Re: MattyA UE Diary
Update -25/02/2011
Very quick update - off to work shortly.
Received another letter yesterday this time from those lovely people from the BOS.
Seems to be a very well considered letter in response to Nidsters 'threat of legal action' to which I had added the only communicate in writing and doorstep visit bits.
Its a 2 pager and it might be worth scanning and either posting on here or emailing to Mr Nids for him to have a read (let me know which) as it goes on about McGuffick v RBS and Wilson & Others v Secretary of state for trade & industry etc.
The intersting bit for me, as I have a number of accounts with them(including the one they have recently bought off citi bank via Opus )all in a similar position is:
'As we have been unable to provide the original T&C's we will not seek to enforce the agreement as defined by the case of McGuffick v RBS.However,even if an agreement is unenforceable,the contract still has legal effect and is not void,the lender is merely prevented from seeking an enforcement order from the court'
They go on to quote Lord Nichols a bit later & that payments are ceased (which they were last year) then this may amount to procuring the breach of a contract....not sure what this means.....maybe it gives them another route for action?
Anyway gotta go - catch you later.
Matty
Update -25/02/2011
Very quick update - off to work shortly.
Received another letter yesterday this time from those lovely people from the BOS.
Seems to be a very well considered letter in response to Nidsters 'threat of legal action' to which I had added the only communicate in writing and doorstep visit bits.
Its a 2 pager and it might be worth scanning and either posting on here or emailing to Mr Nids for him to have a read (let me know which) as it goes on about McGuffick v RBS and Wilson & Others v Secretary of state for trade & industry etc.
The intersting bit for me, as I have a number of accounts with them(including the one they have recently bought off citi bank via Opus )all in a similar position is:
'As we have been unable to provide the original T&C's we will not seek to enforce the agreement as defined by the case of McGuffick v RBS.However,even if an agreement is unenforceable,the contract still has legal effect and is not void,the lender is merely prevented from seeking an enforcement order from the court'
They go on to quote Lord Nichols a bit later & that payments are ceased (which they were last year) then this may amount to procuring the breach of a contract....not sure what this means.....maybe it gives them another route for action?
Anyway gotta go - catch you later.
Matty
Comment