Consumer Credit Support  
Bailiff Advice Online

Go Back   Consumer Credit Support > Consumer Credit Support > Consumer Credit Act
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 31-01-2010, 01:06 AM
peterbard's Avatar
peterbard peterbard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 312
peterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to all
Default

HI

It seems like the OFT have put yet another twist in the ,what is “enforcement” saga.


They seem to have spotted the various contradictions that have been pointed out on here particularly section 76 (1) where the regs say that the creditor can take actions to encore and demand early payments on certain breaches it looks to me like they are aiding the earlier definition by adapting the definition still further

“On the other hand it confirmed that obtaining judgment
against the debtor was enforcement, as were the actions listed under
sections 76(1) and 87(1),26 notwithstanding that some of the actions
'less obviously' amounted to enforcement. These actions are demanding
earlier payment, recovering possession of goods or land, treating any
right conferred on the debtor by the agreement as terminated, restricted
or deferred, enforcing any security and terminating the agreement.
5.3 In drawing a distinction between actions which were and were not
enforcement, no definition of enforcement was given the court, but it
would appear that it was distinguishing between actions based on the
exercise of contractual rights (which would be enforcement) and other
actions intended to obtain payment which did not involve the exercise of
a contractual right“.

So it would seem to me that the OFT are trying to sew up a loophole in the definition by saying that the enforcement mentioned in 76and 87 may be called enforcement but it was not the kind of enforcement that the judge meant, no this was a different kind of enforcement ,this was enforcement under the agreement and not enforcement of a judgement.

So is this the same kind of enforcement meant in section 78 or is it the same as meant in the judges definition

Wearing a bit thin now don’t you think. Somebody must soon say there was only one definition intended in the CCA and hat means 76 and 87 are not allowed if the agreement is unenforceable. That is what the act meant and no amount of patching up and creating new divisions that don’t exist will make any difference.

Perhaps common sense will have its day after all and we may not have to live with the judges error. Perhaps the OFT have stretched this a bit to far.

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 31-01-2010, 12:17 PM
BOUDICCA BOUDICCA is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,144
BOUDICCA will become famous soon enoughBOUDICCA will become famous soon enough
Default

Agree Peter, it is wearing a bit thin!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-02-2010, 08:32 AM
TUTTSI's Avatar
TUTTSI TUTTSI is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North West London
Posts: 716
TUTTSI will become famous soon enough
Default

I just wanted to say that there has been a huge rise in CMC's taking upfront fees from folk on the premise' that they can claim their money back on unenforceable agreements based on the Rankines case. I have a Cento Client Review thread over on Legal Beagles which has had thousands of views and is now an extremely long thread. This is just one company and they have been cold selling this concept over the phone - yes cold selling and taking upfront fees. So far and to our knowledge not one person has seen a return for their money and many thousands have paid now huge upfront fees.

Another company Robertson Holbrook who dont take upfront fees have been claiming back credit card refunds - yes normal straight forward refunds from Capital One and have kept hold of the monies. Court claims are ensueing to recover the monies back as capital one have confirmed the amounts paid were indeed last August and Robertson Holbrooks just say the money is being sent today and it never happens.

There are others as well but these are my two main concerns at the moment and the fact the the government department that authorises them (MOJ) do absolutely nothing when complaints are made as they just sit on the fence and do nothing. It appears they take a percentage of their profits.... nice one.

Tuttsi
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-02-2010, 05:51 PM
Dragonlady's Avatar
Dragonlady Dragonlady is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Proud member of the CFC.
Posts: 10,998
Dragonlady has disabled reputation
Default

Anyone who uses these Claims Management Companies are either not confident to do the reclaim and then to find they are worse off than before must be a bitter disappointment for them. I must remain polite regarding what I think about these companies.

I have noticed that MoJ are withdrawing a few licenses.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-02-2010, 06:26 PM
TUTTSI's Avatar
TUTTSI TUTTSI is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North West London
Posts: 716
TUTTSI will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonlady View Post
Anyone who uses these Claims Management Companies are either not confident to do the reclaim and then to find they are worse off than before must be a bitter disappointment for them. I must remain polite regarding what I think about these companies.You and me both feel the same

I have noticed that MoJ are withdrawing a few licenses.
Unfortunately the MOJ are not withdrawing them fast enough and a hell of a lot of peeps will have paid them many hundreds of thousands of pounds and bet not many of them from what we can see will ever get a return.

Most of them are sold on the unenforceable agreements - like the Rankines case and they are painted a pretty picture that they will recover thousands, they are then duped into parting with lots of money one lady paid and extra 500 for a special fast track.

Cento Client Review - their licence is up for renewal at end of March and there is no guarantee that the MOJ will renew their licence. So then what happens to all these people who have paid all this money?

Tuttsi
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-02-2010, 09:06 AM
Dragonlady's Avatar
Dragonlady Dragonlady is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Proud member of the CFC.
Posts: 10,998
Dragonlady has disabled reputation
Default

I know Tuttsi. People have been caught by these CMC's and will lose out again. greed I think is the word. I know a certain Coronation Street actor in real life, has jumped on to this band wagon (well he did) haven't heard anything different. Funny thing the story line at the moment there is a money lender after another character, it's a wonder thw writers have neot been oput right about unlawful money lenders..I think it ironic. Still this will not help the people who have been caught by the naughty CMCs
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-02-2010, 05:14 PM
BOUDICCA BOUDICCA is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,144
BOUDICCA will become famous soon enoughBOUDICCA will become famous soon enough
Default

I believe that there are some reputable CMC's also some very good solicitors who will act on a CFA basis, trouble is;
how are people to sort out the chaff from the wheat?

About time that, the MOJ provide clear information for consumers!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-02-2010, 06:55 PM
TUTTSI's Avatar
TUTTSI TUTTSI is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North West London
Posts: 716
TUTTSI will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BOUDICCA View Post
I believe that there are some reputable CMC's also some very good solicitors who will act on a CFA basis, trouble is;
how are people to sort out the chaff from the wheat?

About time that, the MOJ provide clear information for consumers!
Thanks both DL and Boudicca, It is about time that the MOJ are made to be fully responsible for ensuring that the CMC's are regulated. Right now arround80% of them are running a mock and no one is able to do anything about it or have the mandate to do so and again the consumers are caught by their own greed and the greed of the CMC, but this does not make it correct.

The MOJ do have some guidelines, but they are broken everyday sadly. The CMC's are not allowed to cold call but they do and get away with it. The CMC's are not supposed to charge up front fees but they do and get away with it, despite complaints the MOJ do absolutely nothing.

Tuttsi x
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 14-02-2010, 12:27 PM
peterbard's Avatar
peterbard peterbard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 312
peterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TUTTSI View Post
Unfortunately the MOJ are not withdrawing them fast enough and a hell of a lot of peeps will have paid them many hundreds of thousands of pounds and bet not many of them from what we can see will ever get a return.

Most of them are sold on the unenforceable agreements - like the Rankines case and they are painted a pretty picture that they will recover thousands, they are then duped into parting with lots of money one lady paid and extra 500 for a special fast track.

Cento Client Review - their licence is up for renewal at end of March and there is no guarantee that the MOJ will renew their licence. So then what happens to all these people who have paid all this money?

Tuttsi
Hi

Yes i have had a lot of contact with people who have been effected by this.

Unfortunately it is not always easy to tell the wheat from the chaff, i have had some so called reputable solicitos brought to account for taking upfront fees on inflated claims of ridding people of their debtrs. sometimes these people are very insidious and make out like they are trying to help. When you are in trouble you are vulnerable and they take advantage.
Unfortunately it is not easy to get your money back, being solicitors they usually have everything tied up in the small print.Sometimes the thereat to report them to the Law society and the resultant posssible effect on their liscence will do the trick(details on their website).

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 14-02-2010, 12:58 PM
peterbard's Avatar
peterbard peterbard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 312
peterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to all
Default

Hi
A week last Wednesday I spent an afternoon arguing for a pro consumer response to the OFT guideline in a meeting with the local MP and various members of the third sector group in my area.
There where also various members of the business community present.
Our line was that the guidelines where altogether to lenient on creditors in general and specifically they re-enforced the current backlash to all the ill informed court action that has been so prevalent in the media.
That the Manchester Mercantile Case in indicating that a creditor did not have to keep record of an agreement in a “proof positive “ form defeated the very idea of the contract.
The counters argument was of course the Rankine fiasco etc. and the rise in Claims Companies who are making a business out of promising to get people out of paying there debts.
Seems to me that what we re suffering now is a backlash to what has happened in the last couple of years,. Initially when we first discovered that creditors could be held accountable for what they promised on an agreement and could flex the legal muscle to make sure they did , we were using the regulations as they where intended, for our protection.
Then as usual someone spotted a business opportunity.
This in my view was wrong and a misuse of the intent of the act.
What has happened now is that some banks and creditors have seized the opportunity to use the bad press created by the Rankines and the like, to push through guidelines and common law that two years ago would not have been entertained.
What has to be found now is the middle ground and get back to the position where the laws are used as they were intended.
Peter
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Consumer Credit Support