Cap1 & CCA return

[Desperate Daniella]

I'll have a look later but I'm sure it says, here is a copy of your agreement.

 

I'm referring to the MSDW application forms. Every one I have seen has Q4 missing, and in my case two questions are missing that are on an "almost" identical form signed by another cagger on the very same day.

 

The layout depends on how many questions you have got.

 

In my case 1,2 and 3 are underneath each in the first column. Then in the righthand column, it starts from the top but is actually Q5. No Q4. I expect they think people won't notice.

 

Then under that I get Qs 6,7 and 8, and my signature is Q9.

 

His is pasted differently because he gets two more questions about PPI, so his signature is Q11. I didn't take PPI and he did.

 

Last time I got it back from a DCA I couldn't bother to write to them the third, fourth/fifth, whatever time, pointing all this out, so I just scribbled down the side of the photocopy: Where is Question 4, and Where are Questions 10 and 11?

 

Haven't heard back.

 

DD

[vint1954]

I'll have a look later but I'm sure it says, here is a copy of your agreement.

 

I'm referring to the MSDW application forms. Every one I have seen has Q4 missing, and in my case two questions are missing that are on an "almost" identical form signed by another cagger on the very same day.

 

The layout depends on how many questions you have got.

 

In my case 1,2 and 3 are underneath each in the first column. Then in the righthand column, it starts from the top but is actually Q5. No Q4. I expect they think people won't notice.

 

Then under that I get Qs 6,7 and 8, and my signature is Q9.

 

His is pasted differently because he gets two more questions about PPI, so his signature is Q11. I didn't take PPI and he did.

 

Last time I got it back from a DCA I couldn't bother to write to them the third, fourth/fifth, whatever time, pointing all this out, so I just scribbled down the side of the photocopy: Where is Question 4, and Where are Questions 10 and 11?

 

Haven't heard back.

 

DD

I know what you mean. It starts to get to you in the end. I find Gin and Tonic works.

 

It is perfectly clear that they are known for mocking up agreements. It is a clear attempt to mislead, but you would have the devils own job proving fraud, although the intent may quite obviously be there.

 

I am sure that you have sent all the rebuttal letters. Just a case of waiting now, or you could try trading standards, but be sure not to directly accuse them of anything.

[vint1954]

Daniella, which of your threads is the MBNA agreement on.

[egg-sterminator]

Daniella, which of your threads is the MBNA agreement on.

Vint that cca i posted about the other day is same ccc with conditions mentioned on front that clearly dont match corrasponding numbers on the back . this was under afidafit . may have another soon as my case has progessed to pre action . Away for weekend so post you sunday . Will be prepared to PM you with stuff if ok . Though i am rubbish on computers .

[Jules55]

Question please for the experts on here?

 

Can you CCA a credit company where the person is living in the EU and the statements have that address on them and that is the address the statements are sent to by MBNA etc

 

The accounts are old going back into the 1980's/early 1990's and opened whilst living in the UK then, so I guess its highly unlikely they would have the original agreements, therefore likely to be unenforceable? but how would one start the process off? Appreciate any info/guidance on this senario?

[vint1954]

Yes you can, however if you have not paid anything on these accounts for 6 years and they have no obtained a CCJ, they will be statute barred.

 

If you are still making payments, then there is a template letter that you can send.

[captain2]

Hi - anyone know anything about the high court decision on Friday 9th. Oct re RBS ? - which The Times seems to think has scuppered the route to using lack of an agreement as a means of not paying the creditor ?

 

The High Court held - according to The Times - that even if the agreements had not been compliant the debt is still owed -this I thought may always have been the case but that the court could not 'enforce' repayment - as both sides when the case was heard had apparently agreed that the debt was 'unenforeceable' the decision seemed to be that it still existed - without seeing the full text this seems to confirm what we thought had been the case that yes its a debt that cant be enforced - so wondering whether anyone has seen the full judgement yet ?

 

If The Times is to be believed it implied it was the end of the line for these arguments - but are they just referring to whether a CRA has the right to register defaults or that the court has suddenly decided it can ignore the 9174 CCA ? Any site team members know more yet as if The Times is right most of these threads will be irrelevant ?

[enoughisenough]

Hi - anyone know anything about the high court decision on Friday 9th. Oct re RBS ? - which The Times seems to think has scuppered the route to using lack of an agreement as a means of not paying the creditor ?

 

The case in question was decided on Tuesday 6th October. The Times has put a particular slant on this and it has been discussed elsewhere, I will post my interpretation of the article followed by a link where you might be able to decide in your own terms.

 

Here is what I posted concerning the Times article:

 

Let's isolate the spin from the facts, and then maybe invite the esteemed Times for correction (small print bottom of page 76 below the Court circular no doubt) i

 

 

 

About 100,000 people trying to have their credit card and loan debts written off by exploiting a legal loophole will have to pay the full amounts they owe after a landmark court ruling this week.

 

The High Court decision will mean defeat for tens of thousands of similar county court cases, which have been put on hold until the test case involving Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) was resolved.

 

Notice the judicious use of the word 'the'. Are there no others?

 

The ruling will also suffocate the multimillion-pound industry in debt avoidance

 

very pejorative vocabulary. What about the debt avoidance of the bank industry?that has expanded rapidly in the past 18 months as consumers struggling to keep up repayments are seduced by attractive claims.

 

No we are not seduced by attractive claims. We are enlightened and empowered by the facts

 

Many of the UK’s 3,000 Claims Management Companies (CMCs) attract (insert exploit the vulnerable and desperate)clients with promises that they can exploit (insert apply the law. Since when was anything in Bennion a loophole. Since we discovered our rights under the act that's when! legal loopholes to write off certain unsecured debts, most commonly personal loans and credit cards.

 

No problems with this. These slice of the pie merchants are every bit as bad as the ambulance chasers

 

RELATED LINKS

Judge to freeze credit claims

Lenders repossess homes for credit card debt

Glasgow is Scotland’s bankruptcy capital

The industry depends on the CMCs establishing that the customer’s original loan agreement is “unenforceable” because it is in contravention of one or more requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The simplest tactic that CMCs use is to demand to see a copy of the client’s original loan agreement. Under the Consumer Credit Act, if the lender cannot provide a copy within 12 days, which many banks struggle to do with older loans arranged by predecessors, the debt becomes “unenforceable”.

 

Love the inverted commas

 

Where the bank can provide the documents, lawyers will advance other arguments, such as that the terms and conditions page was not signed or that certain information required by law was missing.

 

Information required by law was missing. oops. Guess it can happen to anybody. Defence of honest mistake anyone?Some CMCs have built their businesses on the promise that unenforceability means that the borrower is no longer obliged to repay the loan and lawyers say that many thousands of people have already stopped payments. Others have continued with repayments, hoping that their loans would be be cancelled.

 

What the hell is this hoping that their loans would be cancelled. That's the legal equivalent of hoping you catch LAura from accounts under the mistletoe at the christmas party.

 

The tens of thousands of county court claims on hold are from borrowers asking the court to cancel the debt on the basis that it is unenforceable. Ultimate Law, a Manchester-based law firm, estimates that 100,000 claims are in progress.

 

Given the amounts at stake, the county court referred the matter to the High Court, which considered the case of Phillip McGuffick, who was seeking to have his £17,034 personal loan from RBS declared unenforceable. The case was heard on the basis that both sides agreed that the loan was unenforceable and the judge was asked to decide what this meant.

 

The case was heard on the basis that both sides agreed that the loan was unenforceable and the judge was asked to decide what this meant. Eh?

 

Mr Justice Flaux ruled: “Although the [Consumer Credit Act] may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”.

 

Chris Busby, a partner at Eversheds, said: “The judgment said that claimants seeking to prove their credit agreements are unenforceable are still liable for monies owed. It’s a major blow to CMCs who have been suggesting otherwise.”

 

RBS said: “We welcome the clarity this judgment has provided. The outcome confirms the position that we have consistently adopted with customers who seek to challenge the validity of their agreements.”

 

Andrew Wigmore, of the Claims Standards Council, a trade body for CMCs, said that those promising guaranteed debt write-offs were operating a “[problem]”. He declined to comment on the RBS case but said that there were legitimate challenges to be made against loan agreements.

 

The Ministry of Justice, which regulates the UK’s 3,000 CMCs, has recently stepped up its campaign against unscrupulous practices in the industry. Last year it banned 116 CMCs for offences including exorbitant fees and misleading advertising. The ministry had no comment on the RBS case.

 

Mr Straw? Can you hear me Mr Straw? Your boys are going to take one helluva beating. No comment on individual cases? You've never done that within earshot of a journalist have you?

 

I haven't repeated the formatting because it's a pain.

 

However the original posting may be found here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/198059-unenforceability-cases-hold-until-51.html

 

I have also been accused of being offensive towards ambulance chasing CMCs. In the light of my experience and thousands of others I am unable to revise my opinion. Sorry.

[gezwee]

Mr Justice Flaux ruled: “Although the [Consumer Credit Act] may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”.

Errrrrrrrr, no change then .........still unenforceable and still only collectable if the 'debtor' agrees to lighten his/her wallet on the basis of ??????.....nope, can't think of any sound basis

 

As for Chris B's comment, thought he'd have found more to say by now......lucky the Times print for the masses I guess

 

Gez

[davefirewalker]

........This case and its ruling centred on whether defaults in these cases can be passed to credit reference agencies – as McGuffick had stopped repaying his debt as enforceability of loans was still being settled.

 

The judge Mr Justice Flaux ruled that claimants seeking to prove their credit agreements are 'unenforceable' under the Consumer Credit Act are still liable for money owed and lenders can still report information on to credit reference agencies.

 

This means you should not stop making repayments if you start a claim, or it will appear on your credit record. .........

 

not so much of a victory then....more like a consolidation of facts we already knew, or assumed to be true.

 

It does seem though that there is a major effort by the lenders to cover their own A***s and to report every minor "victory" as though it was something important.

 

there seems something wrong about this judgment....if it was argued correctly, the fact that there was no agreement would mean that there was no contract or no contract that could be proved. It would also mean that the terms and conditions had no effect and so as was reported in wilson that "the money could be looked on as a gift" (paraphrasing).

 

these cmc's are going off half cock with little or no knowledge and are muddying the waters........hmmm isnt that what the creditors would like ????

 

makes you think doesnt it. It would be worth it for a major lender to set up a cmc and lose a few cases to get some sort of precedent set....or is that me just being paranoid

 

 

rgds

dave

[captain2]

Hi thanks Dave !

 

Seems as though thats the issue so nothing new really. I will state my position briefly here as there seems much concern about CRA's and credit files - and I'm either foolish or sensible but my own case may inspire or deter others but here goes -

 

Since before coming to this forum and definitely since, I have not made one single payment to any of my cards total sums due of £86k. This is because I cant ! Having faced the prospect of over borrowing as a small property developer I haven't any money to service any debt save those which are secured and those are often behind too.

 

That the prospect of a bad credit file being the main worry with a lot of people - some for good reason who may need a mortgage - I took the view that it was having a very good rating that got me in this position and therefore having a bad one would not be a problem. In fact its almost a warning to DCA's and creditors theres no point in doing anything to this guy - if we make him bankrupt he owes so much no one will get anything !

 

Having been bankrupt many years ago life was much more tolerable then when you didn't owe anyone anything ! I see many of my peer group struggling to keep paying cards with total balances of £100k or more borrowing more money just to service credit card debt. That you will never pay it off by making minimal payments is a fact so whats the alternative - a life of misery by borrowing to pay and keeping your credit file clean just to do that ? - or not paying them where they cant produce a valid agreement ? In place of not servicing the debts you are automatically much better off.

 

In my business my expensive cars on unregulated agreements are a drain if they have to go back I wont be able to borrow to buy new ones but I can buy low mileage formerly expensive cars for £2k or £3k cash and have no debt.

 

As I don't want to buy another house i'm not bothered about my credit rating. Even having a good rating doesn't open the door to unlimited credit again anyway one default = no mortgage offer anyway now so once you've got one you might as well have 41.

 

The hourly calls from credit card companies to me are dealt with by seeing their numbers on my mobile and simply not answering them. Thankfully they don't have my landline number. But if they did a call screener would be the answer there.

 

So I'm enjoying life a bit more and being able to see these posts and threads is reassuring but I cant help wondering as to why anyone in the face of insurmountable and unrelenting debt should place keeping a clean credit file a

priority. I'm just hoping the arguments on here are right ! They have to be as the CCA specifies what is an unenforceable agreement and it either is or isn't and the court has now power to enforce if it isn't. So a lost agreement with no signature is definitely not enforceable (as long as they don't suddenly find one ) and that is definitely one not to pay anything to at all in my opinion. In time where the agreements are unenforceable and I can get the money together I may see if I can do a full and final settlement at say 10p in the pound on condition and only if my file is wiped clean.

 

Sooner or later the numbers of folk with adverse credit will contract the future credit industry so much that new options may come along where there is either debt forgiveness or a different way of dealing with adverse reporting or future court decisions help by confirming no enforeceable debt = no default.

 

My other option is to consider a debt management programme until such time as my business recovers and while on that chip away at the card agreements in the background. But that may come as acceptance of the debt so bit wary there - my main argument both morally and legally is that these card companies have had in excess of their money already. In my case over the past 6 years by charging rates of p to 29%APR - i.e.28.5% above BASE rate when the usual rate used to be about 9.5% above base. so on a £10k balance the difference between 10% and 30% for six years is £12k !!! plus interest on the overpayment. And that example or formula still allows for the creditor to have their money back if you like - why should they be able to get away with a 20% hike ? In looking at the terms of the agreements there are often terms which govern how they can raise the interest and as they seem to cite changes in banking practice that must mean downwards in declining interest rates or are 'fixed' as in my Mint card at 9.41 above base and in their case they must have raised rates under the catch all for any valid reason term which I thought was invalid as its unfair, vague and is an imposed term which the consumer could have no power to disagree with or could see the reason why to disagree when signing the agreement years ago. That borrowers should be signed up on rates which have been unilaterally raised by some 300 per cent is nothing short of a national scandal and the people who say you've had the money now pay it back are wrong. They are condoning the worst and most blatant bank highjack in financial history which all the consumer legislation in the 20th century was supposed to stop but obviously hasn't and the courts should take that into account.

[car2403]

not so much of a victory then....more like a consolidation of facts we already knew, or assumed to be true.

 

It does seem though that there is a major effort by the lenders to cover their own A***s and to report every minor "victory" as though it was something important.

 

there seems something wrong about this judgment....if it was argued correctly, the fact that there was no agreement would mean that there was no contract or no contract that could be proved. It would also mean that the terms and conditions had no effect and so as was reported in wilson that "the money could be looked on as a gift" (paraphrasing).

 

these cmc's are going off half cock with little or no knowledge and are muddying the waters........hmmm isnt that what the creditors would like ????

 

makes you think doesnt it. It would be worth it for a major lender to set up a cmc and lose a few cases to get some sort of precedent set....or is that me just being paranoid

 

 

rgds

dave

 

You're right it is wrong, Dave. There WAS an agreement, but they recorded a Default while in default of the CCA request, when the agreement wasn't available but they found it later on.

 

The Judgment is available here;

 

McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm) (06 October 2009)

 

And is mainly being discussed, here; (you might want to skip through to pages 37+ odd )

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/198059-unenforceability-cases-hold-until-37.html

[vint1954]

And I am fairly sure that this only relates to cases with later agreements, not pre 2007.

[car2403]

And I am fairly sure that this only relates to cases with later agreements, not pre 2007.

 

 

McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm) (06 October 2009)

 

On 3 October 2005, the claimant entered into a fixed-sum regulated loan agreement with the bank under which the claimant received credit in the sum of £17,034

[vint1954]

 

McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm) (06 October 2009)

Just what I had picked up on "unenforcability cases on hold............" thread.

 

But in McGuffick, they let the DN go when not in the prescribed format. (28 days to rectify)

[alisindebt]

A refreshingly frank opinion and one that I think is right for many people-why worry about a credit file if you have got into debt anyway?

 

Actually, I rent abroad now, have no liabilities and can move whenever I want, Freedom! you don't HAVE to buy or HAVE to have credit cards!

[lexis200]

A refreshingly frank opinion and one that I think is right for many people-why worry about a credit file if you have got into debt anyway?

 

Actually, I rent abroad now, have no liabilities and can move whenever I want, Freedom! you don't HAVE to buy or HAVE to have credit cards!

 

Because it's not that clear cut for many people. My OH had to quit his very high paying job looking after me when I fell ill. We lost our large detached house and ended up as a family of four in a poky little rented place which neither we, nor our furniture fit in.

 

We have finally after eight long years got the chance to get our own place but will likely be scuppered by having defaults placed on credit files which should not be there as agreements are either non-existent or terminated.

 

Credit files are a huge deal to many hundreds of thousands of people in similar situations. Needing a clean file does not mean that I want to go out and borrow money on cards. It means I want a home again.

 

It's lovely to be able to say that you live in another country and it means nothing to you, but how many other people can claim the same?

 

Don't underestimate the power of a bad credit rating - it literally means a better life for many people if their rating is good, and is not something to be dismissed as a nicety for those who want to run up more debt.

[FlyboyAgain]

Don't underestimate the power of a bad credit rating - it literally means a better life for many people if their rating is good, and is not something to be dismissed as a nicety for those who want to run up more debt.

 

Agreed. Satisfied as I am after putting several well-earned broadsides across HBOS, RBS, and their DCA muppets my file - and my wife's - is completely trashed. Sure, we still own our home but will doubtful get another mortgage if we ever wanted to move. And by the time the files are cleared of negative points, no bank would enetrtain us for a mortgage, given our ages.

 

Not that it bothers me too much. I'd be quite happ to rent if I ever had to. And when you look at the suffering and deprivation in other parts of the world, well, your own problems kinda get put into perspective.

 

But there is one thing I have learned in the past few years: I would never trust anyone who deals in finance ever again.

[Onslowette]

A refreshingly frank opinion and one that I think is right for many people-why worry about a credit file if you have got into debt anyway?

 

Actually, I rent abroad now, have no liabilities and can move whenever I want, Freedom! you don't HAVE to buy or HAVE to have credit cards!

 

This comment makes me qite cross to be honest. 6yrs ago my OH had an accident, was no longer able to run his own business and we lost everything. So commitments we had that we were able to comfortably pay gradually became harder and harder to pay and you HAVE to buy food and pay for essentials etc. Please dont assume people have debts just from happily spending money on luxuries - its v.often not the case!

[FlyboyAgain]

 

you don't HAVE to buy or HAVE to have credit cards!

 

They are a necessity, esp when it comes to flights/hotels/travel. OH & I now use a Virgin pre-paid card with no monthly fees. Virgin take either 2 or 3% per transaction and you can't quibble about that when you think of how you've been fleeced/ruined by your regualr card issuers over the years.

 

Regain the power.

[FlyboyAgain]

This comment makes me qite cross to be honest. 6yrs ago my OH had an accident, was no longer able to run his own business and we lost everything. So commitments we had that we were able to comfortably pay gradually became harder and harder to pay and you HAVE to buy food and pay for essentials etc. Please dont assume people have debts just from happily spending money on luxuries - its v.often not the case!

I don't think Ali's advocating running up credit or not to worry about bad debt. I think what is meant is that the damage, when it is done to your file, should not preclude you from moving on. Just my thoughts.

[enoughisenough]

I don't think Ali's advocating running up credit or not to worry about bad debt. I think what is meant is that the damage, when it is done to your file, should not preclude you from moving on. Just my thoughts.

 

Agreed. I don't think there's any question that Ali is suggesting people have run up debt for the hell of it. We all have our own circumstances and the one thing I rarely see on this site if ever is negative and prejudiced judgment calls about people's difficulties. Unless a troll has invaded the boards of course but that goes with the territory.

[diddydicky]

Agreed. Satisfied as I am after putting several well-earned broadsides across HBOS, RBS, and their DCA muppets my file - and my wife's - is completely trashed. Sure, we still own our home but will doubtful get another mortgage if we ever wanted to move. And by the time the files are cleared of negative points, no bank would enetrtain us for a mortgage, given our ages.

 

Not that it bothers me too much. I'd be quite happ to rent if I ever had to. And when you look at the suffering and deprivation in other parts of the world, well, your own problems kinda get put into perspective.

 

But there is one thing I have learned in the past few years: I would never trust anyone who deals in finance ever again.

 

not necessarily so, the numbers of people that are now with negative files are becoming so great after this recession that there will HAVE to be an amnesty of sorts in order for lenders to lend!

 

i think if bos denied me a loan on the grounds that i was not creditworthy i might be tempted to write and ask them if they were not being a tad hypocritical!

[FlyboyAgain]

That's a very good point, but one wonders when it will happen though happen it must. If banks don't want to give out mortgages the social housing sector cannot sustain the level of people that are looking for affordable homes.

 

Spot on with second statement!!

[r&b]

in my opinion...and thats ALL it is......the banks dont want to lend and will not want to in the forseeable future. the old days of the mortgage treadmill is gone, at least for the time being...its turned out to be far more risky than anyone saw previously, so it makes sense, and indeed some are already doing this, to give their best financial traders the balance sheet and tell them to go make hay whilst the sun shines......whilst of course making the right noises to the Bk of England in pretending to lend...which they are, but only on very harsh conditions.....

 

e.g. statistics out today:

number of new mortgages in Aug compared to 2008 up 29%

total amount of money lent for the same period down 56%

 

speaks volumes. anyone thought as to how these banks have put in some wonderous results given the climate? the above may explain a bit of it!!!