C.O.'s Being Issued On Unsecured Debt.

[FunkyFox]

But if you have entered into a contract for an unsecured loan that contract implies that they will not take such action. To do so is clearly breach of contract and I for one would be suing them for the full amount of the C.O.

 

Seriously, I have attempted to explain that point many many times in this thread. Don't confuse what you would like to be fact or what your morally belive should be fact with what is fact.

 

Think of it this way, you use your credit card, you default, judgment is obtained, terms of CCJ not kept to, enforcement action is taken, they come into your house and take your shiny new plasma screen tv, your Wii, surround sound system and PS3 to recover the debt. The debt was not secured on those items but I don't hear anyone complaining about that. A charging order is just another form of enforcement, the credit was never ever secured.

[renegotiation]

I am a member of the consumer asscoiation Which? and today approached them with this issue. I really hope they take it seriously. If they take it seriously they will probably get their teeth stuck in. Also, I rang the ASA and queried their verdict on the issue. I told them Fox had posted his compaint and their verdict on a consumer website and people weren't happy with it. I was told I could take it further with them, but would have to make my own complaint. I was told it would be helpful to make reference to Fox's case and what I disagreed with. I will do so this weekend. Some sort of start has to be made on this issue. At the end of the day it is our duty, AT THE VERY LEAST, to stop this erroneous advertising.

 

As it seems to have been an informal verdict, not a formal adjudication, I couldn't see in depth details of your case on the website Fox. Can you confirm your case was the one they answered on 15th October? Best be sure I got the right one! Thanks.

[underdog13]

Good for you Renegotiation! Which are a brilliant organisation and at the very least if they take it up it will make others aware of what's going on.

 

It will be interesting to see what ASA make of a second complaint, too.

[FunkyFox]

I actually consider it quite poor manners to go ringing up the ASA quoting my case and that stating I have posted it on here, least of all to say the 'people are not happy with it'. The ASA were actually very helpful when I rung and I have no complaint with them directly. I would have been grateful if you would have checked with me first out of courtesy. I posted it up for your benefit for reading in relation to whatever action you might like to take, not to start quoting it at the ASA.

 

I appreciate not everyone will see it like this, but this is my opinion on this and I wanted to make sure we are clear and I ask that you respect that.

 

As for which case it was, it was not the 15th October, indeed I can find no mention of it on there at all. It was back in May 2008 that I complained and the 10th June that they wrote to me. At the time I had neither the time or the energy to follow it through. As it looks like I was fobbed off maybe I should have done.

 

In light of the above I will be speaking to the ASA on Monday and seeing whats what, so thanks for relighting my interest in this.

 

Good luck with your own compliant and your court case if you decide to go ahead, I will be watching with interest.

[renegotiation]

I actually consider it quite poor manners to go ringing up the ASA quoting my case and that stating I have posted it on here, least of all to say the 'people are not happy with it'. The ASA were actually very helpful when I rung and I have no complaint with them directly. I would have been grateful if you would have checked with me first out of courtesy. I posted it up for your benefit for reading in relation to whatever action you might like to take, not to start quoting it at the ASA.

 

I appreciate not everyone will see it like this, but this is my opinion on this and I wanted to make sure we are clear and I ask that you respect that.

 

As for which case it was, it was not the 15th October, indeed I can find no mention of it on there at all. It was back in May 2008 that I complained and the 10th June that they wrote to me. At the time I had neither the time or the energy to follow it through. As it looks like I was fobbed off maybe I should have done.

 

In light of the above I will be speaking to the ASA on Monday and seeing whats what, so thanks for relighting my interest in this.

 

Good luck with your own compliant and your court case if you decide to go ahead, I will be watching with interest.

 

I just spoke the truth Fox. I am glad your interest has been rekindled. I think you were fobbed off, but as you said you didn't have the energy to follow it through. I was off this forum for several months with ill health and wouldn't have had the energy to follow anything through. I certainly don't disrespect you and I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. I am sorry if you feel offended. We are on the same team. Let's go at this with all guns blazing.

 

Just for the record, check out post 1198 on the this page. I have posted personal correspondence on that thread and was leading the issue on C.R.A. archiving. As I had been inactive for a while I checked to see if anyone else had progressed with it in my absence. They could have used any of my material. I didn't treat you in any way that I would have taken offense if the same had been done to me. People will look at things differently, but please understand that from my perspective it was ok to run with it.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/credit-reference-agencies/112671-cag-cra-r-club-60.html

Edited November 21, 2008 by renegotiation
Added link.

[renegotiation]

Just for the record, everything said on the phone to the ASA today was just said 'in general' and 'hypothetically' to the first chap that ansered the phone. I didn't mention the name of any forum and the chap can't have known what case I was referring to. I got 15th October using the search facility on their website. Type in RBOS or Royal Bank Of Scotland (can't remember what I typed) and check for yourself. If you don't wish me to refer to your case in writing I will not do so. Please post back with your preference.

[renegotiation]

Just to confirm that I did submit my own complaint to the A.S.A.. It probably came across as a bit strong, but I really couldn't help myself. I don't think it detracted from the clarity of my complaint. If you're reading this Fox I did refer to your previous complaint. You didn't tell me not to after I asked and I saw no sense in wasting time. I pointed out all the obvious flaws in their response and told them to get their act together. I asserted that all future ads for credit should EXPLICITLY state that the credit was ultimately 'secured' on homes and nothing less. I wish I had gone further now. I think ads for credit should actually come with a health warning as well. Like with cigarettes, every ad should state that debt can seriously damage your health. I will include that point in my next correspondence with them. I will post up their response when I get it. We shall see... :evil:

 

I would encourage anyone else who feels strongly about this to complain as well. It is very easy to submit an online complaint on the A.S.A. website. Here is the link:

 

How To Complain

 

An ad to refer to was shown on 2.46 p.m. Tuesday 25th November on the Bravo channel. It was by Lombard Direct (Royal Bank Of Scotland) for an 'unsecured' personal loan.

Edited December 14, 2008 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

Got the first reply which stated that the ad didn't break the A.S.A. code. I was expecting that initial response to be honest. I made a subsequent telephone call to the person responsible for the complaint and had a lengthy conversation on the issues involved. I asserted that I was going to use their appeals process and am optimistic that this complaint can still be ultimately upheld. I am currently composing a thorough and well thought case to present as my appeal.

[underdog13]

Good for you, Renegotiation - always worth a try.

[renegotiation]

Just looking through some old threads. The ASA never 'officially' found in my favour, too damaging to the system probably, but I think that this issue was discussed at a reasonably high level and some sort of feedback was filtered through to the industry. After I made my ASA complaint such ads seemed to decline in number and then completely disappear. It was hardly rocket science that trumpeting (literally what they did) the word 'unsecured' as an explicit, major part of the up front sell would encourage more careless borrowing. In fact, even the ceasing of such ads wasn't good enough. It should have been made compulsory to explicitly trumpet, on all lending ads, that your home was ultimately at risk if the money wasn't repaid. Something along the lines of cigarette health warnings would have done the job.

[underdog13]

Couldn't agree more - it should be clearly stated that there is no such thing as 'unsecured' if you own property. You pay a higher interest rate for not securing the loan against your property, then if anything goes wrong, they come after your home anyway.

[renegotiation]

I received a credit card application form in the post recently from Vanquis. They told me I had been 'pre-approved' to get some credit from them at 40% APR. I have learned my lesson and just gave a wry smile before binning it. Before I binned it I just had a quick scan of the terms and conditions, no idea why, and noticed the following entry at the end of section 8:

 

'MISSING PAYMENTS

Missing payments could have severe consequences and make obtaining credit more difficult and we may take legal proceedings against you. If we do take legal proceedings against you, we may apply for a bankruptcy order against you or a charging order against your home. This could lead to your home being repossessed and sold.'

 

This explicitness on the T. and C.'s attached to a credit card application form was good to see, not the idea of it actually happening of course, and I wonder if it might be best for the FCA to compel all creditors to make this kind of text very prominent at the top of all credit agreements/T. and C.'s.

[underdog13]

I agree, they should all be compelled to state this prominently: The fact that this disclaimer was not on previous T&Cs makes me question their validity.

[renegotiation]

I agree, they should all be compelled to state this prominently: The fact that this disclaimer was not on previous T&Cs makes me question their validity.

 

Can anyone confirm if any current credit card T. and C.'s , or T. and C.'s for alternative types of credit, also currently show similar text? Can anyone confirm when they first saw such text appear in T. and C.'s for any type of credit? Much appreciated if anyone has any relevant information to hand.

[Andyorch]

Makes no odds really renegotiation ...as the agreement /T&Cs are replaced by the judgment...and execution is connected to the judgment not the agreement...so not sure where you are going with this?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[renegotiation]

Makes no odds really renegotiation ...as the agreement /T&Cs are replaced by the judgment...and execution is connected to the judgment not the agreement...so not sure where you are going with this?

 

First and foremost, this is an old thread just in case you hadn't noticed and no patronising intended. I only recently updated it after being off the site for a long while. The process of a CCJ replacing credit T. and C.'s has been well discussed and I understand it. I have never been against CCJ's being issued against unsecured debts or even for Charging Orders to be issued against unsecured debts. My argument was that this shouldn't be allowed to happen where the term 'unsecured' has been utilised as a major part of the product advertising process. A creditor shouldn't simply be allowed to defer to contradictory T. and C.'s when in court, if evidence of such advertising is available. I argued that if someone had nothing to lose, then they should offer this argument to a judge when challenging an attempted Charging Order being placed on their property.

 

As mentioned, I complained to the ASA and I think it did do some good. Soon after, I no longer saw 'unsecured' being touted by creditors looking for business. I think these things do have a way of filtering through the industry and I don't think that we will see this practice reoccur in the future either. Furthermore, as mentioned, I even recently saw Charging Orders/Repossessions etc. being explicitly referred to in up to date credit card T. and C.'s. I know that they would have at least used vaguer warnings in the past, but I don't think they used to do that. Maybe someone can illustrate otherwise, but if I am right I am sure it's more a case of them looking to cover their asses; rather than a noble act. It was all totally bonkers, but so was the whole epidemic of credit madness that swept the country in the 90's and 00's.

 

As for where I am going with this now, already mentioned, I am looking to approach the FCA about the possibility of getting such cautionary text prominently highlighted at the top of all 'unsecured' credit agreements/T. and C.'s. I would also like to see cigarette style warnings about the dangers of careless credit prominently highlighted at the top of all credit agreements/T. and C.'s as well. I saw just the other day that there is a renewed push for this to happen with alcohol, so why not debt? Given all the latest statistics about families with problem debt (apparently 1 in 3 households in my area!), and all the associated stress/misery, I think it is definitely something that need to be considered. Some folks probably did use credit to survive, but i'll warrant an awful lot of people wasted it on unnecessary purchases.