CCA question - total charge for credit

[ed.]

Re: CCA question - total charge for credit

Curly -

The only way you can really go back to closed agreements is under a clear mistake with a series of consolidation loans from the same bank.
As in my case the final loan appears to comply, but there's been issues with how that figure was arrived at due to incorrect settlement of previous loans. Hence invalidating the final loan and opening up the previous, closed, accounts for scrutiny..
In this case I'm not talking simple addition of charges, but something alot more involved and potentially underhand.

I can see the benefits of that actually in some perverse sense at it's simplest level. It's one thing if it's a single agreement that lived it's life, was paid up DJ rules you spent your money, you paid it back go away. But if there is a series of rolling consolidation where the same company kept supplying unenforceable agreements, but were creaming even more interest and profit of the top by the rolling nature (and by the fact it can be assumed at some point you received advice from them on how to consolidate) that shows the pattern of behaviour from them that wouldn't exist otherwise.

The series of consolidations shows a serious prejudice even if the latest agreement is technically watertight - the watertight agreement becomes really at the very least void due to the nature of the previous agreements I'd have thought.

But if there are further errors, financial errors to their benefit aswell, again it's a much stronger case than walking in with a single agreement that was paid off 3 years ago.

Legally I think it's doable, but in the current climate it would take a case that was prepared to appeal as far as it could before I could see your standard DJ ever entertaining it.

Your case seems to have many additional elements to it, that I suspect a DJ would be hard pushed to ignore. At least based on the assumptions I'm making from what you've said lol

Var - absolutely agree. Which is why closed account arguements would have to most likely in the main be mistake of law, misrep, show the creditor knew clearly they could never take to Court yet threatened it and so on.

Glenn, Ame - again I think it would have to be proved they knowingly and wilfully created a deception to profit over and above simply it being a mistake in law, in effect a forced mistake in law before a DJ would let it run it's course.

But again in my mind they should, at least little ol me thinks it's a perfectly valid course of action.

[Glenn UK]

Re: CCA question - total charge for credit

Yep i think thats the one

http://www.publications.parliament.u...29/klein05.htm

towards the bottom of the page Lord Goff of chievely sets it out and i am sure this was upheld in subseqent appeals.

Glenn

[Amethyst]

Re: CCA question - total charge for credit

Another question which may be a bit daft but there you go best to ask than ponder sometimes.

Once a debt has gone to CCJ and THEN the agreements found to be unenforceable can you then set the judgment aside?

I think no because its already been enforced, but i'm confusing myself at the moment so a definative answer would be lovely.

Thanks

[Curlyben]

Re: CCA question - total charge for credit

Thanks Ed., the details are here: CB's on a mission - Legal Beagles

Ame, I would agree with that as the enforceability should of been contested at the time, BUT that being said charges would mean that the judgemented amount was incorrect and would possibly be grounds for a set aside. This would be alot harder underf a CO. After seeking advice on this from The Collage of Law they say the same thing.

[ed.]

Re: CCA question - total charge for credit

I suspect you have it covered Curly, but I'll have a good read and pipe up if I have anything useful of note to add matey.

Agree with Curly on CO aswell, it's a no brainer really cause the CO was enforced based on an unenforceable agreement but again you may need more than just an unenforceable agreement before a Court would entertain it.

Again from the Court's point of view, they'd be nervous of opening the floodgates to thousands of similar claims I would think, which unfortunately seems to be the overriding factor on charges claims, and seems to be the growing concern on CCA claims lol

[Var]

Re: CCA question - total charge for credit

Wigeons post on the Stay at CCC covered this

"What was very interesting was that Barclays were particularly keen to establish a point about banks being able to still report you to a Credit Reference Agency even though you have proved that your agreement is unenforceable.

They even had the cheek to say that it would be in the interest of consumers to know for sure whether having proved their agreement was unenforceable if they stopped paying then they could still be reported to a Credit Reference Agency.

What they really want of course is to discourage people to try and prove that their agreement is unenforceable because they will worry about having a bad credit report.

Barristers for the CMC's argued that this was just enforcement of an unenforceable agreement by another name and cited unfair relationships.

Apparently people are now applying for injunctions preventing the banks from adopting this practice however a case involving this issue was agreed upon and will be heard by Justice Smith in London asap."

No doubt they will lose the test case and another underhand method will be removed from their arsenal

Var

[Glenn UK]

Re: CCA question - total charge for credit

Wigeons post on the Stay at CCC covered this

"What was very interesting was that Barclays were particularly keen to establish a point about banks being able to still report you to a Credit Reference Agency even though you have proved that your agreement is unenforceable.

They even had the cheek to say that it would be in the interest of consumers to know for sure whether having proved their agreement was unenforceable if they stopped paying then they could still be reported to a Credit Reference Agency.

What they really want of course is to discourage people to try and prove that their agreement is unenforceable because they will worry about having a bad credit report.

Barristers for the CMC's argued that this was just enforcement of an unenforceable agreement by another name and cited unfair relationships.

Apparently people are now applying for injunctions preventing the banks from adopting this practice however a case involving this issue was agreed upon and will be heard by Justice Smith in London asap."

No doubt they will lose the test case and another underhand method will be removed from their arsenal

Var

what is interesting about this comment on barclays is that when i used to talk to the ICOs office alot it was lcear that this was similar to the view they took.

At that time it was a discussion about bank charges/cc charges and where these forced a person to default.

their (the ICO0 view was that if you stopped paying any agreement then a default was justified as long as the lender followed the correct procdue ie a notice with corrective action plus a timeframe to correct then a notcie on your credit file was ok.

Not suggesting that we need to agree or accept this position only that it was at that time the ICOs view, i have no idea what they are doing now as i havent spoken to my contact form some time.

Glenn