Cap1 & CCA return

[Number6]

Trying to cut it down into bite sized chunks after glancing through it very quickly. ( I'll read it in more depth later)

 

The Law Lords granted the appeal because 2 letters basically admitted the debt existed. Which goes to show that when you try and negotiate a settlement for a debt your trying to avoid (which the person in this case appears to be trying to do) its better to clearly state the letters are 'Without Prejudice'

 

Those 2 letters caused the Law Lords to decree that the statute of limitations didnt apply.

 

I suspect the Law Lords might have ajudicated differently if those 2 letters had been without prejudice.

 

I think it also says that in their lordships opinion you cannot circumvent acknowledgement of a debt by putting it under "Without Prejudice". Any letter acknowledging a debt, without prejudice or not is just that, an acknowledgement that can be used in evidence.

 

Pete

[pford]

Now you missed one Pford

 

They don't have a clue what they are doing:lol:

 

[pugsley]

so basically if you run out on a debt and never acknowledge it you are in a better position than if you contact the company and try to reduce payments and offer a lower settlement, madness

[sam19677]

Trying to cut it down into bite sized chunks after glancing through it very quickly. ( I'll read it in more depth later)

 

The Law Lords granted the appeal because 2 letters basically admitted the debt existed. Which goes to show that when you try and negotiate a settlement for a debt your trying to avoid (which the person in this case appears to be trying to do) its better to clearly state the letters are 'Without Prejudice'

 

Those 2 letters caused the Law Lords to decree that the statute of limitations didnt apply.

 

I suspect the Law Lords might have ajudicated differently if those 2 letters had been without prejudice.

 

Thanks Dave x

[pford]

Just had a fought reading the ICO web site came across this.

1. Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

As a public authority all written material, including emails held by us, may be considered for release under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless failing with a statutory exemption.

My thinking can’t we get the emails and letters passed between the CRA and them:?:

[Acerfan]

I sent off my CCA request for a loan agreement I was sure I never signed & received a 'Pre-Contract Information Fixed-Sum Loan Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974' form yesterday in reply. This is the original, has been filled in in pen & has NO SIGNATURES. Just wondering where to go from here?

 

It's a slightly complicated one cos I originally applied for lower amount & have copy of signed agreement for that loan, although I also have a statement showing closure of that account. This pre-contract information (for 2nd loan) however states 'refinancing' of that account. I also had to acknowledge existence of this loan when I received threatening letters demanding payment when none was due (Huge admin problems with this bank - they're a bunch of incompetents - 4 major errors by them on one acount in one year!!!)

 

Is there anything I can do? Should I write using Number 6's CCA request template in post #468 to make it clear exactly what I'm requesting? Do I need to send the £1.00 PO as I've already sent one? Should I just write to clarify my request? Or should I leave it for the 14 working days + 1 calender month until they are in breach?

 

With regard to the admittance of existence of the loan (in writing unfortunately), do you think they would dig that up? It was direct communication with the branch manager not customer services

[Guest The Terminator]

so basically if you run out on a debt and never acknowledge it you are in a better position than if you contact the company and try to reduce payments and offer a lower settlement, madness

 

Thats the way I interpretated it.If you don't acknowledge it, don't make payment,plead that it never existed then you are in a better position.So why don't the Law Lords just make a ruling that all banks and CCP are crooks.Most proberly easier than going through the minefield of consumer law.

[Joons2]

I think that people are starting to miss the point.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with tryong to recover charges you have paid that are unfair and in breach of statue or common law. What I think is wrong ias people borrowing money and then deciding that they are not going to pay it back. That is theft, plain and simple.

 

I think that anyone who has taken and spent someone elses money and now decides that they want to try to get out of their responsibilities on a technicality is a deceitful, dishonest and slightly stupid and naive.

 

Even if the technicalities you raise work, which I seriously doubt they will, you will still be bound to repay the debt under common law. On basic principles of equity (fairness) the courts are not going to let these people take other peoples money and let them off without having to pay it back.

[Number6]

On basic principles of equity (fairness) the courts are not going to let these people take other peoples money and let them off without having to pay it back.

 

Why not?

 

The banks thought they could get away with this for years!

 

Pete

[Number6]

Seriously though Joons, any company that cannot produce a properly executed agreement are themselves in breach of Statute, namely the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I'm all in favour of keeping within the law but that has to apply to all sides equally.

 

Pete

[un1boy]

I'm all in favour of keeping within the law but that has to apply to all sides equally.

 

I agree with the above, not that I condone "debt dodging" but, if these companies have shown a complete contempt for British Law then thye should be held accountable.

[Guest The Terminator]

I think that people are starting to miss the point.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with tryong to recover charges you have paid that are unfair and in breach of statue or common law. What I think is wrong ias people borrowing money and then deciding that they are not going to pay it back. That is theft, plain and simple.

 

I think that anyone who has taken and spent someone elses money and now decides that they want to try to get out of their responsibilities on a technicality is a deceitful, dishonest and slightly stupid and naive.

 

Even if the technicalities you raise work, which I seriously doubt they will, you will still be bound to repay the debt under common law. On basic principles of equity (fairness) the courts are not going to let these people take other peoples money and let them off without having to pay it back.

 

Nobody is suggesting that you don't pay back debt.It was the interpretation of the decesion that the law lords came too.If they made a ruling that you don't have to pay debt back would you pay it.Can we have a straw poll on this and let's face it the law is full of loopholes.What if you and I were to go bankrupt how much of our debt would be paid back and this is the easiest way of doing it under the 2002 Enterprise Act.

[meagain]

When I think of "debt-dodging", I think of people deliberately obtaining credit with no intention of ever paying back, which is a Bad Thing. All that is being done here is creditors being punished for their unethical behaviour. If they want to act in bad faith, that's fine, but they should be prepared to forfeit any debt owed to them if they do. If they're going to flout the law, then they should be prepared to submit to our terms, instead of us submitting to theirs. When the banks throw their toys out of the pram, there's no reason why we should retrieve them.

[un1boy]

Can we have a straw poll on this and let's face it the law is full of loopholes.What if you and I were to go bankrupt how much of our debt would be paid back and this is the easiest way of doing it under the 2002 Enterprise Act.

 

Err...this might be me being thick Terminator and I am sorry if I cam, but I don't really understand the above.

[un1boy]

When I think of "debt-dodging", I think of people deliberately obtaining credit with no intention of ever paying back, which is a Bad Thing. All that is being done here is creditors being punished for their unethical behaviour. If they want to act in bad faith, that's fine, but they should be prepared to forfeit any debt owed to them if they do. If they're going to flout the law, then they should be prepared to submit to our terms, instead of us submitting to theirs. When the banks throw their toys out of the pram, there's no reason why we should retrieve them.

 

Same thing I was trying to say - but better presented!

[Joons2]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with going for everything that you are legitimately owed. The problem here is that people now appear to be trying their hardest to escape debt that they have run up in revenge for someting or other.

 

It just seems that some peope think they deserve everything in life for free. The sad part is that the rest of society pays for those peoples financial irresponsibility. The interest rates banks will charge will all go up for everyone.

 

Everyone has an obligation to act responsibly, whist we are trying to make the banks do this WE SHOULD SET AN EXAMPLE.

[Number6]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with going for everything that you are legitimately owed. The problem here is that people now appear to be trying their hardest to escape debt that they have run up in revenge for someting or other.

 

It just seems that some peope think they deserve everything in life for free. The sad part is that the rest of society pays for those peoples financial irresponsibility. The interest rates banks will charge will all go up for everyone.

 

Everyone has an obligation to act responsibly, whist we are trying to make the banks do this WE SHOULD SET AN EXAMPLE.

 

Joons, no-one is suggesting that anyone is trying to "escape" repaying legitimate debts but the fact of the matter is that if a lender cannot come up with a properly executed agreement then that "agreement" is legally flawed. In order to "reinstate" the agreement the lender has to go to court and explain why their processes are flawed and why they have broken the law of the land. All that those of us undergoing this process are doing is to point out these irregularities to the lenders and then sit back and wait to see what they propose to do about it.

 

If the lender decides to progress it to court then a judge will decide what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

 

If the lender decides to write off the debt again that is their choice.

 

No debtor here is trying to "dodge" the debt and in either of the above scenarios it is not any fault of the debtor if the end result is a "cost" to the lender. The fault will lie squarely with the flawed procedures of the lender.

 

Pete

[cadencealex]

I personally believe that we are overcharged for most things in this life - how often do we get something 'cheap'? We seem to be settling for a 10% discount on goods and services - when the merchandise/service doesn't cost that to begin with.

 

The cost of absolutely everything is going up, it is harder for us to live and get by these days - the wages aren't going up in comparison with everything else.

 

Is a line rental of £20 and more... reasonable for a mobile telephone? Or a house phone? Or even broadband. These companies are raking it in.

 

Televisions made from cheap plastic parts costing thousands....#

 

... it is time the consumers fight back!

[Guest The Terminator]

Err...this might be me being thick Terminator and I am sorry if I cam, but I don't really understand the above.

 

Sorry Un1boy perhaps I could have put it better.What I was trying to say that if you didn't want to pay a debt back the easiest way out of it is to go bankrupt.Or to simplify it further the banks are in a no win situation,on one hand if you don't acknowledge a debt they lose ,if you go bankrupt they lose.

[tamadus]

Is it this one? Looks fairly similar to me....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

 

Yep thats the one looks like yesterdays was a reprint from the Mail on Sunday.

[cadencealex]

From what I can see on this site, people are trying to reclaim their charges to cover their debts to live more responsibly - lots of people have stated they would be happy to have their overdrafts covered and debts paid off.

 

This isn't a get rich quick scheme or a dishonest way of getting money.

 

How many people are struggling with families, banging their heads off the wall each month when they aren't left with enough to manage because BANKS who don't need the money and don't care about the individual, are taking it all?

 

As far as the banks are concerned, we're all just numbers and are treated according to how much money we have left in their possession.

[meagain]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with going for everything that you are legitimately owed. The problem here is that people now appear to be trying their hardest to escape debt that they have run up in revenge for someting or other.

 

I think you are missing the point here. The banks frequently, deliberately and vindictively exploit their position as creditors, with no regard for the law. Since they won't follow the examples that have been set down for them in the past, it is evident that leading by example is not an effective method of teaching them the lesson they sorely deserve. Hence, we need to turn to other methods. It is not about escaping debt and shouldering responsible with everyone else. It is about securing fair and equitable treatment for everyone. You cannot say it is unfair that you will see a rise in your rate to pay for it. What most certainly was unfair was that the more affluent 75% of the population got a free ride at the expense of the poor.

 

A more important point to consider is that many people are finding themselves with short-term and medium-term debts suddenly becoming instant debt (i.e. due for immediate repayment) as a punishment for having the audacity to assert their rights. Use of a debt as leverage to hold someone's rights to ransom cannot and should not ever be considered legitimate. As far as I am concerned, the moment my bank decided that to use my overdraft as a weapon is the moment it ceased to be a legitimate debt.

 

The sad part is that the rest of society pays for those peoples financial irresponsibility. The interest rates banks will charge will all go up for everyone.

 

This is based on the flawed assumption that the rates would not go up if we weren't challenging them. It is a common misunderstanding that the banks' interest rates have any sort of grounding in reality whatsoever. Base rate goes up, card rates go up. Base rate goes down, card rates go up. OFT announces a crackdown on unlawful practices, card rates go up. Seriously, when was the last time the interest rate on your credit card went down?

 

My duty to act responsibly ends where the lender's duty to act responsibly begins. It is not my fault if they fail to discharge that duty with due diligence.

[Guest The Terminator]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with going for everything that you are legitimately owed. The problem here is that people now appear to be trying their hardest to escape debt that they have run up in revenge for someting or other.

 

It just seems that some peope think they deserve everything in life for free. The sad part is that the rest of society pays for those peoples financial irresponsibility. The interest rates banks will charge will all go up for everyone.

 

Everyone has an obligation to act responsibly, whist we are trying to make the banks do this WE SHOULD SET AN EXAMPLE.

 

Sorry but I find it a little hard to agree on some of your points here.1) No one on this forum is trying to escape their debts.2) There is no such thing as a free lunch and as for financial irresponsibility shouldn't a large percentage of that be blamed on the banks for their irresponsible lending.

[un1boy]

I personally believe that we are overcharged for most things in this life - how often do we get something 'cheap'? We seem to be settling for a 10% discount on goods and services - when the merchandise/service doesn't cost that to begin with.

 

The cost of absolutely everything is going up, it is harder for us to live and get by these days - the wages aren't going up in comparison with everything else.

 

Is a line rental of £20 and more... reasonable for a mobile telephone? Or a house phone? Or even broadband. These companies are raking it in.

 

Televisions made from cheap plastic parts costing thousands....#

 

... it is time the consumers fight back!

 

When I was a manager in retail I was told that companies mark up products by 75%......so, when you see manger's specials with 75% off, all they are doing is selling the item(s) at cost and making no profit from them!!

[un1boy]

Sorry but I find it a little hard to agree on some of your points here.1) No one on this forum is trying to escape their debts.2) There is no such thing as a free lunch and as for financial irresponsibility shouldn't a large percentage of that be blamed on the banks for their irresponsible lending.

 

Thanks Terminator