Cap1 & CCA return

[captain2]

Thats what FOS told me too - that should a creditor start legal action the FOS would speak to the court to ask them to wait till the case had been dealt with by them first.

 

Which in my case is exactly why i'm going down this route to buy time.

 

Have you complained about raising of interest rates and if so whats happened there ?

[Gallahad]

Re: Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angry cat

Just seen the following on Ceefax; 04/12/2009:

 

"Lenders must not mislead borrowers that their debts are enforceable, when in fact they are not, The OFT says.

The Regulator also says many debtors have, in turn, been mislead about their ability to escape their debts:

 

The OFT's comments are part of an intervention in a series of High Court test cases about the enforceability of debts under the Consumer Credit Act.

 

The outcome could affect thousands of potential court cases."

 

AC

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...t-2624289.html

This may throw some light

Edited December 4, 2009 by Gallahad

[Gallahad]

apologies I kinda messed up the paste:confused:

[johnerog]

Quote posted by Lexis:

 

"And they will hound you, threaten to, or actually take you to court and your credit file will be ruined."

 

Hi, to be honest, being hounded and threatened is something you have to be prepared for if you stop payments, but it does usually get better after a while when they realise you won't back down. Yes, they might take you to court, and in that case you will defend. Again, you need to be prepared for that. As for your credit rating, if you are in a situation where you are making reduced payments or on a DMP, your credit file is pretty much trashed anyway.

I couldn't agree more. I think that, particularly in the climate of fear that exists around CCC's and Banks at the moment, just having a bad thought will get your credit rating trashed let alone asking for a copy agreement.

 

I also think that when you first come looking for a site like CAG you know you are in trouble. There is no point in trying to hide, the sooner you face up to it and fight back the better. After all, if you don't fight back the end result is enevitable.

[Martel]

Hi, I'm not sure if this is off message on this thread, but thought it was worth a try!

 

I'm in an ongoing dispute with Hillesden Securities/Direct Legal and Collections regarding a CC debt with Halifax, B of S. I've CCA'd Halifax and Hillesden. They keep sending me an application form full of errors and omissions (e.g., not including the amount of credit; or the limit of credit, or the manner in which the credit will be decided; the rate of interest; how the borrower is to repay the debt). The application form also has lots of errors regarding my personal information.

 

Hillesden has sent me loads of irrelevant docs (including confirmation that the account was acquired from Direct Auto Financial Services when I haven't owned a car in 20 years!). They've also refused to send me a copy of the Sale Agreement to prove that they properly acquired the accounts from Halifax, B of S, saying they 'fail to understand the necessity for you to to obtain the full document'.

 

Hillesden is ignoring the facts (as above) as detailed in my numerous letters and have recently sent me a letter asserting that 'we have fully complied with your request for information under the CCA 1974. The documentation sent does comply with CCA 1974 regulations.

 

Our position remains unchanged and we will not enter into any further correspondence regarding this matter, unless instructed to do so by the FOS.

 

Your account has been returned to our collections team for collection activity to resume'.

 

Hillesden is patently ignoring the law and it's driving me crazy. I've also sent in an SAR.

 

Any advice on how to respond would be gratefully received!!

 

Thanks and sorry if I interrupted the flow of this thread.

 

MX

[captain2]

Hi if prescribed terms are missing - rate of interest and the term 'credit limit' and repayment terms are missing the agreement is unenforceable by a court.

 

But you would need to get to court to achieve that. In practical terms I deal with the companies who call me by having my mobile on silent as they do not have my home number this makes dealing with them OK.

 

I have their numbers named so I can see who it is calling and dont return those calls. If the land line is being abused you could consider caller ID,call barring or changing the number - its easier to ignore a mobile than a land line ......

 

You can then complain to the ombudsman that the rate of interest has not been confirmed in the agreement and its much higher than the rate you agreed to - that will give up to 9 months of delays while the test cases go ahead in court -

 

you can locate a no fee claim handler to audit and challenge the agreements too....while the FOS cause a delay these other actions can still be ongoing.

 

This is largely the course of action Ive taken so far......as I'm short of money at present if I had to I could resume payments when my business improves though I think most if not all of mine are unenforceable -

 

There are also formal means of complaint re abuse of the phone and harassment and there is plenty on here if you search it -

[Martel]

Thanks, C2! I'll go the FOS route at the moment - in my experience, Claims Handlers seem to prefer it when it gets to the Court Claim stage.

 

Phone harassment is limited - have you ever used BT's Choose to Refuse? It's not hugely expensive and will block up to ten phone numbers (it will also reveal the true number that is calling you, which is often not the number you will get on Caller ID). Sadly, I don't think there's a comparable service for mobiles!

 

Thanks again for your input, MX

[diddydicky]

Thanks, C2! I'll go the FOS route at the moment - in my experience, Claims Handlers seem to prefer it when it gets to the Court Claim stage.

 

Phone harassment is limited - have you ever used BT's Choose to Refuse? It's not hugely expensive and will block up to ten phone numbers (it will also reveal the true number that is calling you, which is often not the number you will get on Caller ID). Sadly, I don't think there's a comparable service for mobiles!

 

Thanks again for your input, MX

 

google cellphone blockers and also "cellphone blackball"

 

for landline truecall is perfect

[patrickq1]

you need to be going to the ICO with a serious complaint and if their as a question of someone demanding monies from you if the debt is not yours ,this could be a fraudulent deal why have they sent you demands you will need start a new tgread with as much detail please ok mate

patrickq1

[IainHL]

Re: Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angry cat

Just seen the following on Ceefax; 04/12/2009

 

Gallahad, was the above in response to my question "Could I ask please what the "test cases" people are referring to are about? In particular which precise sets of circumstances do they apply to?".

 

If so, thanks, however I am interested in knowing what circumstances those "test cases" are going to be dealing with, and I couldn't see that in the BBC report. For instance, are any of them dealing with an application by the debtor for a declaration under CCA1974 s.124(1) where the creditor appears not to have the original agreement?

Edited December 7, 2009 by IainHL
end quote properly

[captain2]

Hi Iain HL - there is a 'test' case with one of the site team with Egg in the High Court over 'credit limit' v. 'approved limit' - but it may end up getting withdrawn at last minute - I understand from my claims handler there are about a 12 other 'test' cases going ahead around now in the High Court re other companies such as MBNA. These are just what I know about and there will be others coming through over the next few months as proper test cases held up in Chester earlier in the year - I'm just guessing that in say 6 - 9 months some law will have become clearer possibly/probably in favour of debtors in terms of enforceability.

[IainHL]

Thanks C2.

 

I'm just guessing that in say 6 - 9 months some law will have become clearer possibly/probably in favour of debtors in terms of enforceability.

I really do hope so (in favour of debtors I mean)!

Edited December 7, 2009 by IainHL
make intention clear

[enoughisenough]

Hi all

 

I thought this might be worth a look at...

 

BBC News - Lenders warned not to mislead customers over debts

 

keep the faith. EiE.

[captain2]

Thanks EIE a timely and brilliant piece of positive news at last ! Especially for those who have the same hardcore debt for year on year never coming down due to increasingly higher and unfair rates of interest being applied without proper authority - I always take that view to avoid the argument that it is debt and should be rep[aid under my argument its already been repaid by unauthorised interest increases. This argument would work better where balances are hardcore and where they are in excess of a few years not just a year or two.

[captain2]

This has no bearing on whether an agreement is 'enforceable' - and doesn't alter the position at all in favour of lenders - all it does is to uphold a lenders right to report defaults to credit ref agencies. If there is no signed agreement, or the agreement lacks the prescribed terms it can't be enforced. Also it makes no difference to the 'unlawful' interest rate increases where for example in a RBS Advanta card - now 'Mint' agreement from '98 the interest was FIXED at 9.41% above base but where that Bank has ignored that term and raised the rates to double what they should be over a number of years which could well be enough to equal the value of any outstanding balance.

The term to raise interest rates for whatever reason they feel like is in my opinion invalid in such agreements where such term is present and in most agreements grounds for interest rate alterations are stated. In an era of unexpectedly low base rate interest this is in my opinion sufficient reason to challenge most of any outstanding balance under Misrep Act '67, Unfair contracts Terms Acts, most common law principle where or ambiguous or unclear terms are read against those making them,.....

[davefirewalker]

Just noticed....."Zion" has only posted 6 times on different threads.......ALL exactly the same quote

 

obviously a troll

 

Dave

[anynewmouse]

So which DCA does Zion work for then or would he/she work for RBS ???

[Bigdebtor]

Captain

 

Can you please post your point on the other threads where Zion's biased posts are so far unchallenged as this (mis?)information may harm other caggers?

 

Thanks

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

Enforcement of Credit Agreements – Good news for lenders

 

Phillip McGuffick –v- The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (High Court, October 2009)

 

The Facts

 

 

RBS could not find a copy of the loan agreement and so wrote to Mr McGuffick’s solicitors to say that it would not take enforcement action to recover the outstanding debt but that Mr McGuffick should continue to make repayments as the loan agreement was still in force. Further, RBS warned that, if Mr McGuffick failed to make his monthly repayments, RBS would report his continuing default to credit reference agencies.

 

Main Issues

 

The High Court was invited to provide guidance upon a number of issues that had arisen as a result of the dispute between RBS and Mr McGuffick. RBS eventually managed to produce a copy of the loan agreement between the parties and was therefore able to take enforcement action to recover the debt in the usual way. However, Mr McGuffick’s claim raised questions regarding the status of the loan agreement and the contractual rights and duties of the parties during the period in which RBS was unable to comply with Mr McGuffick’s statutory request.

 

The Decision

 

The Court held, amongst other things, that where a loan agreement is rendered unenforceable as a result of a lender’s failure to comply with a statutory request for a copy of the relevant loan agreement, the lender’s rights are not extinguished. The borrower’s contractual obligation to make the monthly repayments is not suspended; it continues to apply. .

 

Comment

 

Zion

 

I note RBS was not going to chase for payment before it found the agreement - I really don't think this was RBD being altruistic - just accepting they COULDN'T!

 

Also I note it said payments "should" continue - not "must". How could obligations which could not be proved still apply?

 

Enjoy your bonuses while you still can. Our day is coming!

 

BD

[captain2]

Hi BD how are you ? I'm a bit inept in handling technicalities such as that ! Please feel welcome to do this if you know how to - he's obviously here to undermine confidence of others as it is rather biased ! Has anyone challenged the interest rates successfully yet ?

[Smarterchick]

...and he's (Zion) trying to prove what exactly I wonder?

 

I had this quoted to me by a finance company trying to pull the wool over my eyes too..they try anything. The only thing about this is ' is it relevavnt to your own case?' If not, ignore it or tell the person trying to use it to naff off and go find more appropriate legislation. As mentioned in the article " At a time when borrowers are becoming ever more aware of their statutory rights and are increasingly willing to challenge the enforceability of loan agreements," ( the completion of that sentence about it being good news for lenders I fail to agree with other than it clarifies certain points in procedure) it just goes to show that lenders are beginning to realise that they cannot hide behind a raft of small print to intimidate the layman and woman into thinking they are always right.

 

It is my opinion that it shouldn't be left to consumers to have to analyse these agreements as is happeneing to a frightening degree on this forum alone only to be treated like parhiahs. We should not have to be challenging these companies in court, the officialese of the finance industry who are supposed to make sure we get a fair deal should step in with might and force to ensure these companies abide by the law, put their hands up and admit wrong doing and stop this massive pounding of innocent people by these companies frightened they might have to write-off a loan because they couldn't be bothered to employ the right legal people to set their agreements up within the legal framework they are obliged to abvide by.

 

We are but a drop in the ocean on CAG compared by all those people who have been stripped of their assets, ground through the emotional turmoil of financial ruin when these companies have absolutely NO right to do it and who have no access or time or inclination to find the support on here - THAT's what P**ses me off!

 

So Zion if you are a troll, I hope you learn something from other peoples situations on here and realise that most of us are mere laypeople trying, in the face of all adversity, to find the rights which many people died to get these to statute, and save what little left they have using the law which is supposed to protect them, but of which they know little about. The companies peddling this tripe have both the money and the legal teams to make sure they get it right and have ballsed-up and again expect the unsuspecting to cough up for their mistakes.

 

There, that's my Monday rant over.

 

SC

[Bigdebtor]

Hi BD how are you ? I'm a bit inept in handling technicalities such as that ! Please feel welcome to do this if you know how to - he's obviously here to undermine confidence of others as it is rather biased ! Has anyone challenged the interest rates successfully yet ?

 

Captain

 

Sorry - all i know how to do is to click on Zion and get a list of the 6 identical posts - sne t by them just a few minutes before their bank opened this morning. I don't know how to copy or refer to your excellent post in othe hreeads.

 

Can anyone else help?

 

BD

 

PS - If you do look at Zion's info you will he/she/it has no friends! Result!

[AnimalMagic]

...which many people died to get these to statute...

 

Blimey that's a bit strong

 

One does wonder what the real reason for OFT, Trading Standards and Consumer Direct et el are for. Jobs for the boys? Managers trying to keep/increase their budgets/justify their existence? Time fior a revolution - off with their heads!

[AnimalMagic]

Captain

 

Sorry - all i know how to do is to click on Zion and get a list of the 6 identical posts - sne t by them just a few minutes before their bank opened this morning. I don't know how to copy or refer to your excellent post in othe hreeads.

 

Can anyone else help?

 

BD

 

PS - If you do look at Zion's info you will he/she/it has no friends! Result!

 

There's a permalink on the top right of each post. Copy this to clipboard and then reply to posting and insert link (on toolbar, pic of world with chain link) and paste the permalink in. Hope that makes sense...

[Smarterchick]

Blimey that's a bit strong

 

One does wonder what the real reason for OFT, Trading Standards and Consumer Direct et el are for. Jobs for the boys? Managers trying to keep/increase their budgets/justify their existence? Time fior a revolution - off with their heads!

 

 

My apologies to a degree, maybe it is a bit strong, but I was looking at my grandfathers tag over the weekend and he died in the trenches at 34 yrs of age fighting for our country...when I watch these politicians giving away most of what he was fighting for and these laws which are there in parliament being ignored by the judiciary and the companies too..it kinda gets the writing joined-up. That's why these so called official watchdogs need to get their acts together and make themselves felt where it hurts, just like some stupid camera stuck up a pole can make us feel for rolling our cars over a couple of yellow lines and sending us a massive fine for doing so. That works quick enough and woe betide us if we don't cough up on time.These companies take months to repsond if they respond at all..it's all a nonsense.