The End Of Unenforcable Debts???

[sploits]

Just had this sent through from checkmyfile.com

 

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.

 

Hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm

[spamheed]

This changes absolutely nothing.

 

If they have an unenforceable agreement then they still cant enforce it, just that they are allowed to continue to inform the CRA's of the current status, something they do in anyway, so no change there.

 

Basically if you default on a debt then your credit is pretty much b@ggered for 6 years in any way, whether they have a valid agreement or not, coz youre going to have to take them to court to get the defaults removed something that very few people do because of the risks and the fact it's an awful lot of bother

 

so you either pay and have bad credit, or don't pay and have bad credit

 

Hmmmm let me consider my options lol

[sploits]

So it was a bit of a pointless email to send out by checkmyfile.com then?

 

Ah well not to worry

[mr.ton]

The good thing about all this is....its becomming more & more evident now that credit files/credit ratings are not worth the paper they are printed on.

You can have a squillion CCJ's/defaults etc...& still be approved for things.

It will always be down to the company in question at end of day.

The credit industry is so full of myths that they have built up themselves over so many years & this is one of them that we are slowly exposing to the public via sites like this.

[PGH7447]

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

I think you will find that the actual agreement when it was found was enforceable, the whole caase revolved around the reporting of this guys details to a CRA - so as a test case it was pretty pointless, just like the rankines, which by the way was mentioned in this case as well

[lickthewallfatboy]

if there is no agreement at all,how can they be allowed to pursue?

 

Marlin had to throw in the towel with us precisely for that reason,and now it's time to get a default removed with experian and equifax

 

I know they'll refuse,but a CCJ might change their mind

[angry cat]

RBS can pursue payment, if they so choose.

But, not through the Courts: CCA Section 78(6)

 

AC

[lickthewallfatboy]

so they're just wasting paper then?

 

It's a wonder the eco mentalists aren't on their case!!

[mr.ton]

I can see a situation here were more & more injunctions are obtained against the OC, if the agreement is unenforcable & they then refer to this ruling.

The ruling has done nothing but simply confuse the whole thing.

[Stephan56]

I agree it has changed NOTHING and done nothing to clarify the "mess".

 

In essence, if there is no CCA compliant agrement then it cannot be enforced in the courts - but the DCAs can still chase you for it. And they can still (i) rubbish your credit rating and (ii) harass you.

 

How different is that from me claiming I have an agrement with a perfect stranger, harass him for payment, accept I cannot enforce through the courts - but continue to chase him.

 

An agreement either exists or it does not. If it does NOT, then anything that flows from that agreement- right to chase for money, right to report to CRAs etc. - falls away. It seems so simple to me. Then again, I am not a judge.

 

Effectively, even though there is no agreement, DCAs can continue to act AS IF there were an agreement. Thus just cannot go to court. A bizarre sort of "limbo".

 

What are now the limits on DCAs actions in chasing people? Yes, they can still try to get me to pay. But if refuse, say in a letter to them, am I likely to change my mind if they write to me every other day or call me 10x per day? Unlikely. This seems to me a charter for more harassment. Surely the OFT should step in and make NEW guidlines to severly constrain the activities of DCAs, and especially in cases where there is no CCA

[spamheed]

I think we will eventually get a privacy law, something like the American model, where Harrassment is a real crime and carries real penalties, not just a paper shuffling exercise.

 

When this happens then you will have a law which prevents exactly what this judge has allowed. At the end of the day they can't call you if they don't have your number, so change the number, ignore the demanding letters or send all of their paperwork back to them with a load of other papers so that the letters exceed the postage and make them pay for their "non enforcement" activities