Using loopholes in the law to avoid paying your debts - discuss ;)

MrsTinks · 19 November 2009 at 1:30PM

Ames wrote: »

I took out a loan in the middle of a bipolar episode. A few weeks later I realised what I'd done and phoned about it, they told me that I shouldn't have been given the loan because it broke their guidelines (I wasn't working at the time) but wouldn't help at all. A few years later when I couldn't cope anymore I asked CAB to get involved. They said they'd write and try and get the interest taken off so it was just the loan amount. Then they changed their minds and started pushing me to go BR. By going down the CCA route I avoided BR and my other creditors got something (only £1 a month, but by then the debts were nearly all charges anyway). The CCA was non existant, not invalid.

Do I feel bad? No. Especially when this year I got a loan statement saying the amount owing was around £130, when for years I've been chased for £4.5k.

I know that my actions have consequences. But surely a bank breaking their own rules to lend 7k to someone on benefits and then not keeping the paperwork when they know the law, should have consequences too?

I do think there is a world of difference between not being responcible for your actions due to a mental health issue - I still think you should have repaid the loan or at least have it marked on your credit file personally - after all now future lenders have no warning that you may do the same in future if you have another "episode" after all...
Yes I think vulnarable people should be protected more than others - of course I do - but unless you wear a sign on your chest then shouldnt' the banks have a warning too?

bipolar to my (admittedly very limited) knowledge doesn't show up with big bright red spots where you can see it

It's perfectly possible to appear "normal" to a non-medical person like someone in a bank. Or should we implement rules about presenting a mental health welbeing certificate before getting credit?
If the debt should be written off because it was taken out when not responcible for your actions then at least a future warning should be put on the credit file surely? I would have no problem with the debt being "written off" provided something was placed on the file to ensure the same couldn't happen again...

MrsTinks · 19 November 2009 at 1:32PM

DGJsaver wrote: »

With the banks behaviour helping bring about the worst financial crisis in more than a generation , morals dont really matter much for me , if someone can get away with not paying those corrupt !!!!!!!s , fair play to them , theres another 100 people who could get away with not paying , that dont...so the banks are hardly on the streets with no roof over their heads...

One example of my reasoning for disliking the banks is when times are tough , and those times helped in creation by thier actions..what do they do ? raise interest rates on debts already accrued , its that sort of action that makes me think , if you can screw them , do it

I'm not saying that the people in charge of the banks shouldn't have consequences - problem is getting good staff really

If you want the best you have to offer the best package. If as a country we limit the bonuses... guess where they'll go? Yep... abroad where bonuses are uncapped. If we left bonuses in place but implemented some serious penalties if they !!!!ed up... now THAT I could get behind

Get good staff but if they don't do their jobs then let it hurt THEM

Ames · 19 November 2009 at 1:35PM

But the clue was there that I wasn't working - that broke their rules. And the warning to other banks is there in that I've got massive defaults all over the place, so I can't even get a basic bank account. I do plan, once I'm in a position to possibly get credit again, to take steps to make sure I can't. I'm not sure what I can do, but when that time comes I'll find out.

never-in-doubt · 19 November 2009 at 1:39PM

Ames,

Exactly - another good case is the 80 year old man that got given a £23k loan over 7 years - ermmm ok! Oh, he earns pension and that's his lot.... Bottom line is the banks pushed through anything they could when the times were good (for them) but now they realise the enormity of their fuk up they are scared - very scared!

MrsTinks · 19 November 2009 at 1:39PM

I'm not sure but I think you can put a note on your credit files

A note should be enough to mean a manual intervention to approve credit - manual means someone has to look at your credit file and if you have put a note on there explaining not to give you credit due to bipolar disorder then you'd HOPE they paid attention (and that you didn't remove it yourself...)
I don't have a solution btw - I'm aware that there is no one solution to ANY of these problems

But I do like having debates about it that don't disintegrate into name calling

3 pages so far an no-one has gone for the jugular on a very sensitive subject... a first?

MrsTinks · 19 November 2009 at 1:41PM

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Ames,

Exactly - another good case is the 80 year old man that got given a £23k loan over 7 years - ermmm ok! Oh, he earns pension and that's his lot.... Bottom line is the banks pushed through anything they could when the times were good (for them) but now they realise the enormity of their fuk up they are scared - very scared!

I think that one is an exeption rather than the norm though

I am guessing - it may have been the norm for banks to lend thousands to people in their 80s...

I've just not seen many headlines other than that one case... as I say - I could be wrong!

never-in-doubt · 19 November 2009 at 1:46PM

MrsTine wrote: »

I'm not sure but I think you can put a note on your credit files A note should be enough to mean a manual intervention to approve credit - manual means someone has to look at your credit file and if you have put a note on there explaining not to give you credit due to bipolar disorder then you'd HOPE they paid attention (and that you didn't remove it yourself...)
I don't have a solution btw - I'm aware that there is no one solution to ANY of these problems But I do like having debates about it that don't disintegrate into name calling
3 pages so far an no-one has gone for the jugular on a very sensitive subject... a first?

Yes, you're right you'd put a NOC (notice of Correction) on your file but these only last so long and to be honest all they do is decline at first pending manual intervention so in theory it could work, but not foolproof.

Regards to the name calling - I know, i'm trying to be good cos it usually me that gets would up with you guys (i.e. the self richeous lot) lol

never-in-doubt · 19 November 2009 at 1:47PM

MrsTine wrote: »

I think that one is an exeption rather than the norm though I am guessing - it may have been the norm for banks to lend thousands to people in their 80s... I've just not seen many headlines other than that one case... as I say - I could be wrong!

It is an exception true, but what if there are 100,000 exceptions throughout the UK - then this becomes a bigger problem which really is what i'm trying to point out - we are all exceptions in our own right. :beer:

gilligansyle · 19 November 2009 at 1:48PM

MrsTine wrote: »

You'd go on a DMP - that way you can still feed your family. In extreem cases you can wipe the slate clean with going bankrupt.

But even bankruptcy is not suitable in all circumstances, levels of debt and how people react to them vary. Some people try to pay back 10's of thousands while others ignore relatively small amounts

Insomniac666 wrote: »

I think loopholes to clear unfair charges is fair game, but we do need to repay that which we borrow as set out in our t&c's, I know when it's done the sense of achievment I'll feel will be much better... not to say in the past deperate times i've had to make shortcuts..

:Tagree

Charco wrote: »

Not to keep correcting you on this one, but the word is responsibility - do you C the difference there? (I'll not be so churlish as to go down the road of saying who are you talk about it - you can't even spell the word!)

However, you haven't answered my question:
What is it exactly gives you the right to judge other people's morality?

If you want a moral crusade, you would be far more in line calling into the questions the morals of the banks... Which leads me onto Lilac Pixie!

Lilac - reclaiming charges and protection racket fees is A-ok! It does not reflect upon you. It is YOU calling into question the "morality" of the banks in their dealings with the public!

I thought this was a 'hypothetical' question. Nobody is judging other peoples morals, after all, we all have different views on lots of things, and we do live in a free country.
For many years I buried my head in the sand about my debts, not that I was unwilling to pay them, just that I couldn't work out how I could. Thanks to this site, I am paying them back, and feel better about it.

Just to sit on the fence a bit though.

There is a bit of a grey area around loans taken out using a joint account by my ex. For these, I will use the lack of enforceable credit agreement. He should have put them into his subsequent bankruptcy but conveniently forgot as they were in joint names, so if he got all his debts wiped, I don't see why I should pay them for him.

Toto · 19 November 2009 at 1:54PM

gilligansyle wrote: »

But even bankruptcy is not suitable in all circumstances, levels of debt and how people react to them vary. Some people try to pay back 10's of thousands while others ignore relatively small amounts

:Tagree

I thought this was a 'hypothetical' question. Nobody is judging other peoples morals, after all, we all have different views on lots of things, and we do live in a free country.
For many years I buried my head in the sand about my debts, not that I was unwilling to pay them, just that I couldn't work out how I could. Thanks to this site, I am paying them back, and feel better about it.

Just to sit on the fence a bit though.

There is a bit of a grey area around loans taken out using a joint account by my ex. For these, I will use the lack of enforceable credit agreement. He should have put them into his subsequent bankruptcy but conveniently forgot as they were in joint names, so if he got all his debts wiped, I don't see why I should pay them for him.

I don't think it's that he forgot, joint debts become the responsibility of the other person if one of the debtors goes bankrupt. So, sadly for you his half of the debt transfers to you as he is bankrupt.

Using loopholes in the law to avoid paying your debts - discuss ;)

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free