Tweet
Hi,
Just a quick reminder that all templates have now been updated to reflect the recent OFT guidance, that does not affect the consumer one iota! For full details, and to see the discussion thread, please click this link: ---> Is this the End?
All updated Templates can be found here: ---> Unenforceability Templates
With a couple of additions added here:
The official OFT Guidance can be found here: ---> OFT Guidance on UE - October 2010
Just a quick reminder that all templates have now been updated to reflect the recent OFT guidance, that does not affect the consumer one iota! For full details, and to see the discussion thread, please click this link: ---> Is this the End?
My comments, copied from Moderator cPanel - dated Tues Oct 12th
I think, having read it that it does set clear guidelines HOWEVER what is interesting is that yet again it is geared to helping lenders avoid their responsibilities..... that said, it does clearly say that the recon must contain all elements of the original document so I guess they would have to prove that all the terms were on one side (the four corners) and signed by both the debtor and creditor with both sets of addresses on - now, we all know an application form fails this as there are no prescribed terms so basically when lenders send an application form this will always remain unenforceable as that does not constitute an agreement.
Similarly, it appears they can "make a statement advising they always done XYZ prior to acceptance" - but such statement, if taken to court, would require proof that the debtor did indeed agree to the original terms and sign the agreement thus executing it - so in layman, all recon's can be argued on individual merit.
The logical thing to do would be to start a database of agreements for month and year, so we can see for ourselves exactly what forms were issued by each lender, for instance we know that when virgin launched they used a quick application form with very little info requested, so these would always be unenforceable but as the terms were on the reverse in tiny font, the debtor could argue that they were never shown the terms (cos they signed the application at the front, not the back). So in this case, if MBNA now issued a lawful "RECONSTITUTED" agreement for the same type of product (and relied on it at court) our database would prove that they also issued THIS type of agreement so how can their statement to the court be 100% accurate..
So, my next move will be to post on legal beagles, cag and mse and try and create a database of agreements that would have been issued and file them online publicly for all to see, in month/year order.
I am not too concerned at the guidance at this stage..... but that may change! lol
I think, having read it that it does set clear guidelines HOWEVER what is interesting is that yet again it is geared to helping lenders avoid their responsibilities..... that said, it does clearly say that the recon must contain all elements of the original document so I guess they would have to prove that all the terms were on one side (the four corners) and signed by both the debtor and creditor with both sets of addresses on - now, we all know an application form fails this as there are no prescribed terms so basically when lenders send an application form this will always remain unenforceable as that does not constitute an agreement.
Similarly, it appears they can "make a statement advising they always done XYZ prior to acceptance" - but such statement, if taken to court, would require proof that the debtor did indeed agree to the original terms and sign the agreement thus executing it - so in layman, all recon's can be argued on individual merit.
The logical thing to do would be to start a database of agreements for month and year, so we can see for ourselves exactly what forms were issued by each lender, for instance we know that when virgin launched they used a quick application form with very little info requested, so these would always be unenforceable but as the terms were on the reverse in tiny font, the debtor could argue that they were never shown the terms (cos they signed the application at the front, not the back). So in this case, if MBNA now issued a lawful "RECONSTITUTED" agreement for the same type of product (and relied on it at court) our database would prove that they also issued THIS type of agreement so how can their statement to the court be 100% accurate..
So, my next move will be to post on legal beagles, cag and mse and try and create a database of agreements that would have been issued and file them online publicly for all to see, in month/year order.
I am not too concerned at the guidance at this stage..... but that may change! lol
With a couple of additions added here:
- 1) ---> NEW - Account sold - whilst in Default of CCA Request
2) ---> NEW - CCA Query - Letter Previously Confirming No CCA
The official OFT Guidance can be found here: ---> OFT Guidance on UE - October 2010
Comment