Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review and unenforceable credit

[Legal Beagles]

Can you REALLY cut credit card debt?


By James Coney
Last updated at 10:40 AM on 03rd September 2008

• Comments (0)
• Add to My Stories

Snip: But is it that simple to write-pff your credit card debts?

Borrowers are being told they can write-off their credit card debts and have the interest repaid because of a loophole in the law.

It is the latest move by claims-handling firms who have already cashed in on endowment mis-selling and bank charges disputes.

Those who pursue such claims are being asked to pay fees upfront and could lose almost a third of any settlement to the firm handling the claim.
One firm advertising on local radio is Cartel Client Review, based in Manchester.

It claims: 'Credit card companies have reduced thousands of credit cards and written off millions of pounds worth of debt and you could benefit from this.

'If you took your credit card out before April 2007 your outstanding balance could be completely written off.

'Cartel Client Review can check all of your credit cards to see if you can claim to have your credit card balance completely cleared.'

Precisely how it does this is vague, even from the explanations on its website.
And when Money Mail called Cartel Client Review it refused to explain what the exact legal case was for their claims on the grounds that it did not wish to give anything away to competitors.

Legal experts contacted by Money Mail are unaware of any specific flaws in the Consumer Credit Act.

The only loophole they suggested was a change to the rules covering borrowers who were being treated unfairly and entitled for their debt to be cancelled, and interest and charges repaid.

Borrowers now have to prove their deal was based on an 'unfair relationship' rather than it was 'extortionate'.

This means a county court judge has to decide only whether the terms and conditions of a loan agreement are unfair to the borrower.

Ingrid Gubbay, a lawyer with London firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, says: 'What these firms are banking on is a loophole.




More...

• This is Money: Beware as 0% deals come to an end
• This is Money: Rate switch struggle on interest-free deals

'But these loopholes are still very difficult to prove in a county court and there is nothing that these firms are doing that can't be done for free.'

However, Cartel Client Review disputes this.

Spokesman Carl Wright says: 'It's as near as impossible as you are ever going to get to be able to do this on your own. I don't believe you could do this for free, when you have poured through the amount of different rules and litigation that we have gone through.'

He said that Cartel Client Review had been pursuing credit card balance reclaims since April and that the few cases it had taken on were successful.

On average, customers had reclaimed £3,000 to £5,000 per card.

Mr Wright claims that the old Consumer Credit Act, which was replaced in 2007, had flaws that meant contracts issued by credit card companies were not watertight.

'This means that there are a number of cases where customers are entitled to redress,' he says.

Under normal circumstances, money that you win back from a bank or credit card company is redress - it is supposed to put you back in the same position you would have been in had you not suffered a hardship.

But use a claims-handling firm and you will lose a large proportion of any redress to which you are entitled.

Cartel Client Review charges £495 to investigate a case, but it says you will get this back if it decides it cannot win your argument. You will also pay a £11 document review fee.

This will be for a request under the Data Protection Act so that it can get details of all your statements and correspondence with the credit card company.

However, if the case is successful you will then pay 30 pc of the interest repaid to you, payments that are returned and balance cleared.

Under the Banking Code, which most credit card companies have signed up to, firms must treat customers with financial difficulties sympathetically.

They should put you in touch with debt advice groups and help you come up with a repayment plan.

If you have been treated unfairly by a credit card firm you can turn to the free Financial Ombudsman Service.

It cannot make a decision as to whether a credit agreement is enforceable, but it can investigate a case where there are specific concerns about the way a customer has been treated.

Unlike these claims-handling firms, any money you get back is all yours, and you can also be awarded compensation where you have suffered a financial loss.


Print this article

[EXC]

Can you really cut card debt?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/dealing...&in_page_id=62

[Paule]

Re: Can you really cut card debt?

Can you really cut card debt?

Borrowers are being told they can write-off their credit card debts and have the interest repaid because of a loophole in the law.

It is the latest move by claimshandling firms who have already cashed in on endowment mis-selling and bank charges disputes.

Those who pursue such claims are being asked to pay fees upfront and could lose almost a third of any settlement to the firm handling the claim.

One firm advertising on local radio is Cartel Client Review, based in Manchester.

It claims: 'Credit card companies have reduced thousands of credit cards and written off millions of pounds worth of debt and you could benefit from this.

'If you took your credit card out before April 2007 your outstanding balance could be completely written off. Cartel Client Review can check all of your credit cards to see if you can claim to have your credit card balance completely cleared.'

Precisely how it does this is vague, even from the explanations on its website.

And when Money Mail called Cartel Client Review it refused to explain what the exact legal case was for their claims on the grounds that it did not wish to give anything away to competitors.

Legal experts contacted by Money Mail are unaware of any specific flaws in the Consumer Credit Act.

The only loophole they suggested was a change to the rules covering borrowers who were being treated unfairly and entitled for their debt to be cancelled, and interest and charges repaid.

Borrowers now have to prove their deal was based on an 'unfair relationship' rather than it was 'extortionate'.

This means a county court judge has to decide only whether the terms and conditions of a loan agreement are unfair to the borrower.

Ingrid Gubbay, a lawyer with London firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, says: 'What these firms are banking on is a loophole. But these loopholes are still very difficult to prove in a county court and there is nothing that these firms are doing that can't be done for free.'

However, Cartel Client Review disputes this. Spokesman Carl Wright says: 'It's as near as impossible as you are ever going to get to be able to do this on your own. I don't believe you could do this for free, when you have poured through the amount of different rules and litigation that we have gone through.'

He said that Cartel Client Review had been pursuing credit card balance reclaims since April and that the few cases it had taken on were successful. On average, customers had reclaimed £3,000 to £5,000 per card.

Mr Wright claims that the old Consumer Credit Act, which was replaced in 2007, had flaws that meant contracts issued by credit card companies were not watertight. 'This means that there are a number of cases where customers are entitled to redress,' he says.

Under normal circumstances, money that you win back from a bank or credit card company is redress - it is supposed to put you back in the same position you would have been in had you not suffered a hardship. But use a claims-handling firm and you

[Curlyben]

Re: Can you really cut card debt?

Here we go again !!!

On the whole they are looking for simple s127(3) agreements, lacking prescribed terms as detailed in s61 of CCA.
Not rocket science, but any company that has affiliations with our old friend Basil needs to be closely scrutinised.

[tomterm8]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

Personally, I would strongly not recommend this company.

Isn't this company related to people who threatened to sue (as in Libel) legal beagels a while back, or is that my imagination? Due to allegations of a link to Basil?

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

Muppets

[Amethyst]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

Are there any further costs?
In respect of claims in relation to credit cards, successful claim fees of £250 plus 30% of the total of interest repaid, payments returned and balance cleared will be payable.
In respect of claims in relation to unredeemed secured loans and personal unsecured credit, successful claim fee of 30% of the total benefit received will be payable.
In respect of claims in relation to a previous repossession unwind, a successful claim fee of 5% of the total benefit will be payable.
No further fees are payable to us in respect of claims in relation to a mortgage, redeemed secured loan or motor finance product.
Where a claim is passed to a solicitor, in the event of a successful claim the solicitor will endeavour to recover their costs from the product provider. In relation to a claim in respect of a credit card or personal unsecured loan, you will not be liable for any such costs which the solicitor is unable to recover. In relation to a claim in respect of a mortgage, secured loan, motor finance, repossession prevention or previous repossession unwind, the solicitor will endeavour to recover their costs in full from the product provider.
You will not be responsible for any solicitor’s costs if your claim is unsuccessful.
Cancellation / refunds?
You may cancel the contract between us and you at any time by writing to us.
You have a 14 day "cooling off" period from the date of signature of our Client Agreement within which you may cancel the contract with us and we will refund the fees paid to you in full within 30 days of us receiving notice of the cancellation. After this 14 day period, if you cancel the contract with us, you will not be entitled to the refund of any fees paid to us.
The review fees for a mortgage, secured loan, motor finance product or repossession prevention are refundable if the proposed claim does not result in a successful claim, either via settlement out of court or via an award ordered by the court. The review fees for a credit card, personal secured loan or previously repossessed unwind are non-refundable outside the "cooling off" period.
Referral fees
The Cartel Client Review representative will be paid commission and where we refer a potential claim to the nominated firm of solicitors referred to above, we will receive a referral fee.
Complaints
Our aim is to provide a first class professional and confidential service. We have internal procedures for handling complaints fairly and speedily and, should a complaint arise, in the first instance you should contact our customer services department at the above address.
If you are not satisfied then you may refer the complaint to the Claims Management Regulator, Monitoring & Compliance Unit, PO Box 7284, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire, DE14 9DP, telephone: 0845 450 6858, fax: 0845 450 6866, email: info@claimsregulation.gov.uk.
Version

Just for info

[Curlyben]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

That's a seriously LARGE fee structure, especially as they are most likely looking at s127(3) agreements !!!
I'm willing to bet they will happily sue anyone that defaults them under these terms.

I can see more SD's flying about from this crowd.

[wigeon]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

I am adding a post to do with loans on another part of the site but it is relevant to the discussion on credit cards. At the end I have added some points on credit cards.

Ultimatelaw, credit wise and all others are for some reason miss leading the market and general public. CMC's are throwing brick bats at each other, all in some way conning the general public out of large front end fees and large back end fees. Then along comes a very sensible judge HHJ Halbert who hears a case in Chester County Court against Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited who had in the first instance a repossession order against the borrower. The case is eventually listed before him and he finds for the borrower. The decision in the case is based on a miss statement of the amount of credit. Interest was charged by the lender on an item that was included wrongly in the AOC, a mandatory fee which should have been a cost of credit. Very good straight forward decision. Well reasoned and easy to follow.

HHJ Halbert for some reason then went of the rails and referred to Moore-Bic LJ and other Judges an idea he had to stay claims under the CCA 74 for some test cases to be heard in the commercial court in London before HHJ Andrew Smith.

The position to me seems ill thought out. This is settled law it has been through the House of Lords and in the CA in 2007 Tuckey LJ was well able to see what was and was not a case for unenforceability. He decided in Wilson v Hurstanger that the agreement was enforceable.

The courts have made it very clear.

However some CMC's are determined to ruin the chances of these cases, the real cases, being successful by bringing large numbers of these cases on very spurious grounds. Where unenforceability is alleged for coppers, or a few pounds on a loan of £15,000/£20,000. Bearing in mind there is a plus1% and minus 0.1% tolerance on the APR minor discrepancies are bound to arise. The rules where designed to prevent the lenders failing to disclose the true COST of credit to borrowers. These claims which are lodged in Chester are largely based on a very expensive computer programme which is untested non legal and suggests that minor errors result in unenforceability.

Other problems are also arising through a gross over statement of the incidence of loans that are unenforceable. Claims of 80% are a huge over statement and I have direct experience of 1000's of these loan agreements.

So yet again the lenders, courts and CMC's are muddying the waters and the losers are.............yes the poor bl........y borrowers.

The point to be made on credit cards is that without the agreement the card or debt cannot be enforced. The trick is to stop them defualting your credit record. Pleasebe patient with me I am some what new to these forums.

[Amethyst]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

Thank you Wigeon.

However some CMC's are determined to ruin the chances of these cases, the real cases, being successful by bringing large numbers of these cases on very spurious grounds.

I agree with this entirely and it has been a major concern since this all blew up out of proportion by the CMCs following the repeal of 127(3) and the Rankines.


In your view, with your experience, what would you say the % of truely unenforceable agreements could be ?



I think part of the reason HHJ Halbert has gone towards test cases is because the CCA 1974/06 is seemingly being applied in very varied ways by different judges - there has been a case I believe of no agreement being produced and the DJ allowing enforcement of the debt because of the signature of the reverse of the credit card. DJ's have seemed to go with the moral argument as opposed to applying the law.

(which I have to say makes sense to me in a number of ways and is how agreements post April 07 will be dealt with) but the fact remains that pre April 2007 theres really no excuse for no, or lacking credit agreements, and in cases where there are ommissions it can be purposeful to mislead the consumer, and as such those agreements should be declared unenforceable.

[wigeon]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

Regulated agreements which form 60% of the market and of each 100 agreements 25 - 30% in my view are potentially unenforceable. If you include credit cards then the percentage would be 50 - 60 % but the CC's are based nearly 80% on an failure to produce the signed agreement.

The CC lenders can be fought to a standstill but the way of doing it has been watered down by the inexperienced who assume a failure under S 78 is all that is needed.

[wigeon]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

could some one explain how I can start a new thread...........sorry a bit slow on the up take

[Amethyst]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

Hi Wigeon, If you open the forum you want to post in, at the top left of the list of threads theres a button ok so if you want to start a new thread in this forum click VIP Projects and Campaigns - Legal Beagles then that button

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

Cartel Client Review Consumer Credit Litigation SOlicitors

An update on them from David Jack


I previously wrote about the issues being reported from a number of people about a company by the name of Cartel Client Review and a Solicitors acting with Cartel by the Name of Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors, also known as Burleys. Since writing the article and requesting people to get in touch I have been inundated with reports of shoddy practices, delays, failed emails, people not returning phone calls, lack of contact, no signs of progress and other stalling tactics being operated by these two companies along with some pretty damming stories too.
A large number of people have paid thousands to this company on the hope that debts on credit cards, secured and unsecured loans and mortgages can be wiped out.
Cartel and Carl Wright, the owner/Director of the company, claim to have found loopholes in the law and claim to have wiped out thousands of such agreements.
These statements couldn't be any further from the truth.
My investigations have found that Cartel have some 266,000 or so active claims. very few of which appear have been settled and many of these are at least six months or more old. Many were placed almost a year ago. Most were charged at four hundred and ninety five pounds, and many at one hundred and seventy five pounds. Very many have success fees of 25 -30% attached to them as well.
Carl Wright claims at his latest sales seminar that he has over 4,000 successful claims paid out. Impressive you might think? Not when you consider he has amassed some 266,000 claims that haven't been paid out.
It was alleged by insiders that two of his most senior share holders and a number of his master agents recently challenged him directly for proof of these successes. All it is claimed he could prove were a very small handful of such cases. Not such an impressive record after all?
It has been alleged that the accountants for the company have indicated that the business is no longer sustainable or viable. One master agent and senior share holder, Peter Applewhite, is reported to have some 700+ reps working for him and yet he is only seeing income from Cartel of a mere five thousand pounds. Many other reps and master agents are also reporting to me the same sort of loss of income that was promised by Carl Wright.
However, Carl Wright himself drew down a reported half a million pounds from the business last year and a further 800,000 pounds this year. This is not clearly supported in the audited accounts and if client claims numbers are accurate then the company has amassed somewhere in the region of 80 -131 million pounds in clients fees before even resolving a single case.
Now it transpires that Mr Wrights wife has a million shares in the company even though Mr Wright himself is now alleged to be involved with another partner who also is a share holder in the business. Is it just a matter of time before she pulls her share of the company from under him and leaves the company with a gaping hole in its finances? Time will tell.
I would suggest that every single person who has been involved with this business demand an immediate and full refund.
Anyone not getting satisfaction should contact the Ministry of Justice at ;

[Amethyst]

Re: Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? Cartel Client Review

can't beat a bit of mudslinging lol.

If any of this is true its not good news for cartel, has david jack backed up any of his comments with evidence ?