Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

[Mr Worried]

All this case means at the moment is this particular debt cannot be enforced through the courts. The debt can still be collected (possibly minus the PPI premiums) - she has not 'got away' with it. I hope they do collect on it, this woman is not a child and should not have been treated as such by this judge.

 

 

HEY SANDCAT...YOU NEED TO SIT IN THE CORNER AND HAVE A WORD WITH YOURSELF!!!!!!!

 

Mr W

[dcakiller]

So sandcat what are you a dca theat monkey or a MBNA/dca share holder watching your shares go down the pan as consumers become more aware of the law and fight back. Only 2 posts since april 2008 time to bar you as a troll I think

Edited October 11, 2009 by dcakiller
typo

[Mr Worried]

So sandcat what are you a dca theat monkey or a MBNA/dca share holder watching your shares go down the pan as consumers become more aware of the law and fight back. Only 2 posts since april 2008 time to bar you as a troll I think

 

Yes that is a good idea..ban Sandcat unless they wish to offer a defence against negative responses, c'mon Sandcat..nows your chance.

 

Mr W

[F_DCAs]

You might want to read my thread about internet trolls, Sandcat.

 

Valid even if not read by you.

[dcakiller]

I wonder what threats the dca who picks up this debt will come up with.

[mr.ton]

All this case means at the moment is this particular debt cannot be enforced through the courts. The debt can still be collected (possibly minus the PPI premiums) - she has not 'got away' with it. I hope they do collect on it, this woman is not a child and should not have been treated as such by this judge.

 

How are they gonna collect on it if its been ruled as unenforcable by a court exactly?

Not suggesting anything illegal now are we?

[caledfwlch]

All this case means at the moment is this particular debt cannot be enforced through the courts. The debt can still be collected (possibly minus the PPI premiums) - she has not 'got away' with it. I hope they do collect on it, this woman is not a child and should not have been treated as such by this judge.

 

The thing is in the eyes of the law, people like this woman, myself and many other Caggers are "children" by way of we are normal consumers, and not highly educated to degree standard practicing lawyers, solicitors or legal types, we expect the creditors to be honest, fair and to adhere to all regulations and laws, we are not qualified to ensure that

 

If MBNA suddenly pull out a signed properly executed agreement then they may be able to go back to court, but lets be honest, the court would be asking some quite serious questions, like why didnt you have it before, and the woman should certainly be encouraged to hire a handwriting expert to examine the signature

 

This is the same as many other victories on CAG, its simply that MBNA were stupid, and half witted enough to go to court without an agreement - most DCA's etc know when the game is up, MBNA didnt.

[the_shadow]

You might want to read my thread about internet trolls, Sandcat.

 

Valid even if not read by you.

 

Whenever I see that line it does raise a smile

 

S.

[sandcat]

So sandcat what are you a dca theat monkey or a MBNA/dca share holder watching your shares go down the pan as consumers become more aware of the law and fight back. Only 2 posts since april 2008 time to bar you as a troll I think

 

dca killer, I am neither. However I think it is naive and pig-headed to ban someone just because they have a different opinion than yourself.

I defend what I say as I think people should look a little more at the bigger picture. If every person had their credit card/loan agreements written off because of PPI etc, I would say it could spell the end for some, if not all of the banks in this country. And look what happened last time that happened - we are still in a recession and people are still losing their jobs left, right and centre. I agree that people should claim back in genuine cases of credit card application fraud, fee overcharging and PPI misselling, I'm sure there are plenty out there. But trying to get a whole debt written off on a technicality - it's just wrong and people should be ashamed of themselves. Sorry if that's old fashioned but that's my opinion. To quote the judge on the Rankine vs. Amex case, the CCA is 'not designed to help individuals make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities'.

[the_shadow]

dca killer, I am neither. However I think it is naive and pig-headed to ban someone just because they have a different opinion than yourself.

I defend what I say as I think people should look a little more at the bigger picture. If every person had their credit card/loan agreements written off because of PPI etc, I would say it could spell the end for some, if not all of the banks in this country. And look what happened last time that happened - we are still in a recession and people are still losing their jobs left, right and centre. I agree that people should claim back in genuine cases of credit card application fraud, fee overcharging and PPI misselling, I'm sure there are plenty out there. But trying to get a whole debt written off on a technicality - it's just wrong and people should be ashamed of themselves. Sorry if that's old fashioned but that's my opinion. To quote the judge on the Rankine vs. Amex case, the CCA is 'not designed to help individuals make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities'.

 

I would say the very fact you quote the Rankines case gives you away as someone who works in connection with this industry, sorry but just MY opinion

 

S.

[F_DCAs]

You're quoting that tripe old Rankine case, Sandcat?

 

That was picked apart almost as soon as it happened, and it means nothing - obviously it wasn't taken into account in the case under discussion. Definitely a troll, here.

 

What do you take us for, Sandcat?

Edited October 11, 2009 by F_DCAs
Spelling

[sandcat]

Honest to God I do not work in the industry! I am a trainee solicitor and when I qualify I will not be specialising in Consumer Credit! Why is it so hard to believe that that is my opinion? I have been reading some of these forums on and off for a while and really felt strongly about this one. I think I give up now, not than any of you guys will complain!

[mr.ton]

I for one appreciate your viewpoint Sandcat...id just like to hear more about it, especially regarding the bit about...if an agreement has been ruled as unenforcable, then how is it meant to be collected upon exactly?

The only other way i can see is by illegal methods

[F_DCAs]

So, if you're a trainee solicitor who ISN'T specialising in Consumer Credit, what are you doing looking here, Sandcat?

[sandcat]

As far as I know, MBNA can keep the debt in house and phone the customer to collect the debt. They can also register a default on her credit file. But it cannot be enforced in a court of law, and cannot be sold.

[mr.ton]

As far as I know, MBNA can keep the debt in house and phone the customer to collect the debt..

 

In other words - harrassment

[mr.ton]

They can also register a default on her credit file.

 

...and then the authorities make them remove it

The CRA's are best buddies with the industry, so no doubt they will be only too willing to oblige.

Think you'll find credit files are not worth the paper they are printed on anymore anyway - that myth was shattered a long time ago on here.

[sandcat]

So, if you're a trainee solicitor who ISN'T specialising in Consumer Credit, what are you doing looking here, Sandcat?

 

We have covered consumer credit in some respects and that is why I first looked at the site. And hey, shoot me, I got hooked and so pop by from time to time! That's it now, sorry, I'm not getting into long discussions - but I appreciate why you're cynical.

[F_DCAs]

So, in other words, it's unenforceable and irrecoverable, then?

 

Unless the woman pays it back out of charity, but I somehow can't see that happening when it's been dragged through court, can you?

 

I would also think that MBNA would want to keep all this as quiet as possible. What's to stop her from heaping more misery and embarrassment on them by running to the press if they so much as send her one letter or make one phone call to her?

 

And you're quite right - I don't believe you.

[mr.ton]

Im still waiting for Sandcat to explain to me how its meant to be recovered exactly?

Making phone calls & a putting a mark on a credit file was mentioned...but errrrrr thats it

[andydd]

I think Sandcat shouldnt be banned, its ok to have a diff opinion on here. i too have be called a troll.

 

However I wish the failure to produce a valid CCA wouldnt be called a technicality, its the main point of the CCA 1974, without a signed agreement there is no proof so surely its the most important part.

 

As for unenforceable equals uncollectable, I guess it doesn't after all the otiginal creditor and/or DCA is free to write to the person asking for payment but that is all.

[dcakiller]

So sandcat when you become a lawyer what will you do? you will use the law as it is writen to benefit you clients how is this diferent from this case? MBNA where incorect in law and got burned.

[mr.ton]

Yes Andydd you are correct there..but the original creditor or DCA must stop all contact if specifically ordered to by the person in question.

If they dont, then thats harrassment & we all know there are laws in place to protect against all that

[F_DCAs]

I can't see the woman concerned taking it very lightly if MBNA makes ANY contact with her - even if they say 'Pretty please with sugar on top, may we have that £8000'.

[F_DCAs]

Oops! There I go mentioning sugar again - sorry if there are any Mackenzie Hall **** looking in!