More bad news for consumers
Got this article today, and it's seems very pertinent, especially as Debt Management Claims firms are touting for business, and charging high fees, on exactly this point...
You may be interested to know that a recent ruling in the High Court has dealt another blow to consumers wanting to write off their debts.
Borrowers have been using the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act to request a copy of their credit agreement to see whether the document is unenforceable or not. If a lender is unable to provide a copy of the agreement, borrowers have been trying to obtain an order from the court to have the debt wiped out.
However, the ruling, made by Judge Waksman in the Manchester High Court, means that banks need only provide borrowers with a ’reconstituted’ version of their credit card agreement, which can be made from sources other than the signed document itself. The absence of an original signed agreement does not, therefore, mean that borrowers can simply walk away from their debt obligations. This means that financial institutions have the right to enforce debts even when a borrower’s original loan agreement has been lost or destroyed and a copy cannot be provided within 12 days, as required by the Consumer Credit Act.
This ruling acts as another reminder to brokers that there are no easy ’get out of jail free’ cards for clients with mounting debt problems. If lenders have treated borrowers fairly, then borrowers remain obliged to repay their debts, even if their lender no longer has a copy of their original loan documentation.
Judge Waksman has criticised some borrowers for trying to avoid repaying their debts by challenging lenders to produce a valid copy of their loan agreement, saying that "the absence of a copy of signed executed agreement is no evidence that such an agreement was not made."
Waksman also warned borrowers not to launch proceedings following non-disclosure of a copy of the original credit agreement might as this "may well be regarded as disproportionate and could adversely impact upon the borrower in costs".
Judge Waksman also confirmed that the absence of a loan agreement does not prove that a relationship between a lender and borrower is ‘unfair’ and it does not stop a lender from reporting non-payment to credit reference agencies or from sending letters demanding payments to customers.
Once again, it needs pointing out the dangers of raising peoples false hopes that claims management firms promising to get loan agreements struck-off. In reality, if a lending institution has treated a customer fairly and the credit agreement contains all the prescribed terms, there is every reason to believe that the courts will support the lender’s right to seek repayment of any outstanding debt. If people believe they have a valid claim, they should seek professional advice from a qualified lawyer.
You may be interested to know that a recent ruling in the High Court has dealt another blow to consumers wanting to write off their debts.
Borrowers have been using the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act to request a copy of their credit agreement to see whether the document is unenforceable or not. If a lender is unable to provide a copy of the agreement, borrowers have been trying to obtain an order from the court to have the debt wiped out.
However, the ruling, made by Judge Waksman in the Manchester High Court, means that banks need only provide borrowers with a ’reconstituted’ version of their credit card agreement, which can be made from sources other than the signed document itself. The absence of an original signed agreement does not, therefore, mean that borrowers can simply walk away from their debt obligations. This means that financial institutions have the right to enforce debts even when a borrower’s original loan agreement has been lost or destroyed and a copy cannot be provided within 12 days, as required by the Consumer Credit Act.
This ruling acts as another reminder to brokers that there are no easy ’get out of jail free’ cards for clients with mounting debt problems. If lenders have treated borrowers fairly, then borrowers remain obliged to repay their debts, even if their lender no longer has a copy of their original loan documentation.
Judge Waksman has criticised some borrowers for trying to avoid repaying their debts by challenging lenders to produce a valid copy of their loan agreement, saying that "the absence of a copy of signed executed agreement is no evidence that such an agreement was not made."
Waksman also warned borrowers not to launch proceedings following non-disclosure of a copy of the original credit agreement might as this "may well be regarded as disproportionate and could adversely impact upon the borrower in costs".
Judge Waksman also confirmed that the absence of a loan agreement does not prove that a relationship between a lender and borrower is ‘unfair’ and it does not stop a lender from reporting non-payment to credit reference agencies or from sending letters demanding payments to customers.
Once again, it needs pointing out the dangers of raising peoples false hopes that claims management firms promising to get loan agreements struck-off. In reality, if a lending institution has treated a customer fairly and the credit agreement contains all the prescribed terms, there is every reason to believe that the courts will support the lender’s right to seek repayment of any outstanding debt. If people believe they have a valid claim, they should seek professional advice from a qualified lawyer.
Labels: consumer credit, debt management, debt management companies
posted by Des Tourick 1st Call 4 Mortgages at
10:31
0 Comments
Links to this post
