High Court Decision on Loophole

[wooddar]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

Thanks for the reply. Noticed this was back in 2003. Has this been tested more recently as I noticed the court is becoming more intorellant. Are the defects I mentioned something that would hold water.

Cheers

[righty]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

I would like to clear a few things up here.

1/ The use of the word "loophole" is completely incorrect and misleading. CCA is black and white and that is the biases of unenforceability.
2/ This "test" case was nothing of the sort as the agreement was recovered from the Banks archives, after being misfiled, and found to be completely enforceable.
3/ Bovine reporting of this nature does nothing to engender confidence in the writer or paper that published it.
4/ There are a number of HoL cases that cover enforceability issues in agreements, namely the Wilson series. These new cases are mainly dealing with specific things that Wilson etc haven't touched on. Mostly reporting to CRA's and passing to third parties etc.

OOOP's The Times on line has added a 'clarification'

[charitynjw]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

Clarification: We reported that people trying to have credit card and loan debt written off by exploiting a legal loophole under the Consumer Credit Act would have to pay the full amounts they owed, following a landmark court ruling. In fact, this case dealt with the transmittal of data to third-party Credit Reference Agencies in cases where a debt is considered to be "temporarily" unenforceable. The judge did not reach any view on cases where the unenforceability of the agreement is "permanent" or "irredeemable". We are happy to clarify the position.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6868968.ece

[TUTTSI]

Re: High Court Decision on Loophole

In all I am not entirely surprised that this is the result, but what annoys me is that the CMC's will still carry on telling peeps that there are 18 flaws etc and that they have unenforceable agreements just so they can charge upfront fees without a hope in hell of being able to reclaim these. This is how many CMC's make there money so will it stop - I don't think so?

I also see Mr Gander has made a couple of remarks:-

October 10, 2009 9:18 PM Marc Gander wrote:

If it is a question of overstretching oneself, the British Banking Inudstry seem to have done a pretty good job of that.

BST on community.timesonline.co.uk

Marc Gander wrote:

This article completely misstates the effect of the judgment.
The effect of the judgment is that the agreement is unenforceable so that the money is not recoverable at law. However the legal unenforceablity does not prejudice the rights of the lender to continue non-judical methods of attempting the recover the money, of entering defaults onto the credit register etc. Furthermore, the customer would not normally be entitled to compain of harassment in respect of normal debt collection practices or make complaints under the Consumer (Protection from Unfair Trading) Regs 2008 etc.
In other words, the lender can still pile on the pressure but can't take any formal action to get their money back.
To say that customers will now be obliged to repay is entirely wrong.

October 10, 2009 2:16 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk