BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

[debtisbad]

Anyone got 468 quid for the British Bankers Association Debt and Enforceability Seminar?

BBA Association - Debt and Enforceability Seminar

[ed.]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

The seminar brings together a panel of experts from across the industry to provide much needed clarity on enforceability of credit agreements and what is being done to tackle opportunist CMCs preying on vulnerable consumers facing financial difficulties. It will provide delegates with practical advice on how to mitigate the risk of unenforceable consumer credit agreement claims.

Well to start with actually issuing compliant credit agreements might have been an idea instead of thinking they could get away with anything.

Could either be very interesting OR totally anti CMC based and a waste of time.

[Kafka]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

Anyone got 468 quid for the British Bankers Association Debt and Enforceability Seminar?

BBA Association - Debt and Enforceability Seminar

The seminar brings together a panel of experts from across the industry to provide much needed clarity on enforceability of credit agreements and what is being done to tackle opportunist CMCs preying on vulnerable consumers facing financial difficulties.

Makes interesting reading if you just substitute banks for CMCs

[debtisbad]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

Maybe replace banks and CMCs with robbing bas****s?

[Amethyst]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

Clarity on Consumer Credit challenges
Claims management companies (CMCs) will find it harder to challenge credit agreements following a recent ruling at the High Court.
A number of CMCs are challenging credit agreements made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which require the lender to produce the original, physical, signed document if the client requests. They say if the lender cannot produce the document, the agreement is void. At the High Court in Manchester last month, it was ruled that a reconstituted copy was sufficient proof.
This is the latest in a series of judgements which have clarified the law by finding in favour of lenders. Collectively these have seriously curtailed the opportunities for CMCs to challenge agreements.
The BBA will be updating members at its Debt and Enforceabilty Seminar on Thursday 28 January: click here for full details on how to book.

[debtisbad]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

Clarity on Consumer Credit challenges
Claims management companies (CMCs) will find it harder to challenge credit agreements following a recent ruling at the High Court.
A number of CMCs are challenging credit agreements made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which require the lender to produce the original, physical, signed document if the client requests. They say if the lender cannot produce the document, the agreement is void. At the High Court in Manchester last month, it was ruled that a reconstituted copy was sufficient proof.
This is the latest in a series of judgements which have clarified the law by finding in favour of lenders. Collectively these have seriously curtailed the opportunities for CMCs to challenge agreements.
The BBA will be updating members at its Debt and Enforceabilty Seminar on Thursday 28 January: click here for full details on how to book.

MMmmmm....is it just me, or are a lot of these "clarifying the law" decisions coming down in favour of the banks e.g. this case, the OFT/bank charges case, etc.

If they don't have to provide the original "true copy" and can cobble together anything they want, they can simply rewrite anything, claiming that was the original document that you signed. Why would it be so one sided, one would ask? What would make judges or politicians take just one side in so many prominent areas?

Egg have been doing this, if you read through many posts on here. People report being sent terms and conditions, which are basically printed of versions of a recent web page, which appears to bear no resemblance to original documents. It even cites a Citibank address, when Citibank did not own Egg at the time of many of the CCAs that are being discussed.

In my own case, an old Abbey credit card was written off by Lowells, who closed my account on the basis that "no original records have been kept". This new test case suggests that they could now put together some documents, purporting to be the original terms and conditions and on that basis attempt to collect.

[Amethyst]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

Most articles are ridiculous spin - in the BBAs opinion thats it for UCA's, in Cartels it means GO GO GO on UCA's. Only way is to read the judgments and make ur own mind up.

Realistically I think the judgment was common sense and strives to keep the law for what it was intended rather than ambulance chasers.

[debtisbad]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

Most articles are ridiculous spin - in the BBAs opinion thats it for UCA's, in Cartels it means GO GO GO on UCA's. Only way is to read the judgments and make ur own mind up.

Realistically I think the judgment was common sense and strives to keep the law for what it was intended rather than ambulance chasers.

Hi

Not sure what UCA's are? Does it refer to claims companies?

Thanks!

[Amethyst]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

oops Unenforceable Credit Agreements (was just me being a lazy bum)

[debtisbad]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

oops Unenforceable Credit Agreements (was just me being a lazy bum)

OK! Gotcha. But the question is, take Egg, for example. They have many flawed agreements prior to 2007. From what I can see, nearly every one of them posted has faults. Examples, missing prescribed terms and conditions, CCAs referring to terms and conditions that were never sent as part of the CCA and never signed by both parties, etc.

I have also seen copies posted where Egg send out these "new" terms and conditions that do no match the original ones.

Does this mean that they can just cut and paste various things together and say, hey, this is what was in the original CCA but we do not have a true copy of the original?

[ed.]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

Without an original copy (full compliance) they cannot enforce through the Courts. Carey et al which is what this BBA response is based on was simply looking at compliance with S77-79 requests NOT enforcement through the Courts.

So in reality there's very little change in the grand scheme of things.

[debtisbad]

Re: BBA seminar on debt and enforceability

Without an original copy (full compliance) they cannot enforce through the Courts. Carey et al which is what this BBA response is based on was simply looking at compliance with S77-79 requests NOT enforcement through the Courts.

So in reality there's very little change in the grand scheme of things.

OK, got it! Very interesting thread, thanks!