has seemed to me also that there is some sort of agenda which is unexplained. Maybe "the authorities" like to control everything and this type of situation is not what was intended when the Consumer Credit Act was revised in 2006. As they say, beware the law of unintended consequences.

 

The recognised method of dealing with these problems is to to go to the various bodies that recognise that there is a debt and to go for an IVA, bankruptcy, debt relief order or payment plan and bust a gut in doing so.

In addition, if so called creditors pursue you through the courts you then are exposed to charging orders.

 

I found your latest comment most interesting and have already written to one "creditor" saying that no further payments will be made Any legal action by them will be fought one way or another.

 

Further developments in your case will be followed with increasing interest by me as I am also with a cmc and already have legal opinions in my favour.

[frettful38]

has anyone heard of **EDITED**claims company. They have contacted me regarding my secured loan. I don't know what they are like, or should I just ignore them and tell them that I do not need them?

Edited August 12, 2009 by car2403
Commercial link