Jump to content


McGuffick v RBS recent ruling


Honeypot
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4526 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

it depends on the judge you get on the day

 

but yes what you are implying is true, a judge 'could' make it enforceable, but no-one else.

 

sadly there are examples of both schools so there is no hard and fast rule.

 

though it needs to be born-in-mind that case was not a typical example of what 'might' happen if you read it carefully.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Slightly off the subject of enforceability, this does make quite an interesting read as there do appear to be a number of contradictions within it. I particularly noticed, on the subject of CRA reporting, at para 6, the letter issued by the bank which is, to all intents and purposes, a threatened action in the event of non compliance;

 

`The Group and other companies may use the record of default and any other information provided to the agencies when considering applications by you, or other members of your household, for facilities including motor, household, credit, life and general insurance.` the phrase `or members of your household` which covers anyone in your household, not just family members, and which phrase was specifically mentioned by the claimants solicitor. Subsequently in para 35 the defendants cited a leaflet issued by the ICO which states that `the concept of associates or association for the purposes of credit performance data is limited to those who have a joint account or have made a joint application for credit`. The two critical statements are actually entirely incompatible.

 

The defendants cited the entire purpose of CRA's as being for the purposes of responsible lending, which the judge accepted, in which case how can they, in effect be used as a means of threat of coercion?

 

It's highly debatable whether CRA's are effectlively a form of blacklist (which is against the law see para 83 section 6.10.28) if they include any negative information as it is effectively representing people as a bad risk. If it is possible to justify CRA's at all one could argue that they may only be allowed to present positive information i.e. a loan was granted, the loan has been appropriately serviced in the past year, etc. A prospective lender would potentially be able to see open levels of credit and be able to make their own investigation if they feel any doubt may exist and still support the acitivity of responsible lending.

 

As I say, there seemed to be a number of contradictions and didn't seem to offer a great deal of comfort in respect of consumer protection. The culture of threat and intimidation is allowed to continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...