Guidelines - Requests For An Original Agreement Under The Consumer Credit Act 1974

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello MM!

 

JonCris is absolutely right.

 

Take care, you must remember that the Credit Reference Agencies (CRA) are all part of the same loathsome Self-Serving Borg banking Backscratching Merry-Go-Round Circus that we all love to hate.

 

Some CRA's own Debt Collecting Agencies (DCA)...or at least that is what I understand to be the case. Either way, these people do not hold Data for our benefit. They hold it for their benefit, i.e. their financial gain, and to pass on any juicy bits to all of their banking Mates and Pals, who plug into this Data like the, er, um...like the Borg!

 

Having a bad Credit Report depends on how you look at it.

 

Someone with a shed load of Cards, a Mortgage, a few Loans, several bits and bobs on HP, but all Paid more or less on time, looks to most people as being the Report belonging to a poor sucker saddled with Debt. To the bankers, it's a Sitting Duck Target for more Finance, so that person will get a high rating.

 

It's very twisted.

 

Indeed, they ought to be called Debt Reference Agencies, as that would be more apt. They call it Credit, we call it Debt.

 

But many people have innocently requested a Credit (Debt) Report, only to find that a week or so later, a DCA pops up on the Scope chasing some long forgotten Debt (real or otherwise).

 

You can guess who logged the Name/Address details when the Report was requested and, when sent, they immediately popped those same details into their Borg Super Computer to see what else these details matched...and then proudly told their Mates over at the DCA.

 

Sadly, if you want Credit (Debt), then these Reports are an issue. So it's often necessary to find out what they say. But, if you don't want to Rock the Applecart, as it were, then think twice about Contacting a CRA...unless you are sure you have no old bones in the Cupboard they may be able to rattle out with some Database shaking!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Or, put another way...

 

No Enforceable Agreement = a Gift!

 

How very silly of them, or how very generous of them, depending on how you look at it.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Could you possibly send me a PM with the solicitors details, Rubio?

 

Danger Will Robinson!

 

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited January 4, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Arrow!

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Phatram!

 

What exactly do they have to send us?

 

This is what the Chief Executive of the OFT thinks we should be sent...

 

Letters from DTI /Oft Regarding CCA1974 Issues – Post #49

 

IOW, a lot more than the banks think they can get away with sending us!

 

Note his comments about Courts and the likelihood that they would want to inspect the original written Agreement!

 

That is the message we must get across to the Judges at every opportunity.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Stapely!

 

Can not remember the case but a previous Judgement was made, where it was deemed to be a gift as the correct paperwork was not obtained.

This may help:

 

In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said, at page 1131:

 

“Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.”

 

Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:

 

"(26.) The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

 

When this case was appealed to the House of Lords on a matter regarding the Human Rights Act (Wilson & Ors v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40), Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said:

 

"(49.) The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched."

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Socleirigh!

 

Unfortunately, like any case that even looks like it was favourable to the banks, the Manchester Test Case issue will be used incorrectly.

 

To clarify, in the Manchester Cases, the debtors were the Claimants, and were taking the bankers to Court who were, in these examples, the Defendant, and not the Claimant.

 

The Claimant must prove their case. The burden is tipped towards the Claimant.

 

Thus, if Halifax and M&S go as far as taking you to Court, then they will be the Claimant, and you the Defendant. Thus, they have to prove their case, and most of the Manchester Test Case issues will simply not apply, that's if a Judge is awake enough or fair enough to understand the issues.

 

Some idiot Judges are already starting to use the Manchester Test Cases in error but, they are incorrect. Sadly, some people will suffer, depending on their Judge, or their Legal Team, or their ability to defend themselves, or until someone Appeals to stop this nonsense!

 

The best advice is usually to sit back, and let the enemy make all the mistakes. Usually, but not always, they will shoot themselves in one or both feet.

 

The main problem is the damage they will try to do to your financial reputation, which is effectively how this nasty system works. It is their system, not ours, and if you end up fighting one bank, they will ensure via the Debt Reference Agencies that every other bank gets to know, and every other bank will treat you in the same way once alerted by their mates. The Debt Reference Agencies are a Black List, they do not need to hold a secret one, their whole purpose is to create one great big Black List!

 

Everyone is on their Black List, but some are just blacker than others. Someone with a good Debt Rating is effectively a light shade of grey, whereas someone with a bad Debt Rating is black as a coal hole. I suspect you are a dark shade of grey at the moment!

 

All most of us can do is plan on a long haul of 6 years of grief, and hope it gets to the Statute Barred stage without them doing any real harm.

 

If they take you to Court, then you must swing into action, and put into effect all the slow and steady research you have done while waiting for them to act. If you gather enough evidence against them, and they have compounded their own problems along the way, then beating them in Court remains entirely possible, obviously depending on your circumstances, facts, research and ability to defend.

 

It sounds like the damage has already been done to your Debt Rating, so you may as well plan on the long haul mentioned above, and accept that's how it will go.

 

The Manchester Test Cases have mainly made it harder for Consumers to take the banks to Court. The clear intention being to try and kill off the Claims Management businesses that have jumped in to swamp the Courts, often firing off poorly planned and pleaded Claims.

 

A small batch of which were selected for the Manchester Test Cases! I stress selected, because you can be sure the Judiciary made sure they only chose cases that could be picked apart in favour of the banks.

 

I'm also pretty sure the Judiciary also made sure the cases selected would be ones that would be unlikely to be Appealed. The last thing they would want is an Appeal that went up a Court or two, and went against a bank and, in so doing, set a higher precedent!

 

That would never do!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited January 5, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Socleirigh!

 

Does the six years for statute barred accounts begin on the date of last payment or on the last time I communicated with the CC companies, as I CCA'd them in December (before knowing the results of the Manchester cases)

I regret I'm no expert there, but I'm pretty sure it's from the date of last payment, or the date when you last acknowledged the Debt...and that does not include routine correspondence.

 

IOW, if you stopped paying them on 01/01/2004, then you can argue via letter for 6 years, but it will still be Statute Barred on the 6th Year Anniversary from 01/01/2004.

 

So, don't be tempted by £1 or £10 a month special offers, or by any DCA tricks trying to get you to admit the debt in any way. Also, watch they do not add, say, a £1 CCA Request or £10 SAR to the Balance, as many do. If they do, that should not be a problem, so long as you can prove those payments were Statutory Fees and not a payment towards any Debt.

 

I usually tell people to add a statement when submitting SAR or CCA Requests to make it clear the fee is not a payment towards any Debt.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited January 6, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Clarity