Panorama: Can't Pay, Won't Pay

StuTheDon

kevin.philips wrote: »

Am I business, is my core competency in lending money....?? If I lend you money I am working on the basis that it is legally binding, I would have an agreement worded to ensure that such a mistake would not prevent me from recovering my money from you in such circumstances. I would use insured legal representation to cover me from as many aspects as I thought necessary.

With relevance let me ask you if you think it is okay on matters with a similar legal grounding...... the person who receives a parking ticket which is subsequently rescinded because the sign was obscure, the speeding points removed because the machine tolerance has to be set on a plus 10% basis......

My point is law is law, yes there are issues that stir emotions, some more than others but if we as a democratic nation are to change things it can't be by blaming those that are now reaping the benefits from such institutions who should have and more importantly could have done it better. We can't pick which ones we support, the ones we like or dont like and how we interpret them, we must accept, change and move on.

But you didnt answer my question - would you be annoyed if I didnt pay you back on a technicality. I know you are not a bank - I am speaking about a person to person agreement.

kevin.philips

StuTheDon wrote: »

But you didnt answer my question - would you be annoyed if I didnt pay you back on a technicality. I know you are not a bank - I am speaking about a person to person agreement.

Then there is no basis, these are generally not enforceable anyway if there was never legal intent for them to be binding... On a person to person basis I could at best only HOPE that you will ever pay me back.

If I lend a friend money and feel the need to have an agreement then I would be taking insured legal advice .... lalalala (See above)....

You are missing my point. If there is an agreement and that agreement is not structured correctly then the debt becomes unenforceable... I am all for any goods purchased under that debt belonging to the original credit provider but we must stick to the facts and the frameworks responsible for dealing with the alterantive paths in processing those facts. Hypothetical statements will always be irrelevant.

duggie1982

StuTheDon wrote: »

I agree but at the end of the day screwing companies over costs the consumer in the long term.

I totally agree some of them deserve it, but not because I dont want to pay back debt.

Maybe the law should be changed that if an agreement is deemed unenforceable that the goods or any items purchased on credit are returned to the finance company. I dont hear many people offering to do
that.

That’s true, but then we could argue the point of the unenforceable agreement could have been open for several years (credit card) give the stuff back but then should I be entitled to claim back the interest I paid all those years?

kevin.philips

duggie1982 wrote: »

That’s true, but then we could argue the point of the unenforceable agreement could have been open for several years (credit card) give the stuff back but then should I be entitled to claim back the interest I paid all those years?

You wouldn'y pay interest, just return the goods or the original capital value, the charges for interest and defaults etc should not be included, I support this model.

never-in-doubt

StuTheDon wrote: »

Kevin - go and lend us £100 and I'll pay you back £120 in 6 months time.

Fast forward 6 months - oh, you missed a decimal point in the APR on the IOU note. Therefore I'm not going to pay you back any of the money.

Do you agree with that?

How many times - typo's (spelling errors) do not constitute unenforceability - I posted the link and you acknowledged it so get it right, sigh

never-in-doubt

PROLIANT wrote: »

Nail - On - head! People in this country need to take responsibility for their actions and we as a nation should persecute those instantiating the "Nanny State" and it's supporters - the "I will not take responsibility for my life cos the government says I don’t have to" brigade, do we have this problem in France, Germany, Norway....et al? I think not, just the good old UK and USA, to greedy and selfish to give a stuff about anyone else other than their selfish little selves.

What? We're not in Germany, France or France.... stick to the facts

In the UK there is legislation that allows us to challenge bullies - when we do, and win then don't whinge at us, whinge at the law makers. The same law makers that you're protecting an another breath!

You can't have it both ways - the banks and government are to blame - not the consumer

never-in-doubt

StuTheDon wrote: »

Maybe the law should be changed that if an agreement is deemed unenforceable that the goods or any items purchased on credit are returned to the finance company. I dont hear many people offering to do that.

This currently happens with leasing in the first couple of years - that would be an even sillier law to propose as with leasing, say a car, you simply take the keys n and walk away.

How would that achieve anything? I buy a load of kitchen gear and in time its all broken/used/tarnished and decide not to pay so send it all in to the card issuer - clever move, damn, why didn't the gvt think of this earlier?

never-in-doubt

StuTheDon wrote: »

But you didnt answer my question - would you be annoyed if I didnt pay you back on a technicality. I know you are not a bank - I am speaking about a person to person agreement.

Just to clear this up - you do not utilise unenforceability due to a technicality - it is utilised when the bank or lender have broken the terms of the consumer credit act. This is a little more serious than a simple 'typo' or 'technicality'

kevin.philips

PROLIANT wrote: »

Well, if I had the money maybe I would leave the UK and the divvies that have ruined it behind!
Oh how this country makes me want to puke! Shame the BNP didn't get as many votes as we hoped for, never mind, better luck next time Nick - Might sort these idiots out who live off the backs of others, restore some control and back-bone the mother-land.

I'm sure there are enough people who will happily throw into he pot and pay for you to leave.

never-in-doubt

duggie1982 wrote: »

Loads of people as well as companies get out of paying money out.

E.G. Bit off topic but I have house insurance, paid it for years. Kitchen ceiling falls in and then get told by my insurance company that I won’t get anything as its classed as wear and tear. Gutted!

Pestered them till they paid up.

Moral of the story if I was say someone who just accepted these things I would have been a few grand out of pocket.

I personally believe it’s about time the consumer can screw those companies back that have had screwed us for so long.

Not looking for an argument, just pointing out my view on this.

Mate you're spot on. Too many of these companies hide behind their terms and throw them at us when they don't want to pay out, we all know other people rip-off insurers by lying on their claim but does that mean we'd do it or have a go at them all? Nope.

As I say, I hope something like this happens to proliant or one of the other mouths, then see how much they complain about a company hiding behind its terms 'grasping at straws asking for help to find a flaw in their terms'.... it'll happen, watch this space :eek:

That is what's happening here, too many people with sour grapes, they actually think that people not paying debt directly involves them when really they are just jealous cos they have to pay up and shut up.

Regards insurers, they are the worst !!!!!!s but notice the government isn't threatening them with the same sanctions they are with the banks? This is cos the banks have done 100x worse than the insurers.......