Panorama: Can't Pay, Won't Pay

moggylover

nicky135 wrote: »

I do see what you’re saying and to a certain point I agree with you...I think everyone’s circumstance is different.


I took out my loan when I could afford it...when I had my situation changed and I could no longer afford to pay the full amount I paid £80 a month (more than I could really afford, they could see this from incomings and out goings, I was not a won’t pay but a could not pay) They would'nt reduce the rate. I have no assets, no house etc and ecause of my income if tock me to court ,the court wouldn't order me to pay more than £12 a month...but I didn’t want a CCJ and I wanted to pay as much as I could...£80 until my circumstances change and I could the full amount.

I said to the bank ‘would it not be better to get £80.00 a month off me over a longer period paying more interest to them rather the courts stopping any interest and they only getting £12 a month’ they just said they didn’t care, they wouldn’t lose out because they would just sell my debt on

I don’t think I have explained my storey very well...this is only a small part of the issues I had with the bank but what I’m trying to say that the bank didn't handle things very well and their attitude is disgusting. If the banks use small print to their advantage why shouldn’t the public?

Possibly because two wrongs do not make a right! Seriously, I know that the banks do not always handle things well - but the more people exploit loopholes to get out of paying for the things that THEY themselves have had then the harsher the banks will get, and the harder it will be for people to borrow money. Plus, whilst I suppose I would not mind were that money recouped from myself and others where it had been for necessities and perhaps in an attempt to build a business and employ others - it would appear that the debts are often for the sort of expenditure that should only be made where one actually has the cash (i.e. holidays, clothes, cosmetics, new furniture) and not where debt will be necessary in order to have them.

I do, however, think that the best thing the Government could do at the moment is change the rules to make it necessary for the banks and loan companies to accept lower payments in the case of redundancy or ill health.

Maybe this recesson will teach people to have things one at a time and when they can buy them cash or with minimal credit instead of the sums they were talking about on the programme! That is not to say that I would not probably enjoy spending £120K of someone elses money whilst I was spending it;) as the couple on the programme did.

ManAtHome

moggylover wrote: »

I do, however, think that the best thing the Government could do at the moment is change the rules to make it necessary for the banks and loan companies to accept lower payments in the case of redundancy or ill health.

I doubt that will happen - the banks now have to decide between "can't pay" and "won't pay, but I'll string it out until I can make claim". I suspect they'll assume everyone is potentially in the second group - tough sh*t if you're in the (majority) first group.

SpoonyOh

I am in the 'can't pay' boat, but I'm determined to pay off as much as I can. I'm just hacked off that HSBC take such a problematic approach to account difficulties.
People who rack up thousands of pounds in debt they have no intention of paying off should be hauled in on fraud charges.

iolanthe07

People who get out of their commitments through legal loopholes, even though they could pay back what they borrowed, really pi$$ me off. They're just as immoral as the banks. Actually, it is a form of theft from the rest of us through having to pay higher rates and charges.

hoggums

Problem is now this has been publicised loads of people will be writing to banks in the hope they get their loans written off. In response the banks will no longer look into the cases and reply with a blanket 'sod off' letter putting the emphasis on the borrowers to prove any mistakes in court - knowing that most won't be able to afford to do so.

So I'm afraid you've missed the boat on that one now - I'm pretty sure banks will innudated with these letters.

Renovatio

I am sick of people who borrow money trying to find pathetic reasons to avoid repaying the debt; that is what is causing the credit crunch to spiral out of control!

I do have sympathy for people in difficulties, but if you cannot repay in full at least do the honourable thing and repay what you can under an agreement. The majority of these idiots who get debt wiped clean will just go and borrow more that they cannot afford to repay:mad:

Dylanwing

I don't have much love of Banks, but equally, I don't approve of those who jump onto the bandwagon looking for a technicality. Enough people have genuine claims, particularly with PPI, and the grabbers risk the blocking of proper cases. However, years ago I experience Bank "ethics" with debt collection (I did as they say, and contacted them quickly!), so part of me feels that if the Banks lack any morals, why expect customers to behave differently.
In my opinion, Banks need to be forced to treat customers fairly, concede defeat on unlawful Bank charges, and in return be exempt from the more frivolous claims, to get sanity back into the Banking sector, and perhaps rebuild a bit of trust. After all, there is no such thing as free money, as we have discovered with Utility Privatisations and de-mutualisation of building societies.

petermb_2

lol my new nickname is Croc
Cause I bite lenders back.

Should i put it on a web site?

petermb_2

Dylanwing wrote: »

I don't have much love of Banks, but equally, I don't approve of those who jump onto the bandwagon looking for a technicality. Enough people have genuine claims, particularly with PPI, and the grabbers risk the blocking of proper cases. However, years ago I experience Bank "ethics" with debt collection (I did as they say, and contacted them quickly!), so part of me feels that if the Banks lack any morals, why expect customers to behave differently.
In my opinion, Banks need to be forced to treat customers fairly, concede defeat on unlawful Bank charges, and in return be exempt from the more frivolous claims, to get sanity back into the Banking sector, and perhaps rebuild a bit of trust. After all, there is no such thing as free money, as we have discovered with Utility Privatisations and de-mutualisation of building societies.

So you mean allow them to continue commiting fraud, misrepresentation, bribery and obtaining property by deception.

As long as we get a few charges back and a little interest everything is hunky dorey.

It might be for you but the people who are losing their homes and being pestered night and day would not agree.

davey9998

did you know that the couple had a MORTGAGE BUSINESS. THATS RIGHT - A MORTGAGE BUSINESS!!

they were professionally qualified and must have had a consumer credit licence themselves and they were involved in selling mortgages/credit to other people.

therefore i think that they should have known what they were doing as they were taking out credit in a similar vein to their professional career and therefore they shouldn't have been classed as a retail client but possibly a professional and therefore the duty of care should have been lower.

i personally hope they have to pay back the loans and the legal fees and i hope they lose their home.

how can you flog credit to people and then complain when your excessive borrowing gets you in trouble.

what !!!!ed me off is the guy showed no remorse - living in a slum of the future thinking he was king !!!!!!!!