View Single Post
Old 27-04-2008, 08:20 PM
Seahorse's Avatar
Seahorse Seahorse is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 187
Seahorse will become famous soon enough

For agreements made before 6 April 2007, the new rules will apply from 6 April 2008, unless the relevant agreement has been completed before then.
This is the bit that shouldn't be overlooked, even if it is just a tiny part of the whole. Why? Simply because this means that the unfair terms and relationships section is THE ONLY part of the CCA 2006 that is RETROSPECTIVE.

I don't know if the industry has really cottoned on to the implications of this. But it SHOULD have them think twice about taking someone to court if there is even the slightest doubt that an agreement is, for example, wholly enforcable.

It will be up to the individual judge on the day of cours, but with the prospect of having a court decide that the terms of a contract should be amended in favour of the debtor, or that an agreememnt is unenforcable, or even that a creditor (BEWARE DEBT BUYERS!!!!) should refund money already paid, I rather feel there will be less enthusiasm for vexatious litigation. After all, previously, they just stood to lose costs. Now, they might end up having to pay back substantially more.

This bit really tickles me...

• the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of its rights under the agreement or any related agreement. This could include heavy-handed debt collection practices;
And this last part makes me laugh out loud. I'm actually amazed it's in there at all...

(9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary
Now, the reason I am in such a jovial mood about all this is twofold.

Firstly, imagine the scenario: a lender has a mass mailing campaign where they send out a shed load of PRE-APPROVED credit card application forms, without bothering to check out the creditworthiness of the recipients. IMVHO, this might consitute irresponsible lending, and so the relationship between lender and debtor could be construed as unfair. Further, the lender doesn't bother to ensure the application form conforms to the concept of a properly executed agreement, and then when all goes t!ts up, imposes an interest rate that bears no similarity to any possible rate that MIGHT have been agreed had the application form been properly executed. They then dump the account on....

Our mates, Cabot Financial. Who, since they should never have been sold the account in the first place, have now entered into an unfair relationship with the debtor.

So, would anyone like to pick holes in my argument? Before I make a total eejit of myself in court testing my theories?
The above is my own personal opinion and is not representative of the views of the site owners, nor should it be construed as such.
Reply With Quote