Stubie-One:

I feel that we would have a difficult time demanding all payments returned as the creditor could evidence your expenditure - theft and fraud spring to mind.

S

Hmm .... but if, as the Lords ruled, any monies received by the debtor are, on an unenforceability issue, regarded as gifts i.e. not required to be repaid, then what are repayments made under duress from the creditors (by threats of defaults and loss of credit rating). Are these not demands for money under threat??

Hi Stubie

The CCA 1974 states that if the creditor fails to ensure the correct prescribed terms then they have ''gifted'' the credit already spent to the debtor. So they would lose the credit, the interest and the charges.

Who owns the banks?

These days its the government - in large part

The government is funded by the treasury, which is funded by taxes, which are paid by the taxpayer - YOU

Robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Personally, I would happily see MBNA and Cap 1 go under. They are both american so where's the loss?

I feel that we would have a difficult time demanding all payments returned as the creditor could evidence your expenditure - theft and fraud spring to mind. However, charges and interest are contractual, if the aggreement is unenforcible, then so are all of its terms. Pay back the capital but recover charges etc should be a resonable settlement and it has been done. I have seen a case (county court, so no precedent, sadly) where this was claimed, with contractual interest (not sure how they got away with that but it happened).

I would hope that if the review finds that the banks etc cannot apply detrimental notices to ones credit rating (since its a term and to apply constitutes enforcement) then this should give greater weight to a reclaim of interest etc.

Cliaming all payments is questionable and my badly mauled but still functioning ethics say its a no no.

S

I suppose in some respects, it gives people more choice. They can choose whether they want to take out these new loans at a higher rate, people who can't pay off their credit cards can't.

Just so you don't misunderstand my position-I took out an Abbey card with a fairly reasonable APR when MBNA took over they hiked it up to 35%Apr gave no reason except because they were within their rights to do so, at that point I had an umblemished credit record but then the minimum payment just about covered the interest.Surely people like this have to be stopped! I would dearly love these people to get a bloody nose and really respect the support you give on this site, I'd have gone crazy without you(honestly). And I'm in no way a waster, when mortgage rates were skyhigh, I used cards to keep a roof over my head.However now people have scented blood I wonder how far it will go before it all rebounds and ultimately Joe Public will end up footing the bill, we already know the big chiefs won't dip into their pockets so where does this money come from?

But in the meantime I'm very happy that you are giving them something to think about and if at some point in the future, the banks start acting more reasonably, we won't feel compelled to challenge agreements out of a sense of financial survival.

OOPS! Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?

This arguemnt was known in 2004/05 that is why the government revoked Section 127 (3) and handed the arguements and remedies back to the courts.

Therefore the line has been drawn in the sand and revocation was the stick used to draw the line, The bank now know that for every day they delay more agreements fall through the net. They have already started to recoup huge amounts of money by increasing interest rates on loans. LLoyds 12 months ago 4.9% apr cost to the bank 3% NOW loan rate 7.9% cost to the bank 1,5%. Welcome rates 15% 2008 65% 2009. Make your own mind up. Even the lenders legal representatives fought tooth and nail to stop the FSA/OFT breaking the point of sale ....sale of PPI/ASU policies.......vested interets.

But how could you justify meeting those demands for years and asking for more 'gifts', I understand what you are saying but at some point isn't some judge going to throw up a precedent and say why did we acknowledge it as a workable agreement for so long only to say much later on, I'm going to keep what I took from you, but you can't keep what you took from me?I realise that I'm not as well read or qualified as S &W, but I feel that it could be pushing it too far.

At some point someone is going to do something to put a block on it. The financial implications are too far reaching. If everyone who can prove they have an unenforceable agreement refuses to pay and then claws back all their payments, it could easily backrupt a lot of banks. Bankrupt a lot of banks and it would totally destabilize the economy.

I'm all for a shift of power as these cccs have behaved like thugs, and in many ways would deserve it. But can you really seeing it swinging so far without some intervention from on high?

Sorry, I know you are arguing a point of law here, so maybe this isn't relevant but in the bigger picture perhaps it is?

Hi All,

I think this should be put to the commercial courts as part of the review.

I agree that in the case of Wilson Vs FCT this was the statement but that was a loan and with a loan you make payments I would argue that this circumstance differs from credit cards where a statement is received including a request for payment.

I struggle to understand how a payment, made in response to a demand could be deemed a gift. One of the prescriptors of a gift is it be unsolicited. In the case of a loan this could be argued but not, I feel, in the case of a credit card payment.

IMHO

S

wigeon:

Stubie-One:

basa48:

As you say the matter of the definition of interest rate is interesting. I cannot perceive which part of CCA 1974 they are looking at. For my part I am more interested in whether interest paid to an unenforceable account can be reclaimed since it could be argued there was never any rate of interest agreed.

That was what I was trying to say.

Clearly didn't do it very well

Never mind, we are on the same wavelength.

S

This is an interesting point as if the agreement is unenforceable it was on the first day and as much as it is on the 700th day. Therefore the arguments that we run is that the money is recoverable capital and interest. However this point has not been before the courts.

Well the appeal case of Wilson v FCT did say in the case of an unenforceable ageement the monies paid to the debtor could be considered a gift. I wonder if the monies paid by the debtor to the creditor could also be considered the same i.e. a gift??

Stubie-One:

basa48:

As you say the matter of the definition of interest rate is interesting. I cannot perceive which part of CCA 1974 they are looking at. For my part I am more interested in whether interest paid to an unenforceable account can be reclaimed since it could be argued there was never any rate of interest agreed.

That was what I was trying to say.

Clearly didn't do it very well

Never mind, we are on the same wavelength.

S

This is an interesting point as if the agreement is unenforceable it was on the first day and as much as it is on the 700th day. Therefore the arguments that we run is that the money is recoverable capital and interest. However this point has not been before the courts.

Yes. Use the templates you have seen but simply omit the bit about 30 days. Simples!!

You need to get a bit clued up if you are going 'do-it-yourself CCC baiting', they DO bite. So grab a copy of CCA 1974 and CC (Agreements) Regs 1983 and read them. But be careful a lot of copies on the net are later amended versions. You need to compare the version with the date of your credit agreement. They are a bit daunting at first but with a little reading around the web you'll soon see what's relevant. You won't ever understand it all, it's like putting a jigsaw together - it takes time and study to know where each bit fits. Most stuff needs two or three (at least) careful reads to get the gist.

Hi Wigeon,

Been reading your posts all day, thanks for the input.

Two fellow posters have today told me that following my requests for signed copies of my credit card CCAs, I no longer need to wait 14 days + a further 30 days as the latter was repealed.

My question is that as 20+ working days have now elapsed since my recorded delivery request was received, should I now simply write and cite the fact that they have defaulted by not supplying the requested agreements ?

Is there a template for this you could recomend as all other templates I have seen still refer to 30 days and committing an offence ?

Thanks

Nodosh

The only problem cases are those concerning credit cards and the intentions of the lenders to default the card holder
for non-payment.

The argument runs that constitutes a form of enforcement and should therefore not be permitted.

The lenders card issuers argue that their inability to enforce the agreements does not mean that the money is not still owed by the client, hence the referral

Hi wigeon,

Is that the case for all of the referrals?

I thought the intention was to present a cross section of claims where a precedent was absent.

S

The cases that are being looked at are those where the lender/card issuer has sought to default someone who's card

cannot be enforced as they are unable to produce an executed copy of the agreement under a section 78 application or general discovery

after proceedings have been issued.

basa48:

As you say the matter of the definition of interest rate is interesting. I cannot perceive which part of CCA 1974 they are looking at. For my part I am more interested in whether interest paid to an unenforceable account can be reclaimed since it could be argued there was never any rate of interest agreed.

That was what I was trying to say.

Clearly didn't do it very well

Never mind, we are on the same wavelength.

S