Cap1 & CCA return

[Gallahad]

Debt Management Programme....I think

 

dave

Thanks Dave but I do think you have to declare all your creditors to do that and if ccc have not supplied an enforceable agreement you have no way of knowing your true creditors.

[captain2]

Thats a good point that you need agreement first to establish its valid - but my angle was to get a DMP in place as protection while simultaneously getting the agreements legally checked and declared unenforceable.

[Gallahad]

Hello thats quick reply - DMP = debt management plan - I owe £86k on cards and huge mortgage but as I do holiday lettings the mortgage interest should be covered next year - i have sizeable unsecured and secured business debts too and its really chaotic - BUT my business is beginning to recover so at least I can now see an end or more like a ledge to get on before the next climb ! The DMP would stave off action and not tie me into acknowledging the debts as they are either statutorily unenforceable or not - maybe you should look at this. Payplan is the credit industry's funded charity which seems to have a good arrangement with creditors where they can get agreements in place. The once they've become used to accepting small token sums a low one off full and final may be attractive to them -

Thanks C2 I will have a look in to that although I am very suspect of anyone or anything funded by the credit industry. I have already been offered and declined several heavily discounted settlements settlement offers including 0ne of 60%. I have declined all of these until they can prove they hold enforcable agreements I have no intention of letting them off the hook. We too do holiday lettings by the way.

[Gallahad]

Thats a good point that you need agreement first to establish its valid - but my angle was to get a DMP in place as protection while simultaneously getting the agreements legally checked and declared unenforceable.

Take care my friend as what they may have supplied may appear unenforcable that does not mean they do not have an enforcable one that they can produce in court. These a very slippery and parasitic organisations.

[andrew1]

Thanks C2 I will have a look in to that although I am very suspect of anyone or anything funded by the credit industry. I have already been offered and declined several heavily discounted settlements settlement offers including 0ne of 60%. I have declined all of these until they can prove they hold enforcable agreements I have no intention of letting them off the hook. We too do holiday lettings by the way.

 

 

I have had experience of a debt management plan run by a company such as this Payplan...with a very large portfolio of cards and loans too. The advice I would give following on these previous comments is if you are being harassed by creditors on the personal side then a Debt management plan spread over as many years as you can possibly make it ( the one I experienced was 30yrs) as it reduces the monthly amounts you pay. The initial year was £125 a month paid out by the DMP pro-rata to the creditors amounts so some got £10 others got £35...once that is in place and you make a few payments then CCA request each creditor and get your Subject Access requests into them as well to ensure you have all your charges dealt with. It's not costing you much at this stage. You need to be careful because some of these companies, if not all, will know if you have a property or equity so if they think they can call on that they probably will at some stage with a charging Order as has been suggested. However, all the time you are in the DMP you are relatively well protected, not totally because there's always a rogue company, but most of the big companies are accepting DMP's for starters at least.

 

You'll have to do an income and expenditure and as also mentioned, declare ALL your creditors, that though is not such a bad thing and you can use this to your advantage.

 

Once in the plan and you have your cca's out and dealt with the charges aspects you are now back in control - so use it.

 

If they default on the CCA request that means No agreements supplied which means that they cannot pass the debt to DCA's or litigation until they do and whilst in the DMP they are unlikely to anyway. You now have a bargaining tool....one by one pick them off no matter how big the debt. If you get some cash you can make a full and final settlement on no matter how small try it, find a good enough reason why they should accept and sell it to them...practice what you're going to say and sell it to them. No agreement is a good enough reason to tell them to get lost, but a small settlement makes the medicine go down much better...work on it and make it work for you.

 

I have

[Gallahad]

I have had experience of a debt management plan run by a company such as this Payplan...with a very large portfolio of cards and loans too. The advice I would give following on these previous comments is if you are being harassed by creditors on the personal side then a Debt management plan spread over as many years as you can possibly make it ( the one I experienced was 30yrs) as it reduces the monthly amounts you pay. The initial year was £125 a month paid out by the DMP pro-rata to the creditors amounts so some got £10 others got £35...once that is in place and you make a few payments then CCA request each creditor and get your Subject Access requests into them as well to ensure you have all your charges dealt with. It's not costing you much at this stage. You need to be careful because some of these companies, if not all, will know if you have a property or equity so if they think they can call on that they probably will at some stage with a charging Order as has been suggested. However, all the time you are in the DMP you are relatively well protected, not totally because there's always a rogue company, but most of the big companies are accepting DMP's for starters at least.

 

You'll have to do an income and expenditure and as also mentioned, declare ALL your creditors, that though is not such a bad thing and you can use this to your advantage.

 

Once in the plan and you have your cca's out and dealt with the charges aspects you are now back in control - so use it.

 

If they default on the CCA request that means No agreements supplied which means that they cannot pass the debt to DCA's or litigation until they do and whilst in the DMP they are unlikely to anyway. You now have a bargaining tool....one by one pick them off no matter how big the debt. If you get some cash you can make a full and final settlement on no matter how small try it, find a good enough reason why they should accept and sell it to them...practice what you're going to say and sell it to them. No agreement is a good enough reason to tell them to get lost, but a small settlement makes the medicine go down much better...work on it and make it work for you.

 

I have

 

Andrew1 thanks for the info and passing on the benefit of your experiences.

G

[andrew1]

Andrew1 thanks for the info and passing on the benefit of your experiences.

G

 

It's my pleasure, Debt is a serious worry as can be witnessed on all these threads on the forum, but it's not the end of the world and you can turn it all around and turn negatives into positives by planning, researching and setting out an overall gameplan - it can be done when you don't even have a cent in the spare draw to go searching for...aim to get control back, use these wonderful people on here to get the energy and hope back into your lives and use the synergy, that brilliant word ' synergy' :

 

n., pl., -gies.

 

1. The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.

2. Cooperative interaction among groups, especially among the acquired subsidiaries or merged parts of a corporation, that creates an enhanced combined effect.

 

[From Greek sunergiā, cooperation, from sunergos, working together.

 

from the people on the forum to achieve it...you can, we have, they do, they will continue to do...

 

and to keep this on thread theme - it all begins with an Agreement - no agreement - no debt!

 

We have a saying in the Cabot Fan Club - KIS - Keep It Simple, don't over complicate things by looking too hard - you'll find all you need in the agreement.

 

Andrew1

Edited November 21, 2009 by andrew1
added bit.

[diddydicky]

Take care my friend as what they may have supplied may appear unenforcable that does not mean they do not have an enforcable one that they can produce in court. These a very slippery and parasitic organisations.

 

i dont think you will find that they deliberately withhold the "good one" whilst sending you crap

 

more that they "archive" old records (often in a disused bunker on an airfield in khazakstan and it takes a lot of time and trouble to retrieve them- they bull**** you and only make a real effort to get the original if they have to

 

alternatively they have long since microfiched and/or destroyed them but will not admit it until they have to

[Gallahad]

Thank you Andrew1 for those encouraging words I am completely with the program and believe this site is an invaluable example of people power that provides the ordinary folk a way to combat the manipulators of the establishment.

DD your comments too are welcom and noted, I am learning all the time.

G

[captain2]

Hello again - I wouldnt worry about payplan being on side of creditors they're not its just a tactic on my part to keep control over potentially spiralling situation -

 

Also my letters to Egg and MBNA have indicated to each that until they produce a copy agreement I would be willing to pay token sum and look at full and final at no more than 10 per cent. Thats all they get from selling debt on

and they will know which agreements are enforceable so if they know they haven't got one or have a duff one then they will be looking at getting out of it - my argument with them is that they have already had more than the full balance in excessive and unfair interest - so morally and legally I have the high ground - but as you know they don't go away so its just to safeguard my current position and to have some finality over it from my point of view.

 

Your situation sounds surprisingly similar to mine why don't you send me a private message and i will give you my contact details. I'm in N Yorks by the way. I am in the property development and holiday lettings business and others.

[andrew1]

I would be willing to pay token sum and look at full and final at no more than 10 per cent. Thats all they get from selling debt on .

 

With respect Captain2, if you go in with that argument they will never agree a full and final - what they pay for it is irrelevant - painful for us though it is, it is a commercial decision between bank and dca and not a bartering tool for us. If they know you have a property for example they might have to pay up to 25% for it -you don't know and unless you do, forget that argument..I agree about agreements, but be very sure of what you are planning and how you tackle the negotiating. I speak from experience.

[captain2]

Hi Andrew thanks for those words of caution you sound as though you have been there already ! Ill drop that line - if the agreements are unenforceable then i suppose its largely irrelevant anyway - maybe the debt management plan if we can agree low enough monthly figure with the creditors would be better value and see what happens over the next 6 months or so as the agreements are looked at and if found to be unenforceable they can drop out of any plan altogether - I have managed to locate a no win no fee agreement auditor - but remains to be seen what happens there. Any suggestions from your own experience here ?

[Bigdebtor]

Captain2

 

Did I understamnd you to say your unfair charges and associated contractual interest are bigger than the current debt balance - so surely the answer is to demand these be refunded? That way - assuming you go to the wire and get paid - you will actually end with THEM paying out to YOU?

[captain2]

Hello there - I assume you mean charges and interest on the charges in which case no there wont be much of a refund.

 

But yes in my own reckoning take for example Egg - at £10k each balance on each of the 2 cards held for 5 and 6 years the interest initially was something like 1.29 per month - their section 12 of the accompanying generic terms relates to interest which will fluctuate with banking practice which as its vague can only really mean base rate.

 

So if base rate was say 6 per cent when I took the agreements on then the monthly rate wants to be now say 0.6/7 per cent when we all know its around 2.5 - at that rate the difference between that is for arguments sake say 2 per cent per month or around 20 or more per cent per annum and on balances which quickly got up to £10k per card when the accounts were open that means the difference between the 2 rates would over 5 years amount to whatever balance were to be owed !

 

That is before the application of 8 per cent county court rate if that argument held up.

 

However this argument would have to be refined and tuned into when their rates went up so much and when the base rates dropped so much and the gulf between precisely plotted - but it is likely to equate to almost if not as much as the debt itself.

 

Of course Egg like all the others will argue that they can put the rates up as they feel like it. In my as yet untested opinion they cannot do so. When I studied contract law any vague terms would be read against the person making them - esp in mass consumer products where they are imposed on the less dominant party.

 

Even the standard text books on banking law cite 'and for any other reason' as being invalid when referring to a right to alter the rates.

 

In my opinion it can hardly be a valid reason to increase rates when base rates have declined on money already borrowed. Also when signing or agreeing to a contract if those terms stated as they were then have been ignored - then the Misrepresentation Act of 67 may apply - as on reading the terms then how is it reasonable to suppose at some future date money borrowed under that belief or terms would then be subject to unilateral interest rate increases when base rates have declined exponentially ?

 

That is before even the Unfair Contracts Terms Acts have been taken into account. So you can see the argument is 2 fold - one the agreement is probably not enforceable as prescribed terms are not stated correctly and even if they were the body of the remaining contract has been breached by misrepresented and unreasonable terms and the dominant position of the creditor and vagueness of terms would work against them.

 

Capt2

[Gallahad]

Hello there - I assume you mean charges and interest on the charges in which case no there wont be much of a refund.

 

But yes in my own reckoning take for example Egg - at £10k each balance on each of the 2 cards held for 5 and 6 years the interest initially was something like 1.29 per month - their section 12 of the accompanying generic terms relates to interest which will fluctuate with banking practice which as its vague can only really mean base rate.

 

So if base rate was say 6 per cent when I took the agreements on then the monthly rate wants to be now say 0.6/7 per cent when we all know its around 2.5 - at that rate the difference between that is for arguments sake say 2 per cent per month or around 20 or more per cent per annum and on balances which quickly got up to £10k per card when the accounts were open that means the difference between the 2 rates would over 5 years amount to whatever balance were to be owed !

 

That is before the application of 8 per cent county court rate if that argument held up.

 

However this argument would have to be refined and tuned into when their rates went up so much and when the base rates dropped so much and the gulf between precisely plotted - but it is likely to equate to almost if not as much as the debt itself.

 

Of course Egg like all the others will argue that they can put the rates up as they feel like it. In my as yet untested opinion they cannot do so. When I studied contract law any vague terms would be read against the person making them - esp in mass consumer products where they are imposed on the less dominant party.

 

Even the standard text books on banking law cite 'and for any other reason' as being invalid when referring to a right to alter the rates.

 

In my opinion it can hardly be a valid reason to increase rates when base rates have declined on money already borrowed. Also when signing or agreeing to a contract if those terms stated as they were then have been ignored - then the Misrepresentation Act of 67 may apply - as on reading the terms then how is it reasonable to suppose at some future date money borrowed under that belief or terms would then be subject to unilateral interest rate increases when base rates have declined exponentially ?

 

That is before even the Unfair Contracts Terms Acts have been taken into account. So you can see the argument is 2 fold - one the agreement is probably not enforceable as prescribed terms are not stated correctly and even if they were the body of the remaining contract has been breached by misrepresented and unreasonable terms and the dominant position of the creditor and vagueness of terms would work against them.

 

Capt2

Hi captain2,

reference you observations on cc high interest rates. Even the media and politicians have questioned these and they have admitted that they are not based on either libor or the bank rates. The reason they give is that they need to raise the rates for riskier lending. We of course all know that all lending becomes riskier at exhorbitant rates, however the media and politicians have accepted their right to do this.

G

[Bigdebtor]

Hi captain2,

reference you observations on cc high interest rates. Even the media and politicians have questioned these and they have admitted that they are not based on either libor or the bank rates. The reason they give is that they need to raise the rates for riskier lending. We of course all know that all lending becomes riskier at exhorbitant rates, however the media and politicians have accepted their right to do this.

G

 

Just a thought - supposing by a miracle the creditors had a valid cca - and we were able to pay them off in full - so historically the account has proven not to be high risk - how about recalculating all the interest charged at a low risk rate and refunding us the difference? That would be only fair I think?

[Gallahad]

Ahhhh the world as it should be rather than what it is, an interesting concept.

[captain2]

Hi the media and politicians are not lawyers or consumers burdened with these self interested vermin - risky lending for NEW sums is maybe an argument for high rates but to put rates up on existing sums is increasing the risk and de-stabilising other loans the debtor may have such as mortgage repayments -

The argument is a legal one and only needs to be used IF the agreements turn out to be enforceable -

Get into a debt management plan caused by increasing the rates and where does the argument go from there ? they charge 300 per cent more than originally agreed to then cause you to have to enter a debt man plan where is the logic there ?

 

In any event they have from me at least all had already as much as they are morally and in my view legally entitled to.

[captain2]

Hello all - just a bit of info here - Ive just returned a call to MBNA about my account - they are wanting to default at the month end and offering a low interest free monthly repayment sum or full and final of some 35 per cent paid over a period of time - claiming they are likely to sell the debt on - they get a low figure maybe 10 to 20 per cent - but sell to reputable firms where can come to an arrangement with them. Strange at no point in any of these dealings with any creditor is bankruptcy ever threatened - don't know whether that is something the DCA's or other companies which buy the debt ever get round to doing ? I guess if someone did its going to result in no one EVER getting anything so suppose the answer is they don't ? any views on this ?

[SteveH2508]

The ultimate irony is that the risk of non-repayment is mainly of the banks' own making.

If they had only:

1) ensured their agreements complied with the CCA74

2) kept proper copies

3) not messed with the T&Cs greedily i.e. racked up the interest rates; charges; changed payment dates and upped the minimum repayments (MBNA you know who you are!)

 

then the level of default (AKA level of risk) would be a lot lower.

 

Think on that next Wednesday you greedy load of *ankers.

[diddydicky]

yes, don't you ever listen??

 

the advice on this forum regarding talking to your creditors on the phone is probably the number one top dollar piece of advice you are ever going to get

 

DONT DO IT

 

having done it i would suggest that you now write to them and ask them to confirm their offer in writing.

 

dont be surpised if they dont!!

[captain2]

Yes i slipped up there - but it was interesting to see what they would come up with as a first suggestion maybe if I had the funds I could make a 10 per cent offer - i'm now waiting to see if the agreements are enforceable as that obviously strengthens the hand -

[Smarterchick]

Yes i slipped up there - but it was interesting to see what they would come up with as a first suggestion maybe if I had the funds I could make a 10 per cent offer - i'm now waiting to see if the agreements are enforceable as that obviously strengthens the hand -

 

 

If you offer £1000 as full and final on a £10,000 debt it sounds more than 10% - they might say 15% as that sounds better or 25%, but if you say you'll up it during the negotiations by £100 as that's making funds difficult to get that takes your offer to 11% their offer at 15% is already £400 higher - get the jist? Don't use %'s as negotiating tools - use money - it sounds more but isn't - gerrit?

[johnerog]

please don't make the mistake of thinking that fairness and morality have any place in dealings with banks and DCA's. The base line is Legality; and you will have to fight tooth and nail to get that, let alone justice.

 

Rule 1. Don't trust them.

Rule 2. Don't trust them.

Rule 3. Don't trust them.

Rule 4. Get a court order.

Rule 5. See rule 1.

[Enron]

Have to agree, its only the bottom line that matters to banks...... and that's it.

 

They will operate contrary to law, regulation, bank code and their own internal code of conducts all in the quest to extract funds out of you.