Why is it always assumed that an enforcable cca means a recoverable debt exists ?

[bengateway]

Having read many threads regarding cca's and there enforcability, it always appears that provided the agreement contains the core prescribed terms its game over for the alledged debtor.

What I dont see is how the existence of an agreement means a debt is owed.

Anyone can, as an example sign an agreement for, lets say a loan, pay it off over a three year period. and then five and a half years down the road recieve threats from a dca. Now its your word against there's.

So you know you paid the loan, because of the elapsed time you no longer have any paperwork, and they can come up with a pre constructed computer print out of an alledged amount owed, along with the agreement you signed. Is it really that easy for them ?

As said enforcable cca = you owe the money, doesn't matter if its been paid or not. Please tell me I'm wrong and why.

If not, then thats a little scary, for everyone.

[Tingy]

Having read many threads regarding cca's and there enforcability, it always appears that provided the agreement contains the core prescribed terms its game over for the alledged debtor.

What I dont see is how the existence of an agreement means a debt is owed.

Anyone can, as an example sign an agreement for, lets say a loan, pay it off over a three year period. and then five and a half years down the road recieve threats from a dca. Now its your word against there's.

So you know you paid the loan, because of the elapsed time you no longer have any paperwork, and they can come up with a pre constructed computer print out of an alledged amount owed, along with the agreement you signed. Is it really that easy for them ?

As said enforcable cca = you owe the money, doesn't matter if its been paid or not. Please tell me I'm wrong and why.

If not, then thats a little scary, for everyone.

 

You are wrong! That's the good news! It does actually happen quite frequently, not as you suggest above, but where a debt is owed but the DCA cannot be sure where the original debtor is. They will then send letters out with very little, if any research to someone of the same name or to the people at the last known address of the debtor demanding payment.

 

Ultimately I guess if it went to court you are innocent until proven guilty. In your actual example it woud be easy as after 5 1/2 years it would still be on your credit record as fully paid.

[PGH7447]

because then they would be commiting fraud, we all know these companies dont play by the rules but taking the next step to actually wilfully commit fraud is even beyond their capability

[bengateway]

Thanks for clearing that one up, of course as said, up to 6 years it's on your credit file any way, after six years it might not show, but then the stat barred situation comes into play.

As far as dca's not willfully commiting fraud !!

They are unlikely to hold there hands up to that one, it would of course be an honest case of mistaken identity, or an admin error.

At least I now know that a cca is no proof that a debt exists on its own. Just that a contract once existed. Would that be a fair comment.

[Tingy]

Thanks for clearing that one up, of course as said, up to 6 years it's on your credit file any way, after six years it might not show, but then the stat barred situation comes into play.

As far as dca's not willfully commiting fraud !!

They are unlikely to hold there hands up to that one, it would of course be an honest case of mistaken identity, or an admin error.

At least I now know that a cca is no proof that a debt exists on its own. Just that a contract once existed. Would that be a fair comment.

 

Yes, possibly. Another thing this shows up is the importance ok keeping record files.