End of 'unenforceable debt' claims?

[johno1066]

Recieved this from Checkmyfile by email today, does anybody know which case is being referred to here and exactly how this effects us, apologies if it has been posted before:

 

"Consumers attempting to get credit card or loan balances written off by exploiting legal loopholes are facing the unwelcome choice of either repaying their debt or severely damaging their credit rating.

A test case in the High Court saw a judge rule a £17,000 RBS loan as unenforceable - after the lender was unable to produce the original credit agreement within the required 12 day period. More importantly, he also ruled that although the loan is unenforceable within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the obligations of the original contract were still valid, clearing the way for RBS to continue to pursue repayment.

If a loan is judged as ‘unenforceable’, lenders aren’t allowed to take the usual legal routes to recovering debt, such as obtaining judgment, sending in bailiffs, obtaining charging orders and so on. Instead, they will be within their rights to continue to press the consumer for repayment, including the use of debt collectors, to lodge the record of any default with credit reference agencies, to claim any credit balances held under rights of set-off, and to rely on any security they may hold such as mortgages or guarantees.

Around 100,000 claims for ‘unenforceable debt’ are believed to have been lodged with the courts to date. Over 3000 Claims Management Companies (CMC’s) have sprung up as a result. The majority of claims are based on the notion that original documents are not legally enforceable, especially in cases where the lender is unable to produce original copies.

As we’ve reported previously, most claims stand very little chance of success, and a number of CMC’s have actually been banned from operating due to misleading advertising and over-inflated charges. We think this latest ruling will sound the death knoll for many of them.

Any default lodged with the UK’s three credit reference agencies will remain on file for a period of six years, making it very difficult to get credit in what is already a tough economic situation. A good credit rating is vital in securing credit, and also determines the rate you’ll be asked to pay.

You can check your own credit report online with checkmyfile – for as little as £9.75. All reports are backed up by expert support from qualified credit analysts, so that if you find anything you don’t understand or disagree with, we’ll be able to point you in the right direction."

[smarmymarmy]

I,ve received this through today as well- anyone out there got any further info? I do realise theat checkmyfile are part of Expedia, but there must be some foundation for this email?

[johno1066]

It has been discussed, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/225423-has-anyone-seen-does-2.html

 

I don't think much has changed IMO. Once question I would like to draw on though; if 6 years have passed, does this (in light of the judgement), mean that a lender can continue to default ones' credit file for eternity?

[RHOOD]

Did the case also involve mis-selling of PPI

 

From 1st December 2009 and if you reside in SCOTLAND a copy of the original CCA must be supplied with the WRIT & the original must be available

 

see the following link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223428-scottish-court-change-threatens.html

[DOZY]

Hi

 

i am no expert , but I would think that a contract between two people should be binding in legal terms as set out in the consumer credit act and binding on both partys, for a judge to say "oh its alright for the creditor not to obey/follow the rules , but the debtor must do so, even if the agreeement is not lawful.

 

judges spout a load of rubbish every time they open their mouths, i even told one to shut up and get a life, 2 hours in the cells did not change my view, punishment NIL.

 

So carry on as you were nothings changed , but credit lenders will sieze this to batter you all debters now , tell them to naff off and do your bit.

[RHOOD]

You could appeal

[themajor]

i think the judge was on drugs!

 

if he ruled the agreement as unenforceable, then the terms of the agreement (ie its obligations) are unenforceable, so how can the original obligations still stand? he's just contradicted himself. he's basically saying the agreement is unenforceable but you must still pay the debt back and they can try and make you pay the debt back. the only thing they can't do is pursue legal proceedings against you. its either unenforceable or its not!

 

lets hope there are some better outcomes from other test cases. my solicitor has advised me not to worry about this case anyway (i have 2 claims going through brighton court)

[themajor]

btw johno, the test case was mcguffick -v- RBS