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
  #21  
Old 14-02-2010, 12:57 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

Peter, I strongly believe we have spineless organsations such us the MOJ,FSA and the OFT who cannot properly ensure that when they authororise companies that they properly monitor them.

In the case of the MOJ, they take a percentage of their profits from CMC's + a joining fee. So it is not in their interest to cancel authorisations when they receive complaints. Had this been the case we would have seen many more CMC's biting the dust.

I am dealing with every day more peeps that have paid these massive upfront fees from a cold call getting themselves into further debt because they promise the earth and in realarity give them nothing and take their money from them.

One CMC has made a complaint against me because I am helping people to the admin on another forum and they do not like me offering advice. But I will continue to help folk who have been caught out by these shysters.

Tuttsi
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 14-02-2010, 10:53 PM
The Terminator's Avatar
The Terminator The Terminator is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Getting in a DCA's face
Posts: 1,940
The Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TUTTSI View Post
Peter, I strongly believe we have spineless organsations such us the MOJ,FSA and the OFT who cannot properly ensure that when they authororise companies that they properly monitor them.

In the case of the MOJ, they take a percentage of their profits from CMC's + a joining fee. So it is not in their interest to cancel authorisations when they receive complaints. Had this been the case we would have seen many more CMC's biting the dust.

I am dealing with every day more peeps that have paid these massive upfront fees from a cold call getting themselves into further debt because they promise the earth and in realarity give them nothing and take their money from them.

One CMC has made a complaint against me because I am helping people to the admin on another forum and they do not like me offering advice. But I will continue to help folk who have been caught out by these shysters.

Tuttsi
CMC'S: The result Banks 2 Consumers 0.Do I need to say much more

Term
__________________
The real evil is not the payment of money, but the secrecy attending it (Chitty L.J. in the case of Shipway v Broadwood [1899] 1 QB 369, 373). .

The courts shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner

Moneylending transactions as a class give rise to significant social problems.

Astalavista baby and I'll be back
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14-02-2010, 10:59 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

Yes Tutsi we have had ssevverall cases comong into the CAB here.

I will PM you

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15-02-2010, 10:42 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
Amongst the newer ideas for rendering agreements unenforceable is the idea that if a creditor terminates an agreement prior to issuing the default termination then the seccond termination is not "legal".

This is being profferred as a means of avoiding enforcement on Credit Card Agreements.
The reason being put forward is that the Act does not say that a creditor can terminate an agreement so therfore he cannot.

This of course is total tosh.
Firstly the act does not work like that,no act works like that .The law doesnt work like that.
Legislation as we know is not a list of things you can do it is a list of things you cannot.
The truth is that creditors can terminate when they like without notice on a credit card account.
Section 98 of the act says that notice has to be given in certain curcumstances before termination this then means that it is possible to terminate in all other curcumstances.

If a law says you cannot walk your dog on a saturday it is sensible to say that you can walk it on all other days. If you see the analogy. This possition is supported by he OFT post contractural information and makes sence.
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 03:29 AM.


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