I will go as far to say that I now have a personal vendetta against the financial Plc's. After many years of loan repayments I thought i'd would respond to a radio advert offering a service previously unheard of. I spoke to a company that made a suggestion that if i was in receipt of a credit agreement that contained specific errors then there would be a distinct possibility that the balance outstanding be overturned.

After humming and harring over the 295 admin fee i felt the urge to submit the paperwork to an organisation specializing in this type of matter. After an initial audit I was informed that I had an unenforcebale credit agreement. I was put in touch with a solicitor who then dispatched a cfa arrangement to ensure I was not liable for any loss etc. Once that was signed the whole process started.

9 months passed before I heard a peep. Then suddenly the bank had made me a tempting offer to settle early. They were willing to accept a payment of 3248 for a balance outstanding of 9245. I was shocked as a) i had not requested a full and final b) the amount seemed as low to suggest that an calculation error had occured c) it seemed as though the bank had admitted liability.

The legal contact responded with letters that suggested I was to sit tight and hold out for a few months which I duly did. Months passed before I received confirmation that I was to attend court to stand my ground. Court was simple and easy , the solicitor explained that there were breaches in the calculations as well as other prescribed terms and that the debt was unenforceable. The judge agreed and I received my declaration to that affect.

The debt was annulled.

Now people may question the point of this story. I would like to inform people that they have an opportunity to release themselves from debt that has been miscalculated or has entered the market place in a way that is not concurrent with the legal requirements of this country. The banks at the time were privatised businesses with the sole intention of producing profit. Unfortunately the profit has come at the demise of millions.

If you have an agreement taken prior to April to 2007 then i would strongly recommend having the debt audited. Prices for such work vary from 50 to 495. However i assume the smaller the fee you pay at this stage the better as it is apparent that this fee is for primary services.

Well done, and good on you. We as consumers tend to agree with whatever thes large companies say, and I'm glad you've had sucess. Excellent, what a result!!!!!!!

Nixxy

Wow, that is such a relief to hear your story! my partner is just starting the same process you went through. He took out a career development loan with Barclays for a microsoft course promising him the world, half way through the course the course provider went bankrupt so he couldnt finish his exams and didnt recieve the job offer he was promised. he then wrote to Barclays to tell them of this and asked to be released from the credit agreement, they said no. So he then investigated if the loan was unenforcable and it is under CCA. so he has now applied to the solicitiors dealing with it to sort it out under a "no win no fee" so hopefully he wont have to pay anything. However, i was just wondering at what point you stopped making payments to your bank? we are trying to save for a house and dont want to cease payments and recieve default notices on his credit rating as obviously then we cant get a mortgage. however, i asked the solicitors dealing with the case and they said that they dont advise when to stop paying the bank, it is an "individual's choice" as there is risk of default notices being put on credit ratings and debt collection agencies ringing. But at the same time were told that if he carries on paying until the end of the case (if it goes to trial it could go on for over a year) then he cannot recoup any of those payments back, therefore they are better placed in our saving account for a deposit for a mortgage?! Also the solicitors dealing with it state on their website that "under the banking code if a loan is in dispute then the debtor can cease payments" Thank you.

Saver1985 - half way through the course the course provider went bankrupt so he couldnt finish his exams and didnt recieve the job offer he was promised.

Had you paid for that by credit card instead, you would have saved yourself a load of hassle... as you would have been legally entitled to a refund under S75 of the consumer credit act 1974.

It's hardly Barclay's fault that the course provider went bankrupt. !

I am all for helping genuine people out of predicaments that are not always their fault, I usually try to remain impartial and not to be judgemental.. but I believe in this case you have abused the situation....which only serves to make it harder for the many other people who have literally been trodden on by the banks.

I know its not Barclays fault that the course provider went bankrupt but what else was he to do with a £10k loan and no job after a year of being unemployed to study full time?! Therefore he is a "genuine" person as he has been done over by a company (although not Barclays itself) and in debt through no fault of his own! I also think that banks shouldnt just lend money for loans against any course provider, surely there should be some sort of register with genuine companies that are legitimate not just out to make money from people trying to better themselves and find a career.... i dont see how he has abused the situation, can you explain? Do you think it is because he is using a legal loop hole effectively? So do you think it would be ok to retrieve the money if he had paid by credit card then? how is this different as he would still be claiming from the bank? if i can use the analogy of ordering two sofas and only recieveing one, why would or should you pay for both?! surely the bank should not lending irresponsibly in this way to any old course provider that is not even regulated and has since been on watchdog etc. The course provider has gone into compulsory liquidation and there is no money left for creditors so who should pick up the pieces? If you had a choice would you fit a bill for £10k when you dont have to if you have an alternative? i think if you were in the same situaiton as him you would most likely do the same...

Saver1985 - I know its not Barclays fault that the course provider went bankrupt but what else was he to do with a £10k loan and no job after a year of being unemployed to study full time?! Therefore he is a "genuine" person as he has been done over by a company (although not Barclays itself) and in debt through no fault of his own!

So to use another analogy; he buys a Ford motor car only to have a unfortunate accident caused by his error of judgement, do you believe that the company associated with supplying car parts to Ford is to blame in anyway.?..... (I think you're looking for a scapegoat here).Otherwise he could normally have arranged to make token payments towards the debt whilst finding other work or other means of repayment.......some people actually do this. !

Saver1985 - I also think that banks shouldnt just lend money for loans against any course provider, surely there should be some sort of register with genuine companies that are legitimate not just out to make money from people trying to better themselves and find a career.... i dont see how he has abused the situation, can you explain?

Well.. he borrowed it, if you think that now why did he ask Barclays at the time to lend it to him, should we not also have a register that includes rogue builders or tadesmen?. After all the people who borrow the money to renovate their houses are only just trying to improve their lifestyle and environment. Would you consider it as justification for not repaying the loan back simply because the rogue builder has ripped them off &..why on earth do you think I owe any further explanation.?

Saver1985 - Do you think it is because he is using a legal loop hole effectively? So do you think it would be ok to retrieve the money if he had paid by credit card then? how is this different

Credit card legislation was introduced to cover such eventuality as bankruptcy, when they pay out under this legislation they are covered by insurance which in certain cases some costs can be recouped via the official receiver of the bankrupt firm, not by other consumers footing the entire bill by the increased charges being passed on.

The thing is the truth quite often hurts, in my opinion I think he has abused the situation above and is trying to take the p***. As I said earlier I don't mind helping genuine people out.. this is evident and reinforced by the numerous posts I make on here to assist them, but "freeloaders" who seek to jump on the bandwaggon of the uncertainty of CCA legislation purely as a convenient "get out" of paying alternative can take a hike.

Saver1985 - i think if you were in the same situaiton as him you would most likely do the same...

Oh dear, Ten grand was a mere pittance to what I once personally owed, however, it simply made me more determined than ever to bounce back, knuckle down and repay it and ensure it never occurred again........ without trying to justify it as any other entity or persons fault, except that of my own. !