Elephant in the room

[still looking]

Re: Elephant in the room

agreed jon1965, exactly my position. I knew nothing of consumer law and have had the same response as you, 9 have sent back saying no agreement can't enforce, I use Niddy's template's as just a general guide, I do change them to meet my circumstances and if I am unsure of anything then I ask for advice on here, to be honest a CCJ does not bother me at all, my credit file is wrecked as I am still paying a few creditors on small amounts who did not sell it on to the vile greedy financial groups who make a massive amount out of peoples miss-fortune.

I agree with most people, the annoying template letters I use to get from DCA's so I try and personalise mine. I do reply to every letter from a DCA and scan and back up that correspondence so that when I am corresponding with whoever on the debt I have my facts in front of me.

I have only ever claimed UE when the said company have said NO AGREEMENT WE CANT ENFORCE, Debenhams sent back a CCA from the 90's it was perfect according to NIDDY so we came to a agreement. Cabot are the ones who try it on with ( you were paying the debt so you acknowledge debt pay up ) then a few letters between us and they acknowledge there up the creek without a paddle.

I hope Paul I don't need your service's but when I first read some of this post it sounded as if Judges were granting CCJ's for companies even though they had no agreements pre 2007, further reading shows that it is about technicalities and missing T&C's my heart did miss a beat when I read the first few. !!!!!!!!

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Quite.

If you give a man a fire, he may be warm for a day.

Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Good old CC , never let a cliche go by, quite right too

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

You need to understand the system Jon mate.

A CCJ against a hobo is still a valuable thing mate, they can sell it, take tax write offs against it etc

Paul, I wasn't suggesting that us hobos are immune from ccjs and the like and that we still need to act on letters received and do everything we can to keep out of court. However from a business perspective surely the lowest hanging fruit principle applies, i.e go for the easy most profitable wins.
You suggest that s77-79 is the last thing to look at,but when i arrived here i knew nothing about my debts except there were lots of them that i was paying token payments to,which when added up were unaffordable. So i spent some money on cca requests and got some replies saying no agreement so not chasing,got some back that fulfilled the information purposes of s77-79 and then concentrated my attention on those. I was told that to think about bad DNs etc was the wrong thing to worry about yet for me it is a to comfort to know that there are other errors.

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

And that's why we are proud to be different.

We don't want growth. Ideally as years go by our posters would drop, meaning we're doing what we set out to achieve.

Are you sure Niddy, you seem to be using the royal "we" here.
Perhaps many on here will realize what a valuable consumer tool this forum represents, and would want as many as possible to "stick it to the banks" so to speak, i don't think that consumers can look forward to banks behaving any better than they do now, any time soon, sadly.

Please by all means express whatever opinion you like but don't forget our ethos - we help those that need it. Therefore we do offer a very long helping hand to newbies. We don't expect people to come here and be clued up.

Here you seem to contradict your earlier point surely as many people as possible who are in need.
As pointed out by Paul earlier it is better if the poster understands what he is doing?

I never set us up to be like that, this all stemmed from my having one unenforceability section on MSE.

No one would want this forum to become like CAG, I think I understand its values and aims, and I also think that this is possible on a larger scale

The users here are happy with the way we operate and unless the majority ask for change then we can't change things. We are not CAG or the likes. 100 opinions does no good. We stick to basic principles and have had reasonable success so far but the user knows that ultimately whatever they do or don't do is on their own decisions. We only offer help and guidance. [/COLOR]

I was referring to future posters, in any case I think the posters on here wold be better served if they were encouraged to understand what it was they were doing IMO

So although at present I tend to "check" cca's - we don't presume it'll go legal at that early stage and if it does, we deal with it as and when. As I say the users here on AAD are best suited to answer this but I think you'll find they are happy at the way we currently operate.

I am sure you will get 100% support on your views,you have a very loyal following.

We are however building a cca checker that will give you basics based on user input. It'll be automated using Ajax script and easy to use. So that'll also allow a lot more user self-diagnosis which we'll link to templates or additional help as necessary, depending on the outcome of the user entries.

Interesting I would be very interested to see this.

See above


(add)Sorry about the colours i give up. I am sure you will be able to decipher

[helmsman]

Re: Elephant in the room

In my opinion there are a few problems with this

It seems that the poster is transferring responsibility for handling the debt to the forum, instead of using the information provided in order to become self reliant.

Nidy cannot be aware of all circumstances surrounding the debt, only the poster can do that, what should be done IMO is the provision of the necessarily tools to do the job,(Give a man a fish etc).
Granted some are going to need more guidance than others, but at the end of the day we are not supposed to be giving advice on here anyway, just opinion.

I don't want to start an argument but apparently I am allowed to express an opinion.

I think that the forum limits its own scope for growth because of the way it operates,in that it is basically down to one man.
NIddy does an excellent job we all know that, but there comes a time when a concern reaches a critical mass, the creator should then step back and let the forum run itself, guided by the principles he has put in place of course.
If this does not happen it restricts the potential for growth.

For this to happen in my view there needs to be a re-thinking of the way the unenforceabiuty section operates.

This sounds like a lot of criticism i know, i could list all the things I find exceptional about this forum, but it would be tedious and unproductive as regards to stimulating debate.

Just my thought I have followed Niddys (suggestions) and aad for over 2 years now have used the templates and other help and have fended off banks and dcas and with the help of paul and Niddy a nice £3000 debt to cabot written off, this forum is different than others and long may it continue.

[cymruambyth]

Re: Elephant in the room

Niddy as good as an automated checking system may be, don't expect the requests for your checking to decrease. Many posters who are in a total state of panic will not trust technology and would prefer confirmation from a real person. That is assuming that someone who survives on very little sleep and selflessly helps others is a real person and not a sophisticated robot

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Elephant in the room

what should be done IMO is the provision of the necessarily tools to do the job,(Give a man a fish etc).

Quite.

If you give a man a fire, he may be warm for a day.

Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Elephant in the room

And that's why we are proud to be different.

We don't want growth. Ideally as years go by our posters would drop, meaning we're doing what we set out to achieve.

Please by all means express whatever opinion you like but don't forget our ethos - we help those that need it. Therefore we do offer a very long helping hand to newbies. We don't expect people to come here and be clued up. I never set us up to be like that, this all stemmed from my having one unenforceability section on MSE.

The users here are happy with the way we operate and unless the majority ask for change then we can't change things. We are not CAG or the likes. 100 opinions does no good. We stick to basic principles and have had reasonable success so far but the user knows that ultimately whatever they do or don't do is on their own decisions. We only offer help and guidance.

So although at present I tend to "check" cca's - we don't presume it'll go legal at that early stage and if it does, we deal with it as and when. As I say the users here on AAD are best suited to answer this but I think you'll find they are happy at the way we currently operate.

We are however building a cca checker that will give you basics based on user input. It'll be automated using Ajax script and easy to use. So that'll also allow a lot more user self-diagnosis which we'll link to templates or additional help as necessary, depending on the outcome of the user entries.

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

I like to keep things as simple as I can, and if I'm advised here that an agreement is UE or otherwise then I'm quite happy to accept that. If UE then the details that make it such I'm quite happy to be ignorant of until the N1 thuds on the doormat. Until then I don't really need to know them as I'm certainly not going to point out their errors!

In my opinion there are a few problems with this

It seems that the poster is transferring responsibility for handling the debt to the forum, instead of using the information provided in order to become self reliant.

Nidy cannot be aware of all circumstances surrounding the debt, only the poster can do that, what should be done IMO is the provision of the necessarily tools to do the job,(Give a man a fish etc).
Granted some are going to need more guidance than others, but at the end of the day we are not supposed to be giving advice on here anyway, just opinion.

I don't want to start an argument but apparently I am allowed to express an opinion.

I think that the forum limits its own scope for growth because of the way it operates,in that it is basically down to one man.
NIddy does an excellent job we all know that, but there comes a time when a concern reaches a critical mass, the creator should then step back and let the forum run itself, guided by the principles he has put in place of course.
If this does not happen it restricts the potential for growth.

For this to happen in my view there needs to be a re-thinking of the way the unenforceabiuty section operates.

This sounds like a lot of criticism i know, i could list all the things I find exceptional about this forum, but it would be tedious and unproductive as regards to stimulating debate.

[PriorityOne]

Re: Elephant in the room

P1 you missed what i was saying. I did not say they would win. I said they may chase you harder which is why you need a defence should those letters land on your doormat.

You do need to get your ducks in order.... yes; because people with assets (potentially) have more at risk. Having said that, I've not had any problems getting companies to feck off eventually.... but do appreciate the stress that fighting your corner can bring while you're doing it....

[Paul.]

Re: Elephant in the room

P1 you missed what i was saying. I did not say they would win. I said they may chase you harder which is why you need a defence should those letters land on your doormat.

You need to understand the system Jon mate.

A CCJ against a hobo is still a valuable thing mate, they can sell it, take tax write offs against it etc

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

P1 you missed what i was saying. I did not say they would win. I said they may chase you harder which is why you need a defence should those letters land on your doormat.

[PriorityOne]

Re: Elephant in the room

Lets be honest, if you earn 100K a year and live in a 500K house with no mortgage then creditors will be all over you. If however you are not working and have no assets it is far less likely.

Just because a person might go on to earn a good wage and/or owns property doesn't mean that a creditor/DCA will succeed in getting a CCJ and/or property charge. If the pre-court arguments are strong enough, they can and do feck off.

[Paul.]

Re: Elephant in the room

Jesus
I come back from Poland with a headache and then get all this to read. My head is about to explode.

In my simple world a CCA request is a starting point. If one is sent back then that is when a closer look is needed.

Lets be honest, if you earn 100K a year and live in a 500K house with no mortgage then creditors will be all over you. If however you are not working and have no assets it is far less likely.

I used to think ignore ignore ignore, but now I am coming to think send a reply otherwise they have an excuse to start calling you again etc.

And thats where you go wrong,

Id be looking at everything else prior to the CCA request.

Heres a scenario, you never sign a CCA when you open your account with Littlewoods

how can they comply with s78? remember the words of 78 (IF ANY)

they are very important words,

So what if there was never a signed agreement?

[oldyboy]

Re: Elephant in the room

Perhaps sticking my neck out, but is not the problem here, of the forums own making to an extent.

Posters are advised to send their agreements to a secured area, (so no one gets to discuss)or learn why the agreement is at fault.

Posters are just being told to send a particular template.

I merely raise the point and in no way deny the valuable service this forum supplies.

I see your point, but we always have to consider who may be looking in, and if we start openly discussing things such as faults within agreements, it could backfire on us.

I like to keep things as simple as I can, and if I'm advised here that an agreement is UE or otherwise then I'm quite happy to accept that. If UE then the details that make it such I'm quite happy to be ignorant of until the N1 thuds on the doormat. Until then I don't really need to know them as I'm certainly not going to point out their errors!

I think the main issue is the use of templates that are not modified to suit the individual circumstance. Whilst some, such as account in dispute due to non-receipt of CCA, they can pretty much be used as-is. I look upon the templates as a start where the hard work has already been done for me, particularly when pointing out a viewpoint about law. There is also a tone in the templates that is very positive, and something I wouldn't have necessarily tried if starting from scratch.