Ever had any dealings with a bank?

[Rave]

Watch out, then. Because apparently, all they need to prove that you own them a lot of money is a copy of your signature, some scissors, a loan form, and a photocopier:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8435867.stm

He went on to strike out claims from two individuals, pointing out that they had failed to supply any evidence at all that they had never signed their loan agreements in the first place.

Erm wut? How in the bloody hell are they supposed to provide conclusive proof that they at no point signed a loan agreement? Perhaps get signed witness statements from every single person they have ever met? YOU MASSIVE RETARD.

ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH......

IT HAS HAPPENED!!

THE IDIOTS ARE NOW IN CHARGE!!



I suppose I'll have to write to my MP straight away, even though I should be going to bed since I'm due at work in 8 hours, but frankly I'm in shock that a judge could just take one of our eminently sensible and justifiable legal rights, take it outside, set fire to it, and then take a massive dump on the burning embers. I am, frankly, completely staggered by the whole thing.

[Rave]

Letter to my MP.

Dear Mr,

I write in reference to the following story which I read on the BBC website today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8435867.stm

....concerning a ruling which will exempt banks from their obligation to provide an original, signed copy of a credit agreement which they are trying to enforce- or even a direct photocopy of it. Instead, they will apparently be able to "reconstitute" agreements.

So, apparently, all a bank now needs to prove that a person owes them a lot of money is a copy of their signature, a loan agreement, a pair of scissors, and a photocopier. To say that this ruling is a piece of staggering idiocy is something of an understatement. I have never defaulted on a credit agreement. But now, apparently, that doesn't mean that I've never defaulted on a credit agreement.

This would be laughable were it not so frightening. This is a totally unacceptable breach of our rights as citizens and I politely request that you take the matter up with the appropriate minister at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Edit: sod it, writetothem not working properly. I'll have to send it tomorrow, or god forbid even use snail mail....

[TeePee]

So according to the article, the agreement can't be simply created, but must 'be based upon records held as to the debtor and the agreement he made'. But it doesn't state how these records must be kept. I'd challenge that the only acceptable and accurate records from which to create a credit agreement would be an original signed credit agreement.

I am currently dealing with a collections agent who is chasing my wife on behalf of a junk debt buyer. The only documentation they have is a credit card statement for a different account, which obviously won't satisfy the law. After the level of harassment they have been directing towards her, we will be taking them to court for ten times the amount they claim she owes (which was itself three times what they allege her credit limit was). This situation would be different if they were able to 'create' records. Of course, they are trying to anyway. Sadly I doubt if one person in a hundred they chase for zombie debt knows the law and uses it to fight them. Most don't show up to court and lose by default.

An overhaul of debt collection law is needed in both countries that removes the trend of requiring debtors to prove their innocence, and allows JDB's to make billions by buying junk debt for pennies on the doll pound..

[Betty_Swallocks]

Our whole system of government is slanted firmly towards protecting the companies and corporations at the expense of the individual.

I'm afraid the concept of a government serving the people is way out of date.

[badass]

I fail to see why the idiot judge is siding with the banks on this one. The banks have to make a serious mistake to lose the signed credit agreement. Their ****ups should be tehir problem.
Perhaps it will encourage them to get their own house in order.

[kalniel]

Our whole system of government is slanted firmly towards protecting the companies and corporations at the expense of the individual.

I'm afraid the concept of a government serving the people is way out of date.

So why not vote for someone who does serve you? Or if they don't exist, start a party.

[shadowmaster]

Our whole system of government is slanted firmly towards protecting the companies and corporations at the expense of the individual.

I'm afraid the concept of a government serving the people is way out of date.

Politicians should dress up in F1 suits with badges attached showing which companies are sponsoring them. It would make life much easier for all of us.

EDIT: Rave could I use your letter as template to send to my MP?

[Saracen]

One way of looking at this is that banks could "create" loans simply by a bit of cut 'n' paste, but could they, in the absence of any other records, enforce that and get it past a court? I doubt it.

But the other way of looking at it is that people have been using a technicality, that of producing the signed agreement, to avoid actual, legit debt.

So let's get this straight. I borrow money from a bank, say, £100,000. I've had the money, been paying instalments for, say, two years, and then I stop. When the bank asks for their money, I demand they produce the original loan agreement and if they can't, I walk away free and clear with the best part of £100,000 of their money which I did, as a matter of fact, supported by extensive other records, I actually did borrow.

The bank can produce the original transfer of the £100,000 to my account. They can produce a track record of instalments being paid. They can show the standard form that was in existence at the time and that I wouldn't have got the loan without signing. I can even admit in court that yes, I took out the loan and had the money, but if they can't produce the agreement, I get to walk away free and clear??? And you think that's right?

Because that, regardless of the rants about this ruling, is the current situation. And a year or so ago, I watched a couple proudly boasting on a TV program that they had done exactly that. They researched the law and found this loophole, and as a result, walked away from over £100,000 of debt that they had, and admitted they had, actually taken out.

Fortunately, the arrogant, smug <bleeps> then admitted that they'd had more than £100,000 more debt that they had challenged, fought through the courts and lost, costing them more than the £100,000 they'd scammed out of the banks in legal fees. I laughed so hard at that that I nearly cried.

In just about every other form of contract (except things like land transfer that have to be done under seal) a verbal contract is just as binding as a written one, the only limitation being that it's that much harder to prove. Harder, but by no means impossible.

So .... this judge appears to have taken a good look at the intent of the law, and concluded that it was never intended to absolve people of real, true, genuine actual debt just because a bit of paper is missing, and that stance is consistent with the general principles of contract. It is certainly reasonable to suppose that the intent never to provide a loophole to allow debtors to void their responsibilities.

If people use a loophole like this to avoid debt, all that will end up happening is that the rest of us, that are responsible and pay our debts will end up picking up the tab, because you can bet your boots the banks won't, ultimately, foot the bill.

So what this judgement actually does is to put a stop to people using a loophole in a way it was never intended to avoid paying debts they actually owe.

And my response to that is .....GOOD!

And about time.

If you owe money, don't expect to use a loophole to avoid paying for it. If the bank, from other records, can prove the loan, then damn well pay it instead of trying to weasel out if it on a technicality. That's what we have courts for, to interpret laws and how they apply to the facts of a given case, and it looks like finally they got one right. It should certainly slow down the parasites in the legal profession that have been making large fees by voiding genuine loan agreements with this technicality, and make those seeking to avoid their responsibilities actually face up to them.

This is far from a charter allowing banks to "invent" non-existent loans, because they'd still have to get that proof past a court to enforce it. What it is, is stopping people ducking out from paying off loans they do actually owe if a piece of paper has gone missing.

Oh, and you can bet that while. historically, those forms may have been misplaced, since this dodge for loan avoidance became common practice among those trying to slither out from paying back what they borrowed, bank systems will have changed anyway.

What this really needs is a change in law nailing down the detail in a way that protects consumers and allows banks to chase and enforce actual debt. It's the thin end of the wedge, and while on this point, I support the banks being able to enforce genuine loan agreements, the activities of some of the less reputable companies chasing debt are a travesty .... though it also has to be said that some people will lie and cheat, duck and dodge, and try any stunt they can to avoid paying back what they borrowed. And yes, sometimes it's genuine hardship, but sometimes it's simply greed and wanting to get away with ripping off the lender.


In my view, it's simple .... did you borrow the money? If you did, and the bank can prove it, then the debt stands and should be enforceable, and using a technicality to avoid paying a debt you owe and know you owe is tantamount to legalised theft.

And three cheers for a judge with the nous to put a stop to this racket.

[abaxas]

Since money is a virtual construct based on your future labour. It's very hard to prove it actually exists.

Ie... all finance is a minefield.

[cookie365]

What Saracen said.

[wombar]

If you borrow money, you have to pay it back. Simple as.

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people in this country trying to use loop holes to weasel out of their debts that they willingly took on. This whole sorry financial mess was created by people borrowing more than they could afford, and the banks letting them.

Yes, the banks are generally pretty cretinous, but it takes two to tango. It's about time that people started taking responsibility for their financial idiocy.

[Saracen]

If you borrow money, you have to pay it back. Simple as.

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people in this country trying to use loop holes to weasel out of their debts that they willingly took on. This whole sorry financial mess was created by people borrowing more than they could afford, and the banks letting them.

Yes, the banks are generally pretty cretinous, but it takes two to tango. It's about time that people started taking responsibility for their financial idiocy.

Agreed, but while we're talking about responsibility, it'd also be nice to see banks taking some for screwing up the entire economy, here and in much of the rest of the world, instead of tapping the taxpayer for enough money to be more than the national GDP of a small country, and then still expecting to pay some individuals millions on bonuses. Regardless of whether the individuals "earning" the bonuses screwed up or not, the banks certainly did and the system allowing those bonuses has to be curtailed, not because of the size of the bonuses, but because of what it did (and could do again) to the rest of us.

And, wombar, I'd say it took three, perhaps four, to tango. Yes, people and the banks are responsible. That's two. But third ... the regulators that were supposed to be overseeing the banks. That means the BofE and the FSA. That ls three. Finally, there's the politicians that designed and implemented that regulatory system, and yes Gordon Brown, I do mean you.

It's more of a conga line than a tango, and guess who's leading it?

Yes, people will take loans, especially when the banks and credit card companies aggressively pester them to do so, and our politicians keep repeating how the economy is so great, and that they're so "prudent" and that boom and bust has been abolished. And yes, banks will go after profit. That's what they do, and loanz meanz profitz. And the regulators can only operate within the legal framework they're given, and to the mandate laid out for them .... by the political elite.

But the government are elected to run this stuff for us, and IMHO have proven beyond any doubt that they're utterly incompetent to do so, and we're going to be paying the bill for that incompetence, short-sightedness and hubris for years to come. We've had the wild party, and for the next decade or so, we get the 'fun' of the hangover.

If you borrow money, you have to pay it back. Simple as.

Someone needs to tell the idiot residing at Number 10 that. It seems he's forgotten. I wouldn't mind, if he wasn't using our credit card to do it.

[Clunk]

It's more of a conga line than a tango, and guess who's leading it?

Che Guevara?

[TeePee]

Pay back what you owe? Sure!

Pay ten times that loan to a finance company ten years later because they forge a document that says they can charge 36% interest on paper they bought for $100? Hell no. That's unjust enrichment. The purpose of suing and the courts is to make things right, to fix a problem, and I absolutely support that. However the banks use the system to make huge profits from people either can't afford or don't have the knowledge to fight.

[cookie365]

Pay back what you owe? Sure!

Pay ten times that loan to a finance company ten years later because they forge a document that says they can charge 36% interest on paper they bought for $100? Hell no. That's unjust enrichment. The purpose of suing and the courts is to make things right, to fix a problem, and I absolutely support that. However the banks use the system to make huge profits from people either can't afford or don't have the knowledge to fight.

Complete drivel.

All this judgment has done is remove the loophole that allows people to weedle out of their debts if the credit company can't locate a copy of the original document. The credit company would still have to demonstrate evidence that the debt exists and evidence that the terms agreed are actually those that the credit company claims them to be.

[TeePee]

Complete drivel.

All this judgment has done is remove the loophole that allows people to weedle out of their debts if the credit company can't locate a copy of the original document. The credit company would still have to demonstrate evidence that the debt exists and evidence that the terms agreed are actually those that the credit company claims them to be.

What evidence that you agreed exists, other than a signed agreement?