Are My Agreements Enforceable?

[johndeevoy]

asokn said:

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion with you if you keep accusing people of disseminating "propaganda" every time they post something you don't agree with while you make blanket statements about what is and is not the law without any regard to the correct legal position.

 

Would you like to have a discussion and possibly learn more about the law or do you want someone to just tell you how right you are?

 

I asked him to provide statue or case-law to support his argument. I don't make blanket statements about what is and is not the law without any regard to the correct legal position, I simply give my own opinion and thoughts on these issues.

 

asokn said:

It's very easy to default on a debt where the contract does not comply with the CCA. If I enter into a contract with you whereby you agree to repay me £500 by monthly instalments of £100 and you don't bother then you have defaulted, whether or not we drew up a CCA compliant agreement.

 

There is a world of difference between a common law contract and a contract regulated by the CCA.

 

Do you contend in such a scenario that you should have the right to record a Default with CRAs?

[asokn]

How can one default on a 'debt' that is not owed because the contract was not drawn up in accordance with statue

 

Now then, stop changing the terms of the question. The above was what you asked, not whether the default could be registered, and I answered it.

 

Having said that, dbabylon has answered the supplemental point in any event.

[Guest]

.... the whole idea of an 'unenforceable right' is contradictory in terms, in logic, and therefore in law.

 

Please provide statute or case-law to support your argument. ....

 

no it's not. wilson said that the 'right' to payment re an enforcement order re s65(1) re performance (equity) was lost, then by virtue of s127(3). and, s65(1) does not mean that an agreement is 'void or unlawful'.....wilson is your very authority!

Edited April 12, 2012 by Ford

[Ganymede]

Personally, I am mainly concerned with the creditors right to process Defaults with CRAs even where the agreement is unenforcable.

 

Lets examine this fictional scenario: Under the current law, a crook with a scrap of paper headed Consumer Credit Agreement not even bearing your signature, stating on said scrap that you owe him £X and that you agree to him processing information with CRAs could take you to Court for £X that he claims he 'loaned' you. Lets say the Courts decalre the agreement unenforceable (it as after all a scrap of paper that the crook invented himself) but said crook could still destroy your credit file and theres nothing you can do about it as 'the crooks rights under the agreement still exist even though it is unenforceable'.

 

I believe this a fair reflection of the UK law as it stands today. Anybody with a scrap of paper headed Consumer Credit Agreement can destroy your credit file without any intervention from the Courts.

 

the intention of the CCA1974 was to force creditors to apply to the Courts to 'enforce' any of their rights under the regulated agreement. Where the CCA1974 states that an agreement is only enforceable on an order of the Court this clearly means that the creditor would lose any rights and the debtor is no longer under any obligations until such time as the Court decrees otherwise by making an enforcement order.

 

 

 

I've been lurking in this thread but I'm sorry that is an absurd example.

 

In your example to refer to "any crook with a made up scrap of paper" but the reality of the situation is that the Claimant will be a bank, credit card etc where you have actually had the benefit of a loan or credit facility.

 

Statutory interpretation is a fundamental principle of English law. The CCA is not just there for debtors to find loopholes to evade their debts.

 

Judges have decided cases regarding reconstituted agreements etc in an attempt to create an equitable outcome.

[asokn]

It *does* seem strange that the OP has gone from being "confused" about a single case on 6th April to becoming more learned than a High Court judge by the 11th!

[Ganymede]

It *does* seem strange that the OP has gone from being "confused" about a single case on 6th April to becoming more learned than a High Court judge by the 11th!

 

 

The wonders of the internet!

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Don't think we'll be hearing from the OP any more, he's fallen through the massive hole he dug himself.

[Ganymede]

Don't think we'll be hearing from the OP any more, he's fallen through the massive hole he dug himself.

 

 

He's started a new thread on creditors rights following termination of the agreement now.

 

Obviously didn't like what he saw in this thread!

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Yep, just seen it - another corker!

[asokn]

What did Albert Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

[johndeevoy]

Ganymede said:

I've been lurking in this thread but I'm sorry that is an absurd example.

 

In your example to refer to "any crook with a made up scrap of paper" but the reality of the situation is that the Claimant will be a bank, credit card etc where you have actually had the benefit of a loan or credit facility.

 

 

Not necessarily. On this very forum we have many examples of people who have suffered from credit or loan companies incorrectly placing defaults on their credit reports. I gave an extreme example to show how absurd the current law is. A crook with a scrap of paper without your signature on it can destroy your credit report. If your going to chime in with insults at least present an half-decent argument.

 

To asokn, gaston and gany: I opened the other thread not long after this one started as it was a seperate discussion.

 

Why would I 'not like what I saw' here Ganymede? As if this was some kind of victory for you for me to leave the post? 'Absurd'.

 

And what hole did I dig? None my friend as I am as much entitled to my opinion as anyone. I am entitled to hypothesis and dare I say it even question if High Court Judges have got everything correct.

[asokn]

Of course you're entitled to an opinion but if you post it up for discussion and dissection by those who know and want to apply the law then you can't really be surprised if you find that your opinion isn't given very much weight.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

You did dig a hole for yourself. You denied the law as it stands, you might as well have an "opinion" that murder is not against the law.

[Ganymede]

Not necessarily. On this very forum we have many examples of people who have suffered from credit or loan companies incorrectly placing defaults on their credit reports. I gave an extreme example to show how absurd the current law is. A crook with a scrap of paper without your signature on it can destroy your credit report. If your going to chime in with insults at least present an half-decent argument.

 

 

An accidental default on a credit file from a bank is a lot different to a random 'crook' destroying your credit file.

[citizenB]

What did Albert Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

 

 

 

[asokn]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34714[/ATTACH]