Cap1 & CCA return

[Chalkitup]

Hello,

 

I must add that CCCS have given me very poor advice over the years and when I started to question them they did not want to know. They were firmly on the creditor side and would not listen at all about unenforceable agreements!!

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

[Gallahad]

Hmmm, not to sure about that DD. My experience of these companies (CCCS, National Debtline, etc) is that they are very reluctant to encourage anyone to assert their legal rights when faced with a court claim and often give very biased and downright dangerous advice. I know of an elderly person who was being taken to court and National Debtline and CCCS both said that there was nothing she could do, just to admit the claim, of course we later discovered (when I joined this forum) that they need an enforceable agreement (which NDebtline were fully aware of, but chose not to mention) which they didn't have, but the person now has a CCJ. Someone on the Link thread recently had a judgement obtained against them as well, and now possibly a charging order, because Payplan said they should admit the claim and filled the forms in on the persons behalf to that effect!

 

They are funded by the credit industry and the sole aim of this is to make sure that the debtor is paying the maximum amount back on any alleged debt, exactly why the credit industry sponsors them in the first place. I personally would steer clear of these companies and make my own informed decisions.

 

Magda

 

Magda I do agree with you but would point out that the license to operate which these so called advice organisations operate under actually forbids them to provide legal advice.

G

[captain2]

That sounds dangerous as they do seem to just concentrate on payment and not on validity of debt.

 

When for example hard core debt which was built up when normal none offer rates were 16.68% in '99 as with MBNA. This was at a time when base rates were probably 6 per cent.

 

Thus the gulf between that rate and the current MBNA rate of 30 per cent is around 14/15% but in fact had rates followed base the gulf would really be around 20%.

 

Take £10k hard core debt accrued under 16.68% over 10 years and assume for example an unjustified and 'misrepresented' rate of double that plus the margin it should have reduced to rather than increased to and the debt would be repaid in 4-5 years.

 

Hence any CC balance over 5 years old is possibly the value of the unfair interest charged. Factor in court 8 per cent rate in the event of a court win and gulf widens even more !

 

I don't hear anyone in these advisory institutions advising of such possibilities and that's before the probably defective agreement itself is even looked at.

[IainHL]

Sorry to pull this up from a few pages back but would I be asking these questions of the claimant or would I put it in my defence?

summerbreeze, I think the point being made by diddydicky was that you would be asking these questions in court, should they be given permission to produce the microfiche version of the agreement instead of the original. So it wouldn't be in your initial defence. I am not familiar with the process (yet!), but I imagine you might put it in your skeleton argument, possibly along with calling the witnesses in an amended defence.

 

Perhaps someone more familiar with the court process could comment?

[MAGDA]

Magda I do agree with you but would point out that the license to operate which these so called advice organisations operate under actually forbids them to provide legal advice.

G

 

Hi Gallahad, thanks for the info, hadn't realised these organisations aren't supposed to give legal advice, because they do seem to. What worries me is that they inevitably advise people to admit the claim, which they really shouldn't be doing.

 

regards, Magda:-)

[Bigdebtor]

I think the first thing they should do when someone contacts them is issue a "Health warning" along the lines "we are funded by...." "our objective is...." "we can...." "we are not allowed to....".

 

It looks as if they may even be set up as a sort of bank 5th column - luring people in trouble into giving away their rights and paying back money they don't have to repay.

 

Maybe OFT should look at this instead of interfering in the legal processes which were working fine before their "help".

[diddydicky]

I agree to a point DD however the information they do collect and put forward to the cc does enable a quick and easy assessment of an individuals situation which must save them many man hours and costs.

 

i think you will find it is more to do with ensuring that individuals are telling the truth about their I & E more than antything else

[diddydicky]

Sorry to pull this up from a few pages back but would I be asking these questions of the claimant or would I put it in my defence?

 

its for your defence- is suggets you search through surfaceagent x20's threads and you will find some useful information

[diddydicky]

I agree with that most of the time, but then you hear about another person who is suddenly being chased for old debts after signing up for one of their free trials and I go all conspiracy theory again:rolleyes:

 

i think you are referring to CRA's rather than CCCS

[diddydicky]

Hmmm, not to sure about that DD. My experience of these companies (CCCS, National Debtline, etc) is that they are very reluctant to encourage anyone to assert their legal rights when faced with a court claim and often give very biased and downright dangerous advice. I know of an elderly person who was being taken to court and National Debtline and CCCS both said that there was nothing she could do, just to admit the claim, of course we later discovered (when I joined this forum) that they need an enforceable agreement (which NDebtline were fully aware of, but chose not to mention) which they didn't have, but the person now has a CCJ. Someone on the Link thread recently had a judgement obtained against them as well, and now possibly a charging order, because Payplan said they should admit the claim and filled the forms in on the persons behalf to that effect!

 

They are funded by the credit industry and the sole aim of this is to make sure that the debtor is paying the maximum amount back on any alleged debt, exactly why the credit industry sponsors them in the first place. I personally would steer clear of these companies and make my own informed decisions.

 

Magda

 

well i was merely responding to the matter of their funding and links to the finance companies- i accept your other unrelated comments- their main role is to facilitate repayment plans for those who are not challenging their debts but are in the Sh*t, and for that they do a good job on the whole

 

 

i cant agree with your suggestion that their role is to make sure you pay the MAXIMUM back(as if on behalf of the creditor) they work to a set formula (which is the same one used by the courts) in order to work out the disposable income available to creditors after secured and essential outgoings have been catered for, and it is pro rata'd accordingly.

 

From the contact i have had with them on behalf of others- they have been willing to ensure that debtors allow for such things as smoking , holidays etc and in my opinion give enough "hints" to what the debtor should make allowances for. before arriving at a disposable income.

 

 

as for legal advice- well that's not their role- you don't ask the butcher to supply you with fish do you?

 

i know a lot of SOLICITORS ( stories of whom have been related on this site) who give dangerous and crap advice on consumer credit matters

Edited December 2, 2009 by diddydicky

[MAGDA]

I think the first thing they should do when someone contacts them is issue a "Health warning" along the lines "we are funded by...." "our objective is...." "we can...." "we are not allowed to....".

 

It looks as if they may even be set up as a sort of bank 5th column - luring people in trouble into giving away their rights and paying back money they don't have to repay.

 

Maybe OFT should look at this instead of interfering in the legal processes which were working fine before their "help".

 

completely agree.

[MAGDA]

well i was merely responding to the matter of their funding and links to the finance companies- i accept your other unrelated comments- their main role is to facilitate repayment plans for those who are not challenging their debts but are in the Sh*t, and for that they do a good job on the whole

 

 

i cant agree with your suggestion that their role is to make sure you pay the MAXIMUM back(as if on behalf of the creditor) they work to a set formula (which is the same one used by the courts) in order to work out the disposable income available to creditors after secured and essential outgoings have been catered for, and it is pro rata'd accordingly.

 

From the contact i have had with them on behalf of others- they have been willing to ensure that debtors allow for such things as smoking , holidays etc and iconcn my opinion give enough "hints" to what the debtor should make allowances for. before arriving at a disposable income.

 

 

as for legal advice- well that's not their role- you don't ask the butcher to supply you with fish do you?

 

i know a lot of SOLICITORS ( stories of whom have been related on this site) who give dangerous and crap advice on consumer credit matters

 

Yes, you do get inept solicitors, the same as in any other profession. However, National Debtline for example do give legal advice to a certain extent - for example their advice is, if you have been threatened with a charging order to ring them straight away. Why exactly, not as if they do anything constructive to help. I actually have found them to be very biased towards the creditor when you dig a little deeper than their initial apparent concern. They are concerned solely with extracting payments on the creditors behalf and often give advice which is blatantly incorrect.

 

They will advise anyone who has received a court claim to admit it, and even submit the paperwork to this effect. They shouldn't be doing this. After all, if they don't give legal advice their intitial reaction should be to advise the person to make sure, before admitting any claim, that they are fully aware of their legal rights.

 

Magda

[Bigdebtor]

On a related topic Suppose you have previously agreed frozen interest and charges along with an affordable monthly payment with either an OC or DCA - and then you find they can't find the cca or it's unenforceable - is your previous payment arrangement agreement sufficient admission of the debt to make it enforceable? What if you have proposed a low % short settlement (but this was not taken up and settled)?

 

BD.

[diddydicky]

Yes, you do get inept solicitors, the same as in any other profession. However, National Debtline for example do give legal advice to a certain extent - for example their advice is, if you have been threatened with a charging order to ring them straight away. Why exactly, not as if they do anything constructive to help. I actually have found them to be very biased towards the creditor when you dig a little deeper than their initial apparent concern. They are concerned solely with extracting payments on the creditors behalf and often give advice which is blatantly incorrect.

 

They will advise anyone who has received a court claim to admit it, and even submit the paperwork to this effect. They shouldn't be doing this. After all, if they don't give legal advice their intitial reaction should be to advise the person to make sure, before admitting any claim, that they are fully aware of their legal rights.

 

Magda

 

it's horses for courses some people are happy with their service , some not

 

for many, i suspect the intervention of a third party to stop all the demands from mutliple creditors and one single payment is an answer to their prayers

 

for those like us who wish to challenge the debts- i agree it is not suitable

[diddydicky]

On a related topic Suppose you have previously agreed frozen interest and charges along with an affordable monthly payment with either an OC or DCA - and then you find they can't find the cca or it's unenforceable - is your previous payment arrangement agreement sufficient admission of the debt to make it enforceable? What if you have proposed a low % short settlement (but this was not taken up and settled)?

 

BD.

 

no, in 99.99% of cases it is clear that you HAVE borrowed money from the creditor,

 

the admission that you have done so cannot validate what is an invalid agreement

 

What you would be contesting is not that there was never an agreement, simply that the agreement was not legally enforceable.

 

it 's a bit like the ball going over the neighbours fence,- its your property but the neighbour is not legally obliged to throw it back over the fence!! neither are you allowed to trespass on his property to go and get it

[Bigdebtor]

DD If the OFT got involved would it become a case of "balls up" on the roof - so neither you nor the neighbour could get at it?

[diddydicky]

DD If the OFT got involved would it become a case of "balls up" on the roof - so neither you nor the neighbour could get at it?

:D

[amber]

On a related topic Suppose you have previously agreed frozen interest and charges along with an affordable monthly payment with either an OC or DCA - and then you find they can't find the cca or it's unenforceable - is your previous payment arrangement agreement sufficient admission of the debt to make it enforceable? What if you have proposed a low % short settlement (but this was not taken up and settled)?

 

BD.

 

Hi. I am on a DMP with CCCS due to rate jacking and currently being unemployed. As a knock on effect, this made me question what I'd agreed to etc and to request my orignal CCA's + SAR requests (you know the drill). What BigDebtor stated above has been quite a concern for me.

 

I have just come off the phone to CCCS as today my OH has received a default notice from Mercers on his Barclaycard account, so I was calling to update them on this matter. Barclaycard are also stating that they themselves have had no notification from CCCS about a DMP, so they are chasing that up. Whilst on the phone I put this question to them: I have an MBNA card, which I am disputing due to the CCA being unenforceable, and due to the fact that I am paying them token payments, where does that leave me, by paying the debt off by token payments, am I in fact not admitting the debt by paying it through them, yet on the other hand, I have sent them the account in dispute letter stipulating I will with-hold payments until this matter is resolved (they will not send me statements going back till 2001, today again I have recieved SAR only going back to 2003 (6 yrs statements only they keep sending me).

 

CCCS informed me that I have to keep making the token payments or else MBNA will take me to court, oh and they will also issue me defaults regardless of whether am on a DMP and making payments. Told me Egg have refused to accept the offer of token payments "but we'll keep sending them anyway".

 

Whilst its nice to have a lifeline when I am up to my eyes in horse manure, are these companies really working in the consumers best interest (with advice like stated above) or, as they are financed by these Investors, are they really looking out for them. I find myself quite puzzled with the set-up really, but its all I've got.

[diddydicky]

if your on a payment plan your credit rating is already trashed so they cant trash it any more than they already have

[amber]

Yes I know that. I'm more concerned about being on the DMP and making the token payments as requestedl/advised via CCCS and then me chasing MBNA regarding what is deemed to be an unenforceable CCA, so sending the account in dispute letter. YET still paying because I was told today that I have to. Any thoughts on this? Don't really give a monkeys any more re: credit rating because I never want credit again in my life, the only that really bothers me regarding my credit reference file is the detriment to my career in being unable to ever gain DV/SC clearance again, cos they've trashed it completely.

[MilkTrayMan]

...the only that really bothers me regarding my credit reference file is the detriment to my career in being unable to ever gain DV/SC clearance again, cos they've trashed it completely.

Only for the 6yrs AFTER U stop acknowledging any 'alleged' debt.

[captain2]

Hi Amber - you dont have to pay anything - but there's something to be said fot a DMP as it keeps them off your back.

 

Payplan told me they have NEVER come across any debtor who has been statutorily demanded and thus on the way to being made bankrupt and they say that if DCa's do this the OFT fine them and threaten removal of their licence. So the worst that can happen is a court case and judgement and monthly payment as already agreed with DMP so they have nothing to gain by spending money taking you to court.

 

In practice if you stay on the DMP but while in that get the agreements checked for enforceability then pick them off one by one. Also refer to the ombudsman regarding the high interest jacks which have increased the debt.

This is something the FOS have told me they can now look at.

 

By the time you do all that the test cases with Egg etc in March and others will have been heard.

[captain2]

What is DV/SC clearance ? A bad CRA file is not a criminal record although the way some people carry on it might as well be.....

[car2403]

the only that really bothers me regarding my credit reference file is the detriment to my career in being unable to ever gain DV/SC clearance again, cos they've trashed it completely.

 

I've gained SC clearance despite having Defaults on my CRA file

[amber]

MilkTrayMan - Yep 6yrs I've heard is the length of time it stays on your credit file. Still, 6yrs too bloody long for me when I am a freelance IT contractor and some of the more profitable contracts I get stipulate that I must have this clearence. Yes I can go for roles that don't require clearence, indeed I am going after any roles that pop up that interest me on CWJobs/Jobsite/Jobserve etc. No joy there either due to a number of factors, recession, budgets halted, projects on hold, inter/intra-company transfers. The scope which was widely available at one time is no longer there but hey, it ain't just me, so one must not grumble too much.

 

car2403 - Thats very interesting to know and I guess it is worth a shot at. I'm just reluctant to divulge DMP arrangements on security clearence forms in case they think I am too much of a financial risk for them to take me on in case, oh I don't really know..lol

 

Captain2 - DV= Defence Vetting for MOD jobs. SC=Security clearance.

And your'e right, its not a criminal record but I know some mates who are in the same situation and have been refused clearance thus being made to feel like a bloody criminal!