OFT - Have they been 'got at'?

[RoadToRecovery]

Seems very much like they are just another extension of the finacial sector and are out to help crush the consumer.

 

Can they not be excluded from future court cases? Clearly they are not acting with 'fair trading' in mind, anything but.

[yourbank]

Seems very much like they are just another extension of the finacial sector and are out to help crush the consumer.

Explain?

Can they not be excluded from future court cases? Clearly they are not acting with 'fair trading' in mind, anything but.

Again need an explanation since I don't get what you mean.

[rebel11]

It's not the OFT, it's the new Supreme Court, trying to show it's got teeth.

[spamheed]

The OFT follow the instructions of their political masters, as do the FSA etc. Also the OFT are governed by many who have interests deeply established with the financial sector, MP's Lords, Senior business executive, ie the people who really run things in this country

 

Given that the Banks and such had only just been bailed out to the tune of Billions, it was never on the agenda to make the banks cough up all of that dosh in the current climate, it would have effectively reversed in part the effect that the bailouts had and weakened the banks at a time when it was deemed to be dangerous to do so. In hindsight it was always an option that they would postpone such a situation until it is more manageable and less damaging to the economy, hence the judges comments to redirect the OFT's interest to open up investigations to other areas of the CPUTR, rather than completely removing the option to persue such allegedly unlawful charges.

 

I believe the phrase is "not in the public interest to pursue an action at this time" as the Crown Prosecution Service would so eloquently put it.

[RoadToRecovery]

Again need an explanation since I don't get what you mean.

 

Their advising the courts that banks / lenders don't need an agreement to enforce debts seems to me like the biggest sell out in the history of democracy.

 

What is the point of the consumer credit act?

 

The OFT are trying to flush it down the pan.

[yourbank]

Their advising the courts that banks / lenders don't need an agreement to enforce debts seems to me like the biggest sell out in the history of democracy.

 

where have they?

[RoadToRecovery]

Over the past year claims management companies have been promising to help borrowers to get out of their debts in exchange for a fee. Some have argued that this is possible if the lender cannot produce the original loan agreement.

 

However, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has stepped into the argument to clarify the rules. It says the bank can produce a 'true copy' of the original agreement if it wishes, which is simply an exact copy of the wording of the agreement signed at the time and which does not need to contain the customer's signature.

 

 

Sounds very much like the banks are being given the green light to send out any old cut and shunt jobs they so desire.

 

How on earth can a reconstructed document with no signature be used in court to enforce an agreement?

 

 

Taken from here;

Debt-free cases on brink of judgement | This is Money

[WelshMam2009]

 

However, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has stepped into the argument to clarify the rules. It says the bank can produce a 'true copy' of the original agreement if it wishes, which is simply an exact copy of the wording of the agreement signed at the time and which does not need to contain the customer's signature.

 

I think that this is more to do with what documentation is required to satisfy a s77/78 request and not what is considered to be enforceable in court.

 

Afterall, OFT have no powers to re-write the CCA.

[RoadToRecovery]

This interference by the OFT makes no sense. The lender either has the agreement or doesn't. Why should they be allowed to send any old piece of paper if they do actually hold the original agreement?

 

The resultant situations like the barclaycard one where they send out a copy of current terms and conditions and a play on words using various parts of the act to suggest they have satisfied the s78 request. The alleged debtor is still none the wiser as to whether the creditor is in possession of an enforceable agreement.

Edited December 12, 2009 by RoadToRecovery
spelling

[PriorityOne]

Over the past year claims management companies have been promising to help borrowers to get out of their debts in exchange for a fee. Some have argued that this is possible if the lender cannot produce the original loan agreement.

 

However, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has stepped into the argument to clarify the rules. It says the bank can produce a 'true copy' of the original agreement if it wishes, which is simply an exact copy of the wording of the agreement signed at the time and which does not need to contain the customer's signature.

 

Taken from here;

Debt-free cases on brink of judgement | This is Money

 

Not in court they can't...

 

I think it's called being economical with the truth.... in the hope that the ignorant masses will fall for it and pay up without a fuss.

 

Bring it on....

[yourbank]

When did the OFT actually say that though? They are currently preparing new guidelines for next year and that there have been consultations with groups such as citizen's advice but guidelines by a regulator do not constitute evidence in court about the law. Regardless of anything the law is prominent in any court case and not just some guidance issued.

[jimbo45]

Hi there

 

This sounds very similar to a well known Swedish File sharing site being shut down or so severely hobbled it's useless now by a Judge who was actually on the board of one of the companies who started the Court Case in the first place. (As he wasn't "paid" by the corporation an appeal to have the judge replaced was rejected -- what a surprise ?? I think not knowing how all these people always stick together).

 

It seems that the Law pretty well everywhere and not just in the UK is against "The Small people" and only exists for Big corporations etc etc.

 

You only have to look at the CRAZY fees some of these barristers get for making Speeches in court that I could probably do much better on a Sunday Morning for FREE at "Speakers Corner". (Marble Arch / Hyde Park central London for those that don't know).

 

And PLEASE EMPHASIZE that GUIDELINES are just that - GUIDELINES --and not LAW (if it were law these would be regulations -- so we don't need MORE GUIDELINES but decent REGS which protect the consumer).

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited December 12, 2009 by jimbo45