CCA Case Law

[ladybird17]

yeh! Keep rocking & rolling Johnny;)

[PriorityOne]

So i now realise that whatever the motives behind the whole CCA "thing" is, it doesnt really matter as long as it matters to you.

 

 

 

Thank you Johnny.....

[gemspan]

Yes, thanks Johnny. Bless your cotton socks!!!!

[In The Know]

Hi everybody, it's been a while.

 

Thre has been a great deal said about CCA case law and the wrongs and rights of morals.

 

The fact that anybody challenges a CCA (s77/78) issue with the sole intention of trying to get out of paying their debt, is simply wrong.

 

For those of you who have been informed by all of these company leaches who incorrectly advise you of what they can and will do for you to ensure you do not have to repay your debt,

you are being conned, which is easy of course when you are being told exactly what you want to hear.

 

Regardless of what those of you state who claim not to be trying to get out of paying, well, you are really, as you would not be challenging anything otherwise would you (please don't lie to yourself).

 

If you spend the money, (including all of you crooked solicitors out there who are just as bad as anybody else and you know who you are don't you), then repy your liabilities.

 

Most creditors or DCA's will be empathetic, but the more you try to delay paying for no good reason, the harder you will eventually find it to strike an amicable deal and it will cost you all a great deal more in the end.

 

Just grow up and face the problem rather than trying to spend somebody else's money with the intention of not paying it back...other's pay for your ineptitude.

 

ITK

[cerberusalert]

Hi everybody, it's been a while.

Not long enough it seems.

[gemspan]

Of course ITK you are absolutely right!!!!!!! We are not here however to pass judgement on people, we are here to help people.

 

Many people have their reasons for trying to fight the large financial institutions that have made bad business decisions by giving people debt that they could not afford. I, myself, have a debt which is made up of interest from the charges they placed unlawfully on the card. I am damned if I am going to give in to this "daylight robbery".

 

If institutions want to do business with people then they must ensure that they have the correct paperwork to back up the contract. If they don't then they deserve everything they get. After all, it is they who have ruined the country and placed us in this godawful mess we are in now.

 

We are all paying for the incompetence and greed of the banks and financial institutions. I think everybody in the UK will pay 10 times over on a personal basis with all the cuts about to be announced, for any debt they owe a greedy institution.

 

Debt collection is a huge industry now and, even now, the greedy institutions are still trying to get back the money they have loaned irresponsibly.

 

I think it would be better if you didn't voice your personal opinions on here. That's not what this site is for. If you can't help, then don't visit please. Many people are trying their hardest to claw their way back to where they were before these greedy bloodsuckers got their hands on them. It's not up to you to criticise if they have to try any means at their disposal to become solvent again!!!!

 

Gemspan

[cerberusalert]

I wonder why it is that financial institutions etc employ lawyers for the specific reason to dissect and examine contracts in order to wriggle out of agreements if it is so immoral? After all we all know the moral standards of these institutions.

[caledfwlch]

Hi everybody, it's been a while.

 

Thre has been a great deal said about CCA case law and the wrongs and rights of morals.

 

The fact that anybody challenges a CCA (s77/78) issue with the sole intention of trying to get out of paying their debt, is simply wrong.

 

For those of you who have been informed by all of these company leaches who incorrectly advise you of what they can and will do for you to ensure you do not have to repay your debt,

you are being conned, which is easy of course when you are being told exactly what you want to hear.

 

Regardless of what those of you state who claim not to be trying to get out of paying, well, you are really, as you would not be challenging anything otherwise would you (please don't lie to yourself).

 

If you spend the money, (including all of you crooked solicitors out there who are just as bad as anybody else and you know who you are don't you), then repy your liabilities.

 

Most creditors or DCA's will be empathetic, but the more you try to delay paying for no good reason, the harder you will eventually find it to strike an amicable deal and it will cost you all a great deal more in the end.

 

Just grow up and face the problem rather than trying to spend somebody else's money with the intention of not paying it back...other's pay for your ineptitude.

 

ITK

 

Call me old fashioned, but if some company I have never done business with contacts me out of the blue, claims I owe it money, and starts making nasty threats, I would have thought, in this day of ID fraud etc, that it is our duty to check whether the company has proof of the debt - and the only real proof of a third party would be a nice legal document with my signature on it. You would feel silly if you paid up without making any enquiries, and then 6 months later, another debt collector appears out of the blue demanding you repay that debt....

 

Plus, you cannot use the moral argument if the debt has been sold on - you have no moral undertaking to a third party gambler, who is in effect playing roullete with bits of paper, you especially have no moral undertaking to many of our infamous debt collectors who forge a business out of bending the rules, making unpleasant threats, harrassment and breaking the law.

 

Thirdly, well "moral duty" in terms of borrowing nonexistent money from a bank that conjured it from thin air is a bit of an "old fashioned" view anyway, Bless.

[In The Know]

Oh dear, have I hit a nerve!

 

Surely anybody who posts on this forum does so with their own opinions don't they?

 

Some people just do not like hearing the truth of matters becuase it makes them feel guilty; strange then that it is ok for companies who do try to get you out of your agreement are greeted with open arms simply because they all tell you what you want to hear.

 

Please explain why cca issues are always the responsibility of the creditor?...anybody who has signed an agreement is an idiot if they have not read and understood the content firstly and all of you have your own copy of that agreement and yet you request another one just in case you can argue that without it you don't have to go to court to repay the money which you spent.

 

When you sign on the dotted line, YOU are agreeing to repay the debt, not just spend the money without knowing how you are going to repay it.

 

Thank the lord that unsigned reconstituted agreements are now legally acceptable in a court of law.

 

That is where the real and only opinions that matter will take place.

 

This type of discussion is only acceptable to those of you who wish to avoid payment and that is the truth.

 

And Gemspan, nobody has mentioned anything about DCA's who are chasing you for debt which you do not owe, why would you bring that up?

 

Hypocrisy is the height of arrogance, don't you think?

[cerberusalert]

[PriorityOne]

Oh dear, have I hit a nerve!

 

Surely anybody who posts on this forum does so with their own opinions don't they?

 

Some people just do not like hearing the truth of matters becuase it makes them feel guilty; strange then that it is ok for companies who do try to get you out of your agreement are greeted with open arms simply because they all tell you what you want to hear.

 

Please explain why cca issues are always the responsibility of the creditor?...anybody who has signed an agreement is an idiot if they have not read and understood the content firstly and all of you have your own copy of that agreement and yet you request another one just in case you can argue that without it you don't have to go to court to repay the money which you spent.

 

When you sign on the dotted line, YOU are agreeing to repay the debt, not just spend the money without knowing how you are going to repay it.

 

Thank the lord that unsigned reconstituted agreements are now legally acceptable in a court of law.

 

That is where the real and only opinions that matter will take place.

 

This type of discussion is only acceptable to those of you who wish to avoid payment and that is the truth.

 

And Gemspan, nobody has mentioned anything about DCA's who are chasing you for debt which you do not owe, why would you bring that up?

 

Hypocrisy is the height of arrogance, don't you think?

 

The "truth" is a matter of interpretation. People often choose to interpret information in a particular way and then brand it as the "truth" when it's no such thing.

 

If someone wishes to challenge the validity of a CCA, then they are perfectly entitled to do so.... it's a legal request for information. There have been many companies who've claimed to "get you out of an agreement" and yes, they've told people what they want to hear. That doesn't mean that they're talking rubbish.... it just means that they want paying for providing a service that a person could do for themselves; armed with the right knowledge.

 

"Thank the Lord" for reconstituted agreements?" What a stupid comment. I'm wondering what else you would thank the Lord for that didn't bear your signature..... What it actually means is that the law has been bent (in my opinion) to try and protect the interests of the monied classes when if they'd had their paperwork in order in the first place instead of trying to cut corners, there would have been no need to change things so that reconstituted agreements became acceptable instead of signed ones. Whatever next?

 

Your posts merely highlight how easy it is to fool some into thinking that a moral code only applies to those who borrow money.....

 

Naivety and ignorance at its best.

[In The Know]

Oh look, peolple are passing opinions, according to some this is not what the forum is for.

 

I am pleased that you recognise the naievity of consumers, but note that your interpretation of the truth seems to flount high court judges decisions.

 

Do you really think you know better than they?? I don't and I am sure that none of you do either.

 

The companies to which I refer, are all [problem] artists and the naievity in consumers who pay them good money to release them of their liability is frightening.

 

Whilst of course I accept that a CCA should be legally binding, I do not accept that consumers willingilly sign contracts without the knowledge of it's legality.

 

Everybody who applies for credit just wants the money and that is obviously the truth, yet the onus is always on the lender to prove that it is owed and not on the consumer to prove that they owe it.

 

As I stated previously, it's always ok to spend, but nobody really likes having to pay it back do they?

 

The argument is a no brainer really isn't it.

 

You signed an agreement, or applied on the internet without a signature, you were supplied with credit, you agreed to terms and conditions, you spend the money and then you pay it back......oh no you don't, you ignore the terms and conditions and try not to pay instead.

 

Give me a break!

 

ITK

[PriorityOne]

Well of course my "interpretation" flouts a high court Judge's ruling... that particular ruling was against consumers as Claimants and not Defendants. I would never have put myself up as a Claimant in the first place.... and if those people had done their homework properly neither would they, I suspect. As a Defendant.... it's a totally different ball game, which has been discussed in depth on these forums for a long while.... on a thread which I started, as it happens. So yes, I do know better in the sense that I know the difference between stepping before a Judge as a Claimant and stepping before a Judge as a Defendant. It appears that you do not.... so what exacty are you "In the Know" about... lol.

 

Whether consumers knowingly sign contracts in the sense that you mean is a side issue... and why on earth would it be up to the consumer to prove that they owe it? Ask yourself.... if you agreed to lend someone huge amounts of money, don't you think it would be a prudent move to make sure you kept the signed paperwork in case anything went t*ts up? Or would you expect the person who borrowed it from you to run after you begging you to acknowledge that they owed it to you spouting forth a moral duty, like some religious nut?

 

Life just ain't like that sunshine. It's a risky world out there..... as the global recession has shown us. The banks have stuffed up and we are still paying for the mess. Lenders have now woken up to the fact that risk is a reality when it comes to parting with money. It's only their innate greed that's turned around and bit them on the &rse in recent years re. CCA law.

 

Praise the Lord!

Edited October 7, 2010 by PriorityOne
typo

[rebel11]

The bigger picture is that various Act's were passed by parliament to protect consumers. Creditors took shortcuts by manufacturing agreements that didn't comply

with the requirements of these Act's. They did this for a couple of reason's, one reason leads to another, ease of administration which leads to profit. In effect

they by passed the protection that was there for consumers. All consumers are doing is asking the question, 'where is my consumer protection?'

[In The Know]

Hello all,

 

Obviously my knowledge of this business and how it works spans from both ends of the scale.

 

I have posted previously both 'for and against' practices by DCA's, but it is always blatently obvious to me that this type of forum is always about people who do not have the slightest conception of how a DCA operates and how reliant they are on information supplied by a creditor and consequently all it really is, in this type of instance, is a place for debtors to hear what they want to about how to avoid facing up to their responsibilities.

 

You can be as offensive as you wish to be, but at the end of the day, without having the background knowledge of various cases and the truth behind what some consumers allegations are (which are normally of course completely one sided) you actually have no right to spout what is wrong and right because you have no conception of how the law works, how compliant DCA's in the norm have to be and yes of course I accept that a lot of them are not (but ceratinly not all, although it is the nature of the beast to be tarred with the same brush) and to this end the forum just turns in to an area to have a moan about whatever you want to and the creditor or DCA, due to compliance, does not have a right to respond.

 

Can you possibly imagine what it would be like if there was a forum designed for creditor's and DCA's who were able to respond with their own point of view on all of the cases complained about in these forums, you would be amazed at the information that consumers to do not tell you about because they do not want to be put under the spotlight, they only state what makes them look hard done by (naturally).

 

There is always two sides to every story, but in reality and according to most on this forum, there is in fact only one side which is of course the one that is right and with views which can't possibly be wrong about anything.

 

Everybody who asks for help is normally in trouble with debt and whilst I again accept that there are some who genuinely need good advice, for the most part and from what I have derived from this forum, they do not always get it because all you seem to want to do is to put consumers in a position whereby they create more problems for themselves than they are looking for.

 

Nobody is above the law regardless of whether you are the accuser or the accused, both sides are equally liable to abide with what the law of the land states and whilst you may not agree with it and think you know better, your judgment is not material because it doesn't matter what you think and I'm afraid that you are stuck with that.

 

What am I in the know about?

 

More than you can possibly imagine and at least I do not have the arrogance to be so completely short sighted, single minded

and blinkered.

 

ITK

[cerberusalert]

When I get totally bored I'll have a look at the London Gazette & trawl through the civil lists looking for a DCA who has been honoured for 'services to the community'. No doubt Abu Hamza would be able to count them on the fingers of both hands.

[In The Know]

Just the sort of comment that I would expect.

 

Thank you for maintaing my faith.

 

ITK

[rebel11]

Hi Cerber,

 

Don't waste your energy on the guy, you know this is clearly true, 'Empty vessels make the most noise', rings ture here.

[sequenci]

I quite like the irony of your username.

[cerberusalert]

I quite like the irony of your username.

It's an anagram of We Think No

[PriorityOne]

You can be as offensive as you wish to be, but at the end of the day, without having the background knowledge of various cases and the truth behind what some consumers allegations are (which are normally of course completely one sided) you actually have no right to spout what is wrong and right because you have no conception of how the law works

 

 

Oh really..... is that so?

 

Your posts and username suggest that you're "In The Know" about nothing much, to be honest......