Panorama: Can't Pay, Won't Pay

marshallka · 28 November 2008 at 10:59AM

credithelp wrote: »

Lest we forget, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is consumer protection LAW, it's not a get-out clause and it's their for our protection. If it's being ignored or abused by the credit lenders then they have to be prepared to be challenged.

That I do agree with you on...

petermb_2 · 28 November 2008 at 11:14AM

credithelp wrote: »

I want to respond to the several posts that precede this one.

I work in the credit compensation business. I have personally gained compensation and written off credit agreements for my clients totalling 6 figures - you cannot tell me that I am not helping them!

You are all very mistaken about the compensation always being swallowed up by the costs. If you have any understanding of the County Court system you will be aware that successful claims in excess of £5000 allow for the Claimant to claim court costs and solicitors fees from the other side, meaning that their compensation is unaffected by solicitors fees. Also, if a solicitor works on a 'No Win, No Fee' basis, then an unsuccessful claim results in ZERO legal fees to the client. Please understand that no competent solicitor will work on a 'No Win, No Fee' basis unless they are very confident of success. Obvious, really.

I know there are businesses out there that are not as scrupulous as my employer, but you have to see the business for what it is - a very real way for consumers to claim compensation for having had their LEGAL RIGHTS trampled by the credit lenders.

Lest we forget, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is consumer protection LAW, it's not a get-out clause and it's their for our protection. If it's being ignored or abused by the credit lenders then they have to be prepared to be challenged.

If anyone on this forum wishes to investigate this route then please PM me. I am more than happy to discuss how I may be able to help you. Please note that my employer does not charge any upfront fees to determine whether you have a basis for a successful claim, meaning that you are not placed 'at risk' just to find out.

The claims business has always been notorious for, I will be polite, "attracting the wrong sort of person". It is hardly surprising it has the reputation it has. It was dodgy in the days of Personal Injury and with the advent of financial claims it is repeating itself.

But then , does that not reflect life? People wanting to get rich quick without a care for those they take the money off.

I agree, there are a few and I mean a few who will offer a relevant, valuable and ethical service. Sadly vastly outweighed by those who wish to charge fees at every opportunity.

The truth is that lenders have gotten away with some real shoddy practices and broken the law of the land over and over. The reason they have not been brought to task is that thosein the past that challenged loans were those facing repossesssion. If they had the money to pay a solicitor they would not be in arrears in the first place.

The lenders knew this and took advantage.

The advent of Access to Justice has changed all that. With funded and insured cases the borrower can now take on the institutions without the fear of incurring further costs. If it is set up correctly.

Sadly very few claims companies have used this relatively new system. It is easier just to charge the client than to seek out the funding required for such a scheme.

However, there are a few who offer the ethical way.

JMcredit · 3 July 2009 at 3:43PM

Hi
This is the first time time i am on forums. So please be help ful and ignore my mistakes. I have got two outstanding unsecured agreements which were taken before 2007. One has outstanding of 10k and 17K . My circumstances have changed recently anf finding difficult to keep up with tthe payments( so far all up to date). I did spek with the lenders to give me some discount if i was to settke the account. however they are not willing to help.

I dont know if all these companies who claims to have loan written off before 2007 at a cost of £350 and 10% of outstanding amount. Their claim is they can have it written off in 28 days or they have all the debt written on their name..so legally i wont be no longer liable.

Is this true ? can companies can really do that.

And you are saying you work for a comapny who dont charge any upfront fee ..so how does it work with your company..would u be able to help me ..

Thanks
JM

credithelp wrote: »

I want to respond to the several posts that precede this one.

I work in the credit compensation business. I have personally gained compensation and written off credit agreements for my clients totalling 6 figures - you cannot tell me that I am not helping them!

You are all very mistaken about the compensation always being swallowed up by the costs. If you have any understanding of the County Court system you will be aware that successful claims in excess of £5000 allow for the Claimant to claim court costs and solicitors fees from the other side, meaning that their compensation is unaffected by solicitors fees. Also, if a solicitor works on a 'No Win, No Fee' basis, then an unsuccessful claim results in ZERO legal fees to the client. Please understand that no competent solicitor will work on a 'No Win, No Fee' basis unless they are very confident of success. Obvious, really.

I know there are businesses out there that are not as scrupulous as my employer, but you have to see the business for what it is - a very real way for consumers to claim compensation for having had their LEGAL RIGHTS trampled by the credit lenders.

Lest we forget, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is consumer protection LAW, it's not a get-out clause and it's their for our protection. If it's being ignored or abused by the credit lenders then they have to be prepared to be challenged.

If anyone on this forum wishes to investigate this route then please PM me. I am more than happy to discuss how I may be able to help you. Please note that my employer does not charge any upfront fees to determine whether you have a basis for a successful claim, meaning that you are not placed 'at risk' just to find out.

orangetrader · 3 July 2009 at 6:04PM

See OFT warning AGAINST companies that offer to buy debt http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/72-09
There are a couple of companies that will assess your loans free-of-charge to see if they comply with the Consumer Credit Act see http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...=#post19540523:j

melorablack · 3 July 2009 at 7:49PM

You spent the money so you must pay it back.

Why do some people think it is one rule for them and another for everyone else?

maxdp · 3 July 2009 at 9:41PM

If you have willingly signed up for this debt and you knew what you were doing and were not coerced into taking on the debt then why should you claim it back. If you were forced into it for whatever reason that is a different matter. Your bebt sort it.

bert&ernie · 4 July 2009 at 2:05PM

melorablack wrote: »

You spent the money so you must pay it back.

Why do some people think it is one rule for them and another for everyone else?

The legal rules are the same for everyone. If you choose to apply a different set of moral rules, then more fool you.

melorablack · 5 July 2009 at 10:31AM

bert&ernie wrote: »

The legal rules are the same for everyone. If you choose to apply a different set of moral rules, then more fool you.

Where I live it is common knowledge that due to some really old law it is apparently (also I can't verify this) legal to shoot a Welsh man in the back with a crossbow after midnight within the walls of Chester. Now saying this was true and it was perfectly legal would you go out and do it?

If you were to borrow money off your mum would you not pay it back because there was no legal requirement for you to do so?

If everyone didn't pay back the loans they took out, spent and now don't want to be responsible for it'll do wonders for the economy and thousands of people doing the everyday jobs in the banks like the cashiers and the call centre workers, people in the same financial positions as you or me or anyone else on this forum, will lose their jobs as each bank goes under. Like Northern Rock, like HBOS. Then we have thousands more people claiming from the state and unable to repay their loans and the circle continues.

You borrowed it, agreed to their terms and spent it. Now pay it back.

bert&ernie · 5 July 2009 at 7:51PM

melorablack wrote: »

Where I live it is common knowledge that due to some really old law it is apparently (also I can't verify this) legal to shoot a Welsh man in the back with a crossbow after midnight within the walls of Chester. Now saying this was true and it was perfectly legal would you go out and do it?

If you were to borrow money off your mum would you not pay it back because there was no legal requirement for you to do so?

If everyone didn't pay back the loans they took out, spent and now don't want to be responsible for it'll do wonders for the economy and thousands of people doing the everyday jobs in the banks like the cashiers and the call centre workers, people in the same financial positions as you or me or anyone else on this forum, will lose their jobs as each bank goes under. Like Northern Rock, like HBOS. Then we have thousands more people claiming from the state and unable to repay their loans and the circle continues.

You borrowed it, agreed to their terms and spent it. Now pay it back.

Oh dear. I wont dignify your first question with a response.

As for the second, I think you know as well as I that borrowing money from friends and family is completely different to borrowing from a commercial lender.

A bank feels no moral obligation to its customers. Its only obligation is to its shareholders and its motivation to lend is simply profit.

I wont argue with you about who ultimately pays the costs of unenforceable agreements. However, I would ask you to consider who is to blame for this. The banks could have avoided the problem altogether by acquiring business in a legally compliant way.

You also paint a rather catastrophic picture of where this might ultimately lead. I suggest that this has more to do with justifying you own righteous indignation at the fact that this "loophole" exists than any real fear for the future of the economy or the jobs of lowly financial services workers.

Morglin · 6 July 2009 at 6:08AM

It's a no-brainer who pays the cost of 'unenforceable agreements' - the other customers who are paying back their debts, and who may want further credit.:rolleyes:

What banks lose on the one hand, they will recoup with the other - and so they up all the charges etc., to the good customers, to make up for the 'bad debts'.

Surely, the 'agreement', and the only relevant part, is that a customer applies for a loan, he gets accepted, reads the agreement, signs it and recieves the funds. He should then pay it back.

I'm not talking about those people who get into genuine problems - but this trawling around, by those that can pay, trying to find some minor loophole that will mean their debts don't have to be paid is harmful to the country, economywise, and to honest customers.

Lin

Panorama: Can't Pay, Won't Pay

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