We have 70 guests online 

Case result major blow for claims management firms

Monday 26th October 2009

Specialist law firm Goldsmith Williams says that a recent ruling in the Commercial Court is a major blow for companies pursuing unenforceable loan agreement claims on behalf of clients.

The ruling, based on a case bought by the Royal Bank of Scotland against a defaulting borrower (Mr McGuffick) has profound implications for any loan agreement, which is declared to be ‘unenforceable’.

To date, the view has been that there is little a lender can do to pursue a borrower for payment of any outstanding debts, if a loan agreement is declared unenforceable, said GW.

However, the recent Commercial Court ruling makes it clear that even though a loan agreement may be declared unenforceable, lenders are still at liberty to:

- tell credit reference agencies about missed payments
- inform third parties about any outstanding debts
- continue to demand payments from the borrower
issue a default notice and threaten (and take) further legal proceedings
- instruct debt collection agencies to seek payments
 
Eddie Goldsmith, senior partner at Goldsmith Williams, said: “This ruling represents a major set-back for claims management companies, which have prospered by creating the impression that unenforceability allows borrowers to walk away from their debt obligations. This Commercial Court ruling means that although a lender may not be able to repossess a house or goods, they can continue to pursue outstanding debts and, most importantly, they can also insist that adverse information is shown on a borrower’s credit record.

“Borrowers must realise they cannot use a legal technicality as a way to resolve their debt problems. The harsh reality is that even if a loan is declared unenforceable, they can still be pursued by lenders and will end-up with an adverse credit record, which will make obtaining further credit almost impossible. This will not only create problems when applying for a mortgage, but also when applying for a mobile phone, Sky TV or any other service which involves a credit check.”

During the summer months Goldsmith Williams warned mortgage brokers to be wary of misleading statements being made by claims management companies and the dangers of raising false hopes by referring desperate clients to firms, which may not be able to rid them of their debt problems.

Goldsmith concluded: “Brokers need to ensure their clients understand that unenforceability will not prevent lenders from taking further legal action and borrowers will be effectively excluded from applying for further credit.”

Both the claims management companies Introducer Today approached for comment declined to do so.


View Comments

(39) Comments | Report Abuse

Added by Addy on 2011-04-25 18:38:38

That's a mold-brkeaer. Great thinking!
Added by Mervyn Kingston on 2009-10-30 14:21:53

Complaints about the way banks, building societies and specialist lenders treat struggling mortgage customers have soared by 40 per cent over the past six months, figures from the chief financial watchdog showed yesterday.

Bet there's some in here though Mr Goldsmith!!!
Back off having a go at CMC's when the people you deal with damage the consumer much more than they ever could.
Most CMC's are ethical, not like the shower you do business with. I rahter think you have done your company and reputation more harm than good posting this BS up here matey.
Added by Mervyn Kingston on 2009-10-30 14:10:57

GMAC repays GBP7.7m for mistreatment of struggling borrowers
One of your lenders Mr Goldsmith?

The number of consumers complaining to financial providers about the level of service received has increased by two per cent to 1.51m since H2 2008

Or maybe some in here?
Added by Islands in the stream on 2009-10-30 12:47:11

I have contacted the SRA to see if this BS falls foul of Rule 7 of the SRA code of conduct. Will let you all know what they say.
Rule
7.01 Misleading or inaccurate publicity
Publicity must not be misleading or inaccurate

Rules 7.01 to 7.05 apply to all forms of publicity including the name or description of your firm, stationery, advertisements, brochures, websites, directory entries, media appearances, promotional press releases, and direct approaches to potential clients and other persons, and whether conducted in person, in writing, or in electronic form
Added by Ferry cross the mersey on 2009-10-30 12:25:48

Mr Goldsmith should read up on legislation before he comments any further. The CPUTR 2008 couild be good reading for him.
Misleading actions.
5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—

(a)
if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and .
(b)
it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise
Added by Gerry Peacemaker on 2009-10-30 10:49:11

It is understandable that Goldsmith is trying to unsettle the claims industry. His lucrative remortgage business has been decimated by the crunch and no doubt he finds himself sat upon heaps of disclosure letters from CMCs. It must be a frustrating time for him, we should all recognize that. Goldsmith will do everything in his power to bring the claims business to an end.
Added by Rich Person on 2009-10-28 19:52:52

And are we to believe you Mr Goldsmith?
You see, we as a CMC would not employ criminals and drug dealers. Unlike some companies Mr Goldsmith!!
Please all read this link to see what kind of company the lenders like to deal with

www.thelegalweek.merseyblogs.co.uk/2008/10/struck_off_solicitor_lands_job.html
Added by John Reid on 2009-10-28 15:12:27

Wasim - because it is an obligation of anyone lending money in the Uk to comply with The Consumer Credit Act 1974 amended by 2006 Act - If they do not comply with thre law and they lend money that is called being a loan shark and you can go to jail for that. If the lender has not complied with the very basic laws - only 3 things required in a signed document - then the consumer has the LEGAL RIGHT to stop all payments. Regardless if the agreement is still valid but unenforceable. That is what the law states. If they have the legal right to stop payments then the lenders do not have a right to put black marks against their names. The law is there ot protect consumers s well as protect lenders for non-payment when all is enfoceable. Covers both parties to the contract. Thats just what happens when you have a legal right to do something.
Added by Paul Burns on 2009-10-28 12:54:27

Thank you John Reynolds. I have now re-considered and I now agree that enforceability should be considered before a remortgage. I expect Eddie to follow shortly.
Added by Disgusted at allowing this report on 2009-10-28 12:50:11

Paul Fynn, MP for Newport West said:
"Having checked the numbers of robberies and muggings in the past year, I can say with certainty that the public are much more likely to be robbed by the financial services industry than by burglars or muggers. The difference is that criminal theft is usually a single event, but robbery by financial institutions continues every week for decades."
Added by Wasim (@Mortgages_uk) on 2009-10-28 12:33:04

Hi

My view is that if you spend the money then you should pay it back. Why should you not pay them lender back? Especially if you were happy to take the money from them in the first place. You too the money with the intent to pay them back. So what if the agreement is deemed not valid.

Do you not realise that not paying lenders back just makes it more expensive for others to deal with them.

And if you choose not to pay them back then why shouldnt they report your missed/non payments to the Credit agency. The Credit Agency is a record of your ability to repay your credit agreements and loans.

Regards
Added by John reynolds on 2009-10-28 12:22:54

I am bemused by some of these comments. Whatever happened to 'best advice' for the client?
Eddie Goldsmith obviously does not beleive in that, neither does Paul Burns. Why would anyone suggest consolidating dbets when they could be unenforceable and have them written off completely?
Best advice is to find out if the debt is unenforceable first. This is the advice the CAB are now giving clients.
Added by Peter Roberts on 2009-10-28 12:15:02

This is not a legal technicality, it is consumer law.If the lenders cannot comply with Consumer Law- they must pay for their mistakes, just as we would have to. I don't see lenders giving out much sympathy to customers going overdrawn. If you are going top lend money- comply with the law. Simple as that!
Added by Paul Burns on 2009-10-28 11:46:23

"Borrowers must realise they cannot use a legal technicality as a way to resolve their debt problems" A much better solution IMO would be a consolidation remortgage with ( perhaps) Eddie himself doing the remortgage conveyance.
Added by More lies on 2009-10-28 11:27:28

Maybe this is why incorrect comments were published. New role as PR for the lenders!!!


Goldsmith Williams is on the panel of every leading building society, bank and
centralised lender
Added by Would you employ him?? on 2009-10-28 11:22:45

www.thelegalweek.merseyblogs.co.uk/2008/10/struck_off_solicitor_lands_job.html

Added by WTF!!! on 2009-10-28 11:14:46

Could Eddie Goldsmith please post on here for all to see, what his specialist field is?
And also how much experience he has had in the field of consumer law?
Added by Get a report from a decent solicitor on 2009-10-28 11:06:26

Maybe the Goldsmith clan should talk to
David berkley QC who works with a claims managment company. I would say he is a much better authority in this field than a conveyancing solicitor.
Also have a word with Bradley Say QC. The same comments apply here.
Added by Fed up with wrong reports on 2009-10-28 11:02:55

Please also refer to this report from the BBC.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8326485.stm
The government said that credit and store companies had to "clean up their act" because the relationship between card companies and their customers was "unfair" and should be challenged
Added by Fed up with wrong reports on 2009-10-28 10:33:24

If you would like to familiarise yourself withg the following PRECEDENTS that have been set in court.
Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)
Also see
LONDON NORTH SECURITIES v MEADOWS (2005

Added by john on 2009-10-27 16:03:12

Of all the articles written on this subject, one included the following - Mr Justice Flaux ruled: “Although the [Consumer Credit Act] may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”.

I would appreciate the views of the people making comments on this page as their understaning of the subject is better than mine. Thanks.
Added by BAN THE FSA on 2009-10-27 14:41:45

eddie goldsmith is utterly wrong here.why are you giving a pro-lender publicity.The rules of the CCA are clear and transparent-the Lenders broke them.In addition every Broker in the country has been affected by the Banks incompetance.Sod them we are all skint have seen our client bank decimated.If we can help our clients and earn whats wrong with that.My advice put Goldsmith Williams on your Solicitors black list.Eddie i know you i have done business with you but we need help not knifing!
Added by Jonathan on 2009-10-26 19:00:02

I had to register to leave this post and as I do so all I can see is banner ads for Cartel and Ratio. Ironic really that Introducer Today would publish such a mis informed article with the advertisement revenue of some of the major players in the claims industry.

Well done !!
Added by Tony Murphy on 2009-10-26 16:20:58

Eddie Goldsmith, your comment about the unenforceability still means a lender can take legal action makes me laugh, I am glad I would never have to use you as a lawyer.
Anyone can take legal action against anyone at any time for anything they want. The thing is Eddie, they have to PROVE their case. If our solicitors have deemd an agreement is unenforceable becasue of the breach of prescribed terms Eddie, then they WILL take it to court. You see Eddie, s127(3) of the Consumer credit Act prevents a court from enforcing the debt in this case Eddie, and so the debt is WRITTEN OFF Eddie, just as in the Mitchell case. Oh, and by the way Eddie, the judge oredered the lender to remove all black marks from Mr Mitchells credit file Eddie.
The McGuff case Eddie, does not set a precedence, so has no effect on any other cases Eddie. Also, Eddie, the agreement was ENFORCEABLE, not UNENFORCEABLE, so, as a test case it was a shambles.
Added by David Woods on 2009-10-26 16:16:07

Another missleading article being issued, let us clear this misconception up once and for all.
The consumer Credit act states that is a lender does not send in a copy of the executed agreement within 12 days of request the agreement is deemed unenforceable UNTIL a copy of the agreement is produced. If or when this is produced the agreement can be audited to ensure it has been executed correctly. The debt will then be simply enforceable or unenforceable. In this case this excactly what hapened and the agreement was found to be enforceable. This was no shock to any claim management that understands the law and is no blow whatsoever.
The article then becomes completely incorrect by stating unenforceability will not prevent lenders from taking further legal action....WRONG that is what unenforceability means !! hence the word UNENFORCEABLE !!!!!.
Goldsmith Williams do not process or litigate on unenforceability as they clearly do not understand this area of the law hey offer fee free remortgage cases and thus try to scare off brokers and consumers from persuing their legitimate claims..
Added by Tony Murphy on 2009-10-26 16:11:17

Having looked at 'Specialist' law firm Goldsmith Williams'web site, it says nothing in their services about financial mis selling. Why does a solicitor who does not 'specialise' in this field want to comment about a court hearing? Where are all the stories about Robert Mitchell getting £15K wiped off his credit card in June? Where's the mention of The banking Code S13.6. Where is the mention of all the precedents that have been set in the courts ( including the HOL)
Added by Tim Barber on 2009-10-26 15:26:55

Victoria, I will watch the space keenly, but as a publication perhaps you should do your own homework and report on things accurately in the first place? This story has been doing the rounds for weeks now and is supported by lenders and the people who represent them in some naive way of misleading the public into thinking they can't make a claim. It's wrong and shouldn't be reported in the first place
Added by Tim Barber on 2009-10-26 15:23:10

Of course you should pay back what you borrow, just as the banks should ensure the paperwork they use to cover these agreements is correct and complies with the law. The lenders should also adhere to the FSAs treating customers fairly guidelines which in the case of credit card companies they clearly are not. Many of these companies have been irresponsible in lending money willy nilly to people they should not have lent to in the first place and people like this have a choice, try and get the debt made unenforceable if the lender haven;t done thiongs correctly or enter an IVA or Bankruptcy as they have no chance of ever repaying the debt. Who picks up the tab either way?
Finally the lenders are not supporting the broker market they are alientating it with direct deals and turning down applications that later they agree when a borrower goes direct and deserve all that is coming to them in my honest opinion
Added by John Reid on 2009-10-26 15:20:15

Brokers have had to turn to other streams of business because Lenders HAVE NOT been supporting them. They withdrew their support before Claims Management firms targeted the Mortgage Industry. What do you expect to happen? Its a battle of survival for most. Brokers didnt get bailed out like the banks.
Added by JonJon on 2009-10-26 15:11:36

If people borrow money they should expect to pay it back - if any of the judgements go against the bank who ultimately pays - other borrowers. Also you cannot expect lenders to support the broker market if brokers are selling products which encourage people not to repay their debts.
Added by Victoria Hartley, Editorial director on 2009-10-26 13:45:10

Thanks for all your comments. One of the firms approached has been back in touch to offer comment, so watch this space.
Introducer Today is always grateful for all views. If you would like to be approached next time for your individual comment, please drop me an email at Victoria@introducertoday.co.uk

Added by Steve O'Mara on 2009-10-26 13:28:19

As stated in earlier posts, the case had nothing to do with unenforceability of a Consumer Credit Agreement which does not satisfy the prescribed terms as detailed in the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Mis-leading reports surrounding this area of the claims industry seem to be arising on regular basis (Eg - "100000 claims on hold") and seem to originate from supposedly knowledgable law firms.
I would be interested to know which claims management companies were approached for comment as I am sure most would be more than willing to give you their views.
Added by Tim Barber on 2009-10-26 13:05:19

How many times can a case be missreported before someone actually prints the truth? Goldsmiths must be very dim if they believe what you have stated. The case reported on has nothing to do with unenforceable agreements as the agreement eventually provided was enforceable! The case was specifically to do with the lender being able to report the debtor to the credit reference agencies for no payment of the debt without this being classed as enforcement, during a period where the debt could not be enforced because the lender had not provided the required agreement within the allowed timescales. When the agreement was finally produced it was enforceable and as people taking on the cases, either themselves or via claims management companies, are dealing with unenforceable agreements only, then this case is actually irrelevant.
It will be interesting to see what the further test cases come out with and how they are reported. I also have a barristers opinion which confirms my views. As for IFAs not supporting this arena, is it fair for Credit card companies to increase their interest rates to 35% plus when base rates are at the lowest levels in history? They deserve all they get as they are not treating customers fairly in my opinion.
Added by LJMcLaw on 2009-10-26 13:01:09

Having read the whole judgement myself, I cannot agree to anything in this article. In my opinion, it is another spin by one of the lenders PR team to try to stop the claims management industry helping consumer to stand up for their rights in law. In paragraph 3 of the Judgement the Judge detials how both sides confirmed that the agreement was totally enforceable because even though RBS were outside the prescibed times for supplying the agreement they had since supplied one which complied with the law. There really was nothing to do with unenforceablility in this judgement. If there was still no sign of an agreement and the lender admitted they could not provide this agreement or there was proof of unenforceability by not executing the agreement properly then the Judge may have looked at the case in a completely different light. It is not difficult to see why the Judge said they could register with credit aggencies when there was an enforceable agreement infront of him. If it is the clients right in law to refuse to pay the lender if the agreement is unenforceable then I do not see in what way putting detremental black marks with credit agencies should be allowed. In other words, My legal rights, I shouldnt be punished for the lender making a bad mistake. Why are people allowed to report this so badly? BTW - This is nothing like mis-selling as is mentioned below. This is not complying with a basic consumer credit law.
Added by Stephen Reynolds on 2009-10-26 12:57:32

a poorly drafted news story which is very misleading.
Added by Richard Williams on 2009-10-26 12:43:54

Simon is correct, please do not put misleading statements like this on the site. Goldsmith Williams should have made this plain to you before you published as it makes you look incompatant at best or desperate for a story
Added by Greg Walters on 2009-10-26 12:38:34

Simon is absolutely right. This particular judgement refers to a the peripheral area of enforcement during default under s77/78. Goldsmith has an agenda here and has since day one. 'Major blow', far far from it.
Added by CHRIS GARDNER on 2009-10-26 12:35:51

i say good its time these parasitic companies were halted. as an ifa i was inundated by dubious endowment claims where i had to pay the ombudsman fees £450 a time. None of the claims were upheld. its time the government stopped this americanised claim culture. the people behind these companies are leeches on society.
people should stop passing the buck and suffer the consequences of their own mistakes like the majority of us have to.
Added by Simon Helliwell on 2009-10-26 12:21:36

I am still surprised by the general lack of understanding as to how credible Claims Management cases are processed in conjunction with the law. THe statement is miss leading as the court ruling refered to only covers the subject of unenforcability in the event of a default sec 77/78 reuqest, it has nothing to do with improper execution of a credit agreement. This order has no bearing on a credible claim company in the matter of an improperly executed agreement. Maybe someone in the media should allow the truth to be published .
Post Comments
Please login to post comments.
Email:
Password:
Forgot Password
Post Comments without Login
To prevent spam, please type in result 10 + 4 =  


DISCLAIMER:The views contained in these user comments are not endorsed by Introducer Today(nor its associates and advertisers) in any way and are provided by users who wish to publish their independent opinions on our news.Whilst every effort is made to moderate these comments,due to the instant nature of the posting not all offensive material can be removed instantly.Please help us keep the comments areas tidy by reporting details of any infringements to team@introducertoday.co.uk
Feedback:
If you have any questions or suggestions about this article or our news section, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Editorial Contact Details - Rosalind Renshaw
rosalind.renshaw@introducertoday.co.uk
0845 075 0152
Related News Stories
Most Read News Stories


Feedback Form