Default removed, but then...

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Yes you and me both.

The terms of the agreement state what is expected from both parties if they are to participate in the bargain.

It sets out the rights and duties under the contract. For instance it may say that the debtor must repay the debt by paying a certain amount for a certain time, they may detail the way the creditor must supply the credit etc, these are the T and Cs(terms).

When an agreement is terminated it means the terms no longer apply(term-inated).

It does not mean that any liabilities(sums) due under the agreement disappear of course, merely that the methods for discharging those debts itemized within the agreement no longer apply.

[Spent2much]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I love healthy discussion and varying viewpoints but saying to someone to pay 25p is nuts. As cardiac spotted, he could pay that for 50 years then at that point the OC could try and enforce. Technically interest will keep the debt increasing so your £5k debt will be £25k at retirement.

Best to draw their hand long before that. If they take action so be it. It happens and in some cases it's for the best as the OC can't make silly threats like they do prior to court.

Others blag out 6yrs and get SB.

In this case the OP doesn't have his back to the wall so UE is deffo the way to go!

thank God you said this niddy , i was getting really scared in case we had done the wrong thing UE, but now i have seen your view i am back on track

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Thanks GT...(and welcome back)..

So the T and C's of a contract basically cover all eventualities that may arise..which means the contract is always live until such time as it is 'satisfied' ?

..and when an OC 'terminates', he's not terminating the contract as such, but terminating one aspect of the agreement..and invoking another (recovery) ?

I think the terminology confuses me...and I'm easily confused..

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

if the agreement was terminated when sold, it was done on the back of a defective DN..so is it terminated or not ?

Forgot this bit.

Again my understanding is that the agreement cannot be terminated if the default notice(section 87) is defective, so it remains legally a live account.

(Added), More correctly the agreement cannot be terminated on the breach of the debtor without a compliant default notice issued under section 87 of the act.

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

firstly, thanks to Niddy for the e-mail, perhaps I was a little hasty.
For the record, I have no moral standpoint regarding debt, whatever works for the individual is absolutely fine by me.

Regarding the above enquiry, my understanding is.

An agreement is not enforceable in law and a contract is( basically an enforceable agreement)

There are common law requirements that must be met for an agreement to become a contract.

As far as consumer credit agreements are concerned the requirements are laid down within the statute.(CCA 1974)
It says that the agreement must be "reduced to writing"( not verbal)
Contain all the terms prescribed by the statute.
be signed .

An "account" is simply the identity of the transaction.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Well the first, and only time the OC mentioned buying back the whole account /agreement, and removing the CRA file entry was in the last letter they sent. The fees refund I had never agreed to being sent to the DCA, I'd insisted on a cheque to me, but they point blank refused.

Previously the OC had talked of a partial buy back.

if the agreement was terminated when sold, it was done on the back of a defective DN..so is it terminated or not ?

I get confused between an account..an .agreement and a contract..the agreement can be terminated but a contract still exists by which the debt remains to be paid..is that it ?

I'm not sure if I need to write to them and specifically reject any or all of these things...or just wait until they write to me..

I am assuming their removal of the DN and CRA entry doesn't extend the end date from the original default date...

[alangee]

Re: Default removed, but then...

ca

As I said in my previous post, I believe that if the agreement has been terminated, then, Sainsbury's in this case, cannot reinstate it without you or the courts permission. Once you are given a CCJ, the terms in that judgement become the new agreement, because the original was terminated.

It may be that an acceptance by you of their offer to repay the charges may be a tacit acceptance to reopen the agreement.

As I said in my previous post, we did not accept their offer of compensation, and as far as I am concerned, the account remains terminated on the back of a defective DN.

I must point out that this is only an opinion, not fact, which Paul will probably shoot me down on.


Alan

[mgfboy]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I can see both sides of this argument, I have used UE but I do sometimes feel guilty for doing it. But if they lenders had played fair when I had a financial hiccup I would have never used UE.

So I say do what you have to do to get by, but be aware their is no solution that is totally trouble free, we are lucky that most lenders and DCA don't really want to throw to much money at each case, but as I found out with HSBC the deepest pockets sometime will win and it doesn't matter if they are right or wrong.

Just as with anything , just get the facts and make your own mind up and remember most of us have allot of baggage in this area and some times don't have the most balanced of opinions

[ken100464]

Re: Default removed, but then...

The most valuable client any bank can have is one who is just about able to pay the monthly payments but not make inroads into the principle.

They need to push people there. Yep we dont have to take it, some wont some will. Free will and all that. But they are there tempting you all the way along.

For everybody they dont temp enough there will be someone who has taken on too much.

But even more there will be countless thousands paying interest month in month out. And its these people they want.

People like us just cause em grief. Once they identify the troublemakers they wont really be to relaxed about lending again.

CRA's are just a method of working out what sort of client you are. Stacking the odds even further against us.

But they wont in time be particularly bothered about the pay up on time brigade either. Not enough money in that.

Sub-serviant cash cows are what they are after.

[helmsman]

Re: Default removed, but then...

When I applied for my card..I gave all my details...salary, employer, outgoings etc etc..and got a £3000 credit limit. Over the next 3 years they bumped that limit up to £6,500 without so much as a question about my capacity to support it. Sure, you don't have to use it...but the more you pay off, the more they give you.

I quoted irresponsible lending too...but they said it was all in line with their lending policy at the time and I did have the option to refuse the increase...

We have all been there

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

When I applied for my card..I gave all my details...salary, employer, outgoings etc etc..and got a £3000 credit limit. Over the next 3 years they bumped that limit up to £6,500 without so much as a question about my capacity to support it. Sure, you don't have to use it...but the more you pay off, the more they give you.

I quoted irresponsible lending too...but they said it was all in line with their lending policy at the time and I did have the option to refuse the increase...

[ken100464]

Re: Default removed, but then...

?

Why would anyone feel any obligation to pay £6000 to someone who only paid £600 for the account ? If it was the OC, then yes, but not a DCA.

Am I morally bankrupt because of my views...

If the OC was held responsible for the mess it makes then perhaps some of us wouldnt have got the credit we did.

The one decent creditor we have was the last one we managed to get credit with.

But how can you get a credit card and be defaulted within 9 months if they did their checks right.

There was a debt spiral going on and not one of them show any sympathy at all. All they wanted was the charges and interest bumping the spiral further and further out of control.

I quoted irresponsible lending at the last lender. Guess what not a peep since. They aint decent they are downright embarrassed

You aint morally bankrupt mate. The system that allows everything you see on here however IS.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I was just going to say Ken, but you added it at the end...We don't make the rules, but the creditors and debtors have to work by them...if creditors break the rules, then they should suffer the consequences...just like a debtor does.

I hate the stigma attached to being in debt...and the judgemental attitude most people seem to have...it wasn't a choice.

I scrape by with a pension and benefits...and no assets..In 3 years I'll have my OAP to come..do I really want to hand all that over to a DCA who paid what, £600 for the debt account ? The DCA is not the injured party...so why would I act like they are ?

Why would anyone feel any obligation to pay £6000 to someone who only paid £600 for the account ? If it was the OC, then yes, but not a DCA.

Am I morally bankrupt because of my views...

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

So I will bid you A fond adieu

I've just emailed you - I do hope you don't take this very welcome constructive discussion the wrong way - we never learn if we don't discuss options so it's all good.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Generally they'll agree but on occasion we will have differing views, great! That's what makes us all unique. What may work for Peter may fail for Paul so varying opinions are welcomed here.

Please, don't take the above posts as any dig or command of power - I am a user, the same as you and 2000 others - I get things wrong, like you and 2000 others but the good thing about that is we'll learn from such posts, posters and associated help provided.

[ken100464]

Re: Default removed, but then...

My two pennyworth on this.

If Banks/DCA's were normal AND were reasonable then a forum like this wouldnt and couldnt exist.

People will say two wrongs dont make a right. But in this alternate universe banks push people to look for ways out not because they are debt evaders BUT because they cant pay.

I cant recall one poster who has come on here saying they can pay everything off if they wanted to but they choose UE because they want to evade the debt.

They have found a forum like this because they were looking for a way out of grinding debt.

A bank/DCA pushed them into researching debt. However once people have knowledge then things can snowball and perhaps debts that werent a problem before then get the same treatment.

Each poster is responsible for their own story. The elephant in the room thread nicely put that across.

But must admit you either do UE or you dont. Understand the view that a judge wont like but your trying not to be infront of a judge in the first place.

But for me my OH was on severe hardship and £1pcm. That didnt stop them taking her to court and neither would 25p. And the debt was alot less than the OP's.

Her mistake if she made one wasnt to kick, scream and make a fuss all the way to the courtroom. She didnt have knowledge to challenge them and make it difficult.

My gut feeling is that if you want to be paying token amounts you really only want to be for short term with a view to increase asap. If that is not an option then why prolong what is coming. Go UE fully and if they gonna take you they will. But you never know they may well have cocked up their paperwork.

And with guides such as these here at least you have a chance.

We didnt make the rules. The establishment did. Just they didnt think for one minute people could use them against them.