Jump to content

Consumers not paying there debts

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3930 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts



Looks like the OFT has sided with DCA's does that mean that breaking the law has just become legal???


Because if DCA's can do it so should we.

We live in an unmoderated country why should the net be any different?

Bring back free speech we miss it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a non-story, really. An unenforceable debt is still that – unenforceable.


This story appears to be having a pop at the ambulance chasers. But I agree, it is a bit headmasterish of the OFT to lecture the public when it does sod all about dodgy DCA practices.


I know CAG doesn’t, and I certainly don’t, condone debt avoidance. The issue of unenforceable agreements tends to be a weapon used by Caggers where DCAs and debt buyers are behaving unreasonably or even outside the law in their collection methods, at which point I believe the issue of non-enforceability becomes a legitimate weapon in the legal armoury.


Those who live by the sword of contract must be prepared to get stuffed by their own failings in putting together what should be simple contracts for loans and credit cards.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009


If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Credit Today is the sponsored comic of the debt industry, I would be very surprised if they didn't spin the OFT's press release towards the industry.


The OFT is not really saying anything new. The law has always allowed creditors, in response to a s.77/78 request, to supply a copy agreement that isn't actually a copy of the original document. All the court cases have done is confirm this, although one clarified what enforcement meant. A debt is still unenforceable without the original. A debt is still owed whether the original agreement is supplied or not.


What Mr Watson, who seems to appear at these industry gatherings quite regularly (and it would be interesting to know if he has accepted any hospitality from them), has done, is restate the existing situation.


It is interesting, though, that the OFT has never criticised the banks for failing to ensure that they could comply with the law, by having original agreements readily available, even when they have destroyed them in contravention of money laundering regulations. Nor do they criticise DCAs and debt purchasers who litigate without having the documentation they rely on to hand.


Nor, of course, has the OFT appeared to recognise that people are usually in debt because of circumstances outside their control, and would pay their debts if they could; it is the unreasonable behaviour and non-compliant practices of the financial and debt industry that is the problem.


So, has the OFT been swayed by the whining lobbying of the debt industry? Probably, but not as much as we might think. The OFT's failure to enforce the conditions of consumer credit licences and guidance has always been ****poor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same propoganda from the oft that the test cases were all about, trying to ram it into peoples heads that they have to pay, and that banks/dca's are untouchable.

If the oft was capable of doing its job, the bank charges show would have gone their way by using the correct laws already in place.

I cant help feeling that this is all done on purpose to try stop people not paying, so the banks ont get into more problems.

question everything!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the oft was capable of doing its job, .


Hence they will soon be no more, and we will have to rely on the poor old CAB, I bet the DCA's are p*ss*ng themselves with aniticpation at this




Getting There Slowly



Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But of course, I have just heard on the news 'Banks must ensure that any borrowing can be afforded and paid for'., so really, as lending gets more scarce so will the 'files'/'accounts' that the DCAs will be able to purchase.


Assuming of course, that the banks will actually not be 'policed' or 'made more responsible' if a debt cannot be paid because of change of circumstances in the future which cannot be foreseen.


How many of tomorrows' debtors were able to borrow yesteday, but will loose their jobs in the next 4 years?


So, in theory the only way to get a loan in the future, will be going back to the past when all loans were secured. Having a job on the day you are approved for a loan means that you have to provide some guarantee that you will have one in 4 years time.


Whichever way you look at it, it is BAD news for DCAs as their 'font of wealth' will eventually dry up.

Every journey begins with a single step :):)


Please note: I have no qualifications in this area - my advice is learned from the wonderful members of this Forum. Thanks to you all for your help.


If you have found my post helpful please leave a short message by clicking the star to the left of my profile - Thank You


The only person entitled to your Personal Finance details is a Judge not a DCA


Move all banking activity to another banking group if you have a dispute - your funds can be used to offset debts within the same group.

Be careful with Banking details (card/account numbers) as these can be used to take unauthorised payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT have only issued guidance on their guidelines. This is not a variation of the Consumer Credit Act. And while they, and the debt collectors they serve, waffle on about no agreement still meaning the debt must be paid the fact remains that if the debt collector is stupid enough to take court action to enforce their stupid demands the jus=dge would be spectacularly unimpressed if there is no hard evidence to back up the collectors claims. And let it not be forgotten that these documents must be the originals. So in my view no documents still means no debt because the debt collecting **** cannot prove it exists, the terms are correct and that the amount has been properly calculated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT came into effect on 1 April 2003.... Is it a coincidence it was April Fools day?

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts


Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.


Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit



17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...