Devils advocate time - Using a CCA Request to "Get out of paying a debt"

[djdave]

I'm using CCAs to dispute three debts.

 

Debt One is a three-figure sum to a car insurance company I've not been with for several years, and as far as I was aware I'd paid them in full on a card and never had a finance agreement with them. So I'm trying to get them to prove a debt, and I'll have absolutely no moral quarms not paying if they can't prove anything.

 

Debt two is a result of a credit card I was paying off regularly until medical circumstances put me out of work. The card company was no help and added all manner of charges before turfing me to a DCA. They in turn were less than useless so, probably stupidly, I stopped paying them. They left me alone for almost a year before turfing me to another DCA who have now defaulted on a CCA. I've no problem paying them a token sum, but as they're not playing ball I'm just using their own tactics against them.

 

Debt three I have been paying a token amount for a year, but they want me to increase this to an unrealistic amount. Again I'm not trying to get out of the debt, but if they're going to p*** me around then I'll lose no sleep doing the same to them.

 

I've found DCAs to be bullying and underhand, and until I found this site I was actually scared of them.

 

All I'm doing is requiring them to prove I owe them anything - in court if necessary. If they can, then I'll pay them what I can afford.

 

If not, well it's their own fault for not keeping their paperwork in order.

[gemspan]

HI there

 

I just wanted to add to this too!!!!

 

I firmly believe that if you borrow money you should pay it back. However, I think that most, if not all, of the debts I have, have been paid back - and some more. The reason I think this is because of the charges placed on my accounts when I was ill. They then add compound interest to those charges. I used to pay lump sums when I had the money. I often went without food to pay my bills!!!! And then I get a figure through that is more than I took out in the first place. Where does it all end?

 

I am happy to pay back what I borrowed, but I am not happy about paying back what I borrowed, late charges etc., AND compound interest on those charges. When you speak to the people concerned in those organisations it is all or nothing. That means that you have to take the steps open to you as a consumer and make the decision either to pay the debt that they are asking or make it very difficult for the company involved. I think most people are going for the latter because they have had such shoddy treatment.

 

Just my thoughts of course!!!! I would never advise somebody not to pay a debt if it is owing. I think that is kind of stooping to the same level as some of the DCAs and credit companies.

 

Kind regards

Annie

[ecobabe]

i work in one of the most heavily regulated industries in the uk and it takes a lot of manpower to ensure that our systems and paperwork comply with regulations and the law. there are extra layers of admin and managers to do this. if we breach this we are sued and can lose our contracts, no excuses accepted, no one else to blame. perhaps if the dca's and banks had ensured that they were operating lawfully to start with this would not be happening now. it would have cost them money to cross their t's and dot their i's, but they would have everything necessary to collect these debt's. instead they saved themselves money and assumed that we, the consumer were ignorant and should be treated as such. well apparently not! very few of us, it seems to me, feel comfortable with dodging debt( me included) but the creditors are responsible for ensuring that the agreements comply with legislation and they bear the responsibility for the outcome, not us. they happliy collected unlawful charges, and bought debt cheaply to make huge profits so they should have made sure that they were actually lawful.

[djdave]

Aye, there's the rub, ecobabe. If your company messes up, I assume they don't go around threatening their clients and hoping that their ignorance will keep them loyal.

 

Debt collectors do.

[tiglet]

My point exactly - if DCA's played fair and obeyed the law, there would be no way anyone could avoid their debt this way.

[humbleman]

For the moral ones- you go to a travel agent book a holiday costing £5000, you pay by credit card-when you get your CC statement they only charged you £5, what would you do.

[sequenci]

For the moral ones- you go to a travel agent book a holiday costing £5000, you pay by credit card-when you get your CC statement they only charged you £5, what would you do.

 

personally i think that question is Irrelevant

[SteveH2508]

The main reason that a lot of people get into difficulties is down to the high rates of compounded interest and the high (and now seemingly unlawful) default charges which get levied on their accounts. When a charge is being compounded at interest rates of 30% or so and other charges are being applied as well the whole situation snowballs out of control.

 

The creditors who are seeming to ignore the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 have only themselves to blame. The Act has been in force for almost 30 years - they have legal departments who specialise in just this sort of thing. If they choose to sail close to the wind then they cannot complain if the wind changes and they capsize!

 

I shall admit to a biased viewpoint here. One particular company are becoming a right PITA. They ignore requests to stop phoning etc. (we all know who I'm talking about don't we!). The only way I could see to grab their attention was to issue a s78 request. When it hits them that they cannot enforce the 'agreement' because they saved a few quid on storage costs a few years back, they might start to take notice. I also have no moral problem with me using the law to spoil their day as they seem to have all the 'rights to do this, that and the other' on their side. I did not originally contract with said company - they jacked up the interest rates unmercifully - they changed payment dates of their own accord - etc. etc.. If I can hit back and regain some control I shall use all the weapons at my disposal.

 

It is noticeable that the most intransigent companies seem to be the ones who go around buying up loan/credit card portfolios and then jacking up the interest rates sky high. I started with BoS and Peoples Bank - I ended up with MBNA and Citicard respectively!

[caledfwlch]

I would say, the only moral obligation you hold towards a debt purchaser is the price they paid for the debt, and a little bit on top for their admin.

 

If they or the original creditor has not adhered to the law and their duties in their operation of your account then its tough on them, were you personally to evade your legal duties etc in the operation of the account they would soon throw you to the dogs.

 

I just cannot come up with any moral or otherwise reason for why a Debt purchaser can buy your debt for 10% or whatever and then demand the entire original owed amount of you, especially since the original creditor is happy having written it off their tax AND made a bit extra.

 

Look how we have to be very careful when issuing CCA requests and SAR'S and so on, having to ensure that the prescribed legal formats and time periods are kept to exactly, and ensuring we have provable records of postage, the company receiving it, taking a payment thats trackable through a postal order or cheque, if we cock that up then its tough on us, the same for the creditors, if they mess up on their paperwork then thats tough on them.

[therafalution]

In our situation we owe 43K and my wife is the only one working at the moment, my jsa stops in a couple of months and i will not be able to claim income based jsa. As soon as we knew we were in bother we approached our creditors , explained the situation and found the majority to be very understanding and reasonable....except one.

Next just didn't want to know and were quite aggressive over it. I spoke to my wife we sent a cca they said they didn't have an agreement. In normal circumstances we would pay them, but they should know the rules if they can't be bothered to comply then why shouldn't we take advantage.

so many firms use dodgy tactics to take our money, so in my opinion alls fair in love and war and we are trying to tread water so will use any pice of legislation we can.

[SteveH2508]

Some of these companies show no mercy when you say you have no money to pay them at present - well if they have no paperwork to show that you 'owe' them I shall show no mercy either. What goes round comes round...

[tiglet]

I see a lot of poeple agree with me on when it's appropriate to use the CCA with DCA's.

 

"What goes around, comes around" - yes, i think the karmic philosophy pretty much sums it up.

[gavv8]

For myself i can only say that i have used the cca request to find out exactly who owns the debt i owe to make certain that the money i pay goes towards paying the debt and therefore improving my credit record.

The problem is that sooner or later someone will realise what is happening and attempt to close the loophole so to speak and the people who may be able to use the cca to gain some respite from the dca's and give them time to get proper help and or formulate a solution will have no weapons available to them.

However as many people have pointed out it is hard to try and play by the rules when the people you are playing against are making them up as they go along.

Let your consience drive you.

[Seahorse]

There IS no loophole. The CCA is there to PROTECT the consumer. The "loophole" is the fact that some of the financial institutions out there take shortcuts with their legal decisions, and it's coming back to hurt them. Badly.

 

If all this consumer activity does is make them adhere to the Act, then the "loophole" will be closed. Simple as.

[gavv8]

There IS no loophole. The CCA is there to PROTECT the consumer. The "loophole" is the fact that some of the financial institutions out there take shortcuts with their legal decisions, and it's coming back to hurt them. Badly.

 

If all this consumer activity does is make them adhere to the Act, then the "loophole" will be closed. Simple as.

I think you understand what i'm trying to say even if the terminology isn't

100% accurate.

[Mike220359]

From a personal point of view, if you have a debt then you should honour it. However, if the MIB have applied interest & charges unlawfully because they haven't conformed with the law as it stands then that is tough on them. Thats the money that I am going after nothing more, I'm just asking them to be law abiding citizens.

 

I may be professional in my outlook upon debt its a shame it isnt reciprocated, I've got a letter in front of me from customer realtions at Monument it states in answer to a letter that I sent last Saturday,

 

"It is Monument's policy to contact customers in the event that a payment has not been made to the account. As this is an opportunity for the customer to discuss any financial difficulties that they may be experiencing, it does not constitute harassment. However, I will have your telephone numbers removed from our records and therefore we will contact you by letter in the event that a payment is not made to your account".

 

And this is an account that was founded upon and 'agreement' that does not in any way conform to the CCA 1974. In addition, how would my circumstances alter between 10am and 6pm on the same day when all they are doing is contacting me to "discuss any finacial difficulties".

 

No I'm sorry some of the MIB ride roughshod over the individual using intimidation and threats when they have no right to do so. They ignore Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading and the Law just to make sure that Mrs Smith pays off that £25 she has outstanding with Tittlewoods.

 

No sir, perhaps if the MIB behaved professionally and treated everyone with respect then I could offer some assemblance of respect for them. However, because they have treated me so badly, and in every single case it's because they themselves have not complied with what is required, I have no compunction in treating them as badly as they have treated me.

 

Mike

[diskmandave]

There IS no loophole. The CCA is there to PROTECT the consumer. The "loophole" is the fact that some of the financial institutions out there take shortcuts with their legal decisions, and it's coming back to hurt them. Badly.

 

If all this consumer activity does is make them adhere to the Act, then the "loophole" will be closed. Simple as.

 

I'm absolutely with Seahorse on that. All of my creditors treated me disgracefully even though I told them straight off what happened. Now that i've found this site, i'm using the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and nothing else, no bullyboy tactics, no tricks, no harassment campaigns.............

 

I've absolutely no qualms about not paying 'the man' when he's got no legal entitlement to collect. Before finding this site 4 months ago I would've given a different answer though. Funnily enough too, it's been about 4 months that I started getting a proper nights sleep for the first time in many years.

 

That's my 2p worth...

 

Regards all, Dave.

[simonjohn]

Their appears to be a lot of talk about what is morally right, However my opinion is when the financial institution start behaving morally towards their customers with regards to bank charges et al.

 

Morality is a two way street, You can't have a sittuation where the banks are charging their customer unlawfull and immoral penalty charges, then cry foul when these very customers request their agreements under the c.c.a, after all, this is why the consumer action group started out.

 

You may indeed have an obligation to fulfill your credit agreements, however I wouldn't go so far as to say morally so.

 

With morality comes responsibility, the banks and financial institutes claim to be responsible lenders but at the first signs of trouble they will drop you like a stone when you most need their help.

 

90% of people who end up in financial difficulty, do so due to a life changing event I.e divorce, redundancy etc however these same institutes treat you like a financial lepper, imposing charges, and defaults without offering any real help to the situation.

 

I ak where are their morals then ?

[Glenn UK]

morality is a good concept but only as long as people try to maintain their moral postion in the face of adversity.

 

I am not certain i can find a modern parallel in history to the the DCAs and banks but it seems to me that if one wants to claim the moral highground then there is only one way to behave and that is honourably no matter what the other side does.

 

Personally i wouldnt want to stoop to the levels the DCA/bank does, this would reflect on me more than on them.

 

I dont believe there is really a moral component to the debts we owe to banks, the law says they shold do something when they make agreements and they dont.

 

They therefore suffer and its the borrower who gains from their unlawful acts.

 

However, imho this has nothing to do with how they behave, they deserve this because they havent conducted themselves lawfully (in making the contracts).

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[Seahorse]

OK, for anyone who might feel morally obligated to pay up even if any agreement they signed is, by a technical knockout, unenforceable...

 

If you were being chased for a debt that was statute barred, would you still feel an overwhelming desire to put your hands up and say, it's a fair cop; here's your cash?

[Seahorse]

Server hiccups cured.

[seabro]

I do not feel obliged to money lending institutions.

 

If I borrowed money from my mum, or a freind it would be a different story.

 

It is entirely possible, they have received all you borrowed plus a profit but they don't 'let you off'. Because it is strictly business.

[pmhcfc]

I do not feel obliged to money lending institutions.

 

If I borrowed money from my mum, or a freind it would be a different story.

 

It is entirely possible, they have received all you borrowed plus a profit but they don't 'let you off'. Because it is strictly business.

 

With you Seahorse (and others)..The question remains: If you owed Barclays £5000 and they sold the debt for £400, why couldn't have Barclay's offered you that same deal?? Why sell it to a DCA for that amount and not you? Where's the moral's in that deal (Barclays to DCA) ?

[ODC]

I'm absolutely with Seahorse on that. All of my creditors treated me disgracefully even though I told them straight off what happened. Now that i've found this site, i'm using the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and nothing else, no bullyboy tactics, no tricks, no harassment campaigns.............

 

I've absolutely no qualms about not paying 'the man' when he's got no legal entitlement to collect. Before finding this site 4 months ago I would've given a different answer though. Funnily enough too, it's been about 4 months that I started getting a proper nights sleep for the first time in many years.

 

That's my 2p worth...

 

Regards all, Dave.

Yes this site has been a godsend to me. I realoise Im not alone.I thought I was the only one being hassled, threatened and bullied. I thought I was the only one being given these special 60% reductions by the DCAs. Now I realise how many fishermen there are in the DCA industry. Fortunately most of mine are reaching the statute barred time and then I will be relaxed and take them on.

 

As most people on this thread have said none of us set out to get into debt but due to personal changes Divorce and Unemployment then we should expect a liitle bit of common sense and decency from these people. Until they give me respect then they certainly can expect NONE from me. I will use the law to suit me just as they appparently abuse it to suit themselves.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

I’m asking this as we’ve been discussing it at work and I think it’s a relevant question to ask, as some of you know I work within this field and we're always keeping an eye on this forum as it helps us gauge what is happening in the real world!

 

We’re all fully aware that many creditors and dcas are pretty slack when it comes to keeping hold of paperwork, due to their incompetence would it be fair for a debtor to use a cca request to try and get out of paying a debt they know they owe?

 

 

I can fully appreciate people who are disputing their liability for a debt if they are being chased for a debt they know nothing of, but what about people who try to get out of agreements they know they took out and agreed to? Is it the creditor's fault for being slack? What do you think the future holds?

 

Any help with this would be gratefully appreciated!

 

Thanks

 

 

we know what the future holds that white paper has it all

 

a loophole is a loophole (see p53 mail on sunday bridge firms 30 million loophole -british taxpayers will foot a 30 million bill to repair the severn bridge)

 

what i call a bad loser

 

what is inflation 2 to 3 percent and borrowing at say 25 percent the risk is built into the interest rate

 

unlucky ... if you live by the sword you die by it

 

hsbc are paying the price of greed over their sub-prime (people with bad credit ratings ) lending in the usa what is it 8.5 billion $ write off and more to come when some of the lenders (new century) and a particular hedge fund goes bankrupt.

 

they have after all "educated the people to want"

 

what are your view on this case study ?

 

Case Study

In summer 2000, Mr and Mrs Z applied to a major finance house for an unsecured loan of £1,000 to carry out improvements to their property. A further £550,relating to PPI and arrangement fees, was added to the loan. The APR on the loan was 48.1%.

 

 

Both Mr and Mrs Z suffered from mental illness. Their combined weekly income was approximately £400.

 

 

Almost immediately, Mr and Mrs Z were contacted by the lender offering them a further loan of £6,900. This was agreed a week after their first loan application, and redeemed the earlier loan. It also included PPI at £2,057.50.

 

 

Three weeks later, the lender again approached Mr and Mrs Z and offered a loan of £16,464. This time, it was secured over their home and the advance was again applied to pay off the previous loan. This time the PPI cost £4,206.

 

 

Four further loans were completed between September 2000 and June 2001 – each loan replacing the previous one, and each including PPI. The final loan was for £74,162. And so, in the course of 12 months, the borrowers had received

 

 

seven loans from the lender, each including PPI. The total of the PPI for all of the loans was £44,267. The borrowers’ state of health was such that they were excluded from PPI cover in any event.

 

 

Despite representations from the CAB that the lender’s conduct had not complied with its trade association’s code of practice, the lender was only prepared to make only very limited concessions.

Source: Citizen’s Advice

 

 

this is similar to the crap1 technique