What does this actually mean for UE?

[happy_bunny]

Hi all

came across this link on MSE.

What does it really mean for UE debt:
http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...t-arose-today/

HB

[Paul.]

Re: What does this actually mean for UE?

Hi all

came across this link on MSE.

What does it really mean for UE debt:
http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...t-arose-today/

HB

Exactly what it says on the tin.

There is no one size fits all approach to this type of issue, whats right for one is not right for the other.

[PlanB]

Re: What does this actually mean for UE?

What does it really mean for UE debt:
http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...t-arose-today/

That's an easy question to answer

It means that even if the creditor fully complies with a s.78 request the account can still be unenforceable in court if the original agreement was not properly executed in the first place

Or to put it another way: there's more than one way to skin a cat

[PlanB]

Re: What does this actually mean for UE?

Here's an example of what Paul meant based on a true story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17670803

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: What does this actually mean for UE?

Hi all

came across this link on MSE.

What does it really mean for UE debt:
http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...t-arose-today/

HB

I'd be careful about looking for SERIOUS advice on MSE.

I used to post on there a lot, and there was a pro-bank/creditor attitude on there even then. I don't mind that, however consumers were not being told correct information on what their LEGAL rights and remedies were if they were not in the favour of the banks, and instead debtors were dealt with as 'dirty debt dodgers'.

Since Martin Lewis sold out that attitude has got even worse, to the point where the MSE debt forums are nothing more than an extension of the debt advice given by StepChange, which, while suitable for some, is also not suitable for many (20 year DMP - I don't think so!).

So blogs like the one made by Paul above, are given as examples of why UE should not be used. Instead there is no thought given to the fact that UE can be a complex and individual process, which is why creditors don't like to take things to court, and when they do, as Paul demonstrates, they can be just as likely to fail.

Best
SnV

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: What does this actually mean for UE?

Hi all

came across this link on MSE.

What does it really mean for UE debt:
http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...t-arose-today/

HB

Thats Paul's blog - it's in his signature link. Read it. Interesting

Paul tells it as it is. No two cases are the same & each case works with its own merits.

[happy_bunny]

Re: What does this actually mean for UE?

Thanks, wasn't looking for serious advice, was helping someone...

I know where to come for serious advice about this stuff

basically, someone referred to the post as evidence that even without a signed agreement, pre 2007, the creditor could still GEt a CCJ.

I also knew it was from Paul on here.

Thanks folks

HB

[Riz]

Re: What does this actually mean for UE?

Well, amongst other things Paul is warning in that blog entry that a court could well do that if the bank provides sufficient evidence to convince the court that on the balance of probability an agreement was signed.

In others words, the bank simply turning up without an original agreement would not always be enough to win the day on it's own.

In that case in order to turn the tables back on the bank it would not be enough to say "no agreement in court means it's unenforceable guv", but that you would have to put forward a considered and positive argument to refute the banks assertions and/or explain why what they provided if anything is not a fair/accurate recon.