Panorama: Can't Pay, Won't Pay

bert&ernie

~Brock~ wrote: »

...
This thread is generally about the practice of people conning their way out of their obligations, not due to any misselling, but by taking advantage of alleged 'errors' which I am sure in 99.9% of cases made absolutely no difference to or prejudiced the rights of the those who claim to be the injured parties
...

Well I'm really glad your so sure of that. I suppose we could just dispense with consumer protection laws and ask you if someone has been prejudiced or not? We could get rid of the FSA, the OFT, a whole load of other TLAs, plus think of the court time it would save? Hey, why don't we extend it to criminal law too, the need for due process, judges and juries is so tiresome.

Of course this would be a lot of work and you'd probably have to delegate some of your powers to the other self-appointed moral guardians here on MSE. Many hands make light work and all that.

~Brock~

bert&ernie wrote: »

Well I'm really glad your so sure of that. I suppose we could just dispense with consumer protection laws and ask you if someone has been prejudiced or not? We could get rid of the FSA, the OFT, a whole load of other TLAs, plus think of the court time it would save? Hey, why don't we extend it to criminal law too, the need for due process, judges and juries is so tiresome.

Of course this would be a lot of work and you'd probably have to delegate some of your powers to the other self-appointed moral guardians here on MSE. Many hands make light work and all that.

I'm as sure as that in the same way that you appear to be as sure of the opposite.

Self appointed moral guardian.....moi !!?? No need to be so complimentary - I'm just saying it how I see it :rotfl:

Oh, and at the risk of repeating myself, the FSA do not regulate the Consumer Credit Act - an act which, contrary to what you may believe, I have no wish to see repealed - just used by BOTH sides in the manner and spirit to which it was intended.

maxdp

~Brock~ wrote: »

So am I still a self righteous !!!! then ? :rotfl:

No you have your opinions based on your life experiences others have theirs based on their life experiences. Thats is why we all have different points of view:eek:

maxdp

bert&ernie wrote: »

Well I'm really glad your so sure of that. I suppose we could just dispense with consumer protection laws and ask you if someone has been prejudiced or not? We could get rid of the FSA, the OFT, a whole load of other TLAs, plus think of the court time it would save? Hey, why don't we extend it to criminal law too, the need for due process, judges and juries is so tiresome.

Of course this would be a lot of work and you'd probably have to delegate some of your powers to the other self-appointed moral guardians here on MSE. Many hands make light work and all that.

Well done bert and ernie:D

bert&ernie

~Brock~ wrote: »

I'm as sure as that in the same way that you appear to be as sure of the opposite.

Self appointed moral guardian.....moi !!?? No need to be so complimentary - I'm just saying it how I see it :rotfl:

Oh, and at the risk of repeating myself, the FSA do not regulate the Consumer Credit Act - an act which, contrary to what you may believe, I have no wish to see repealed - just used by BOTH sides in the manner and spirit to which it was intended.

Seems I got your number right. You misunderstand me though - I don't think the opposite of what I quoted from you - I dont think like that at all. I just believe that people are entitled to play the game, just as the banks do.

I see you have resorted to the old cliche about the spirit of the law. As I say, its a game and both sides should play to win. I've never said that the result of this was beneficial to the wider society (in fact I have often said the opposite). However, individuals make their own decisions and can choose to stand up for themselves - they don't need you to tell them what to do, and you certainly don't have the right to judge them for that.

By the way, I'm well aware that the FSA don't regulate the consumer credit act, but they do play a role in the wider consumer protection laws that I was referring to. If you had read my post properly, you could have avoided the need to repeat yourself.

maxdp

bert&ernie wrote: »

Seems I got your number right. You misunderstand me though - I don't think the opposite of what I quoted from you - I dont think like that at all. I just believe that people are entitled to play the game, just as the banks do.

I see you have resorted to the old cliche about the spirit of the law. As I say, its a game and both sides should play to win. I've never said that the result of this was beneficial to the wider society (in fact I have often said the opposite). However, individuals make their own decisions and can choose to stand up for themselves - they don't need you to tell them what to do, and you certainly don't have the right to judge them for that.

I quite agree. We do not live everybodies life so how can we judge. We all no morally what is right and wrong but sometimes when we are up against a brick wall we all have the right to fight our corner. That is why living in this country is good cause we can do that.;)

marshallka

~Brock~ wrote: »

Maxdp please don't confuse 'trying to avoid paying for debts by looking for loopholes' with PPI misselling. That is the point I was trying to make with Marshallka further up this page.

This thread is generally about the practice of people conning their way out of their obligations, not due to any misselling, but by taking advantage of alleged 'errors' which I am sure in 99.9% of cases made absolutely no difference to or prejudiced the rights of the those who claim to be the injured parties.

So far there appears to be an equal number of posters from both sides of the fence which is making for a healthy, if slightly repetitive, debate.

Some people are making claims against the whole loan on looking for errors on the loan agreements AFTER first trying to reclaim the PPI that was added to their original loans through misselling. Their first claim is ONLY against the PPI and after being fobbed off by these greedy companies that know that the claims fall outside the jurisdiction of the FOS and going through the courts would be costly and often too stressful, they are left with no option than to look for whatever ways they have of saving their homes for their families.

Most people are not looking to get out of paying money that they borrowed and owe but are looking for money taken from them through nothing more than greed.

I totally agree that money that is borrowed should always be paid back and if you cannot then you face whatever consequences but most people want to pay and with having been given more debt than they can really afford by way of single premium PPI policies they are often in too deep to get out... These policies were wrong, are wrong and will always be wrong..if the banks want to play with "you signed the agreement etc and that is that" (knowing that if the dates were right for the FOS the consumer would most often win) then why should the consumer not play them at their own game...

credithelp

~Brock~ wrote: »

:eek:

Same reasons!!??

The whole PPI shambles is about non compliance with FSA Regulations.

The FSA do not regulate unsecured credit. God help us all if they ever did. Where will it end?

In the shoe shop (in the not too distant future?)
"I would like to buy a pair of black leather shoes please."
"Sir, if only it were that simple. Here's my card and a set of Key Facts documents."
"What are these for?"
"They tell you that I can only talk to you about shoes and allied products sold by this shop. I can't talk to you about shoes sold by any other shoe shop nor can I give you any advice on, say, sausages for instance"
“I see."
"Probably the best way to proceed is to show you where we fit into the footwear industry. We buy in most of our products from the Far East at a fairly modest price and sell them onto the public at a considerably higher price; but of course out of the mark up we have to pay for transportation, import duties, rent and rates, display staff, sales staff, cleaners and administration, etc., etc, and, of course, our shareholders have to be paid a dividend out of the remaining profits. Not many people think about this when they buy their shoes but we think it's important, so with this in mind I'd like to ask you a few questions to make sure you get the shoes, or even boots, that are exactly right for you. It may be, when I have all the facts, I recommend that you do not buy my footwear at all. May I proceed?''
"What, do you want to know?”
"Well, how many arms and legs have you got for a start?”
"What have arms got to do with shoes?”
"Well, Sir. If, for example, you only have one arm and I sold you a pair of shoes with laces that could be construed as bad advice by BASTIRO.”
'What is BASTIRO?"
"The Boot and Shoe Trade & Industry Regulatory Organisation"
"What would they do?"
"Put the boot in. A friend of mine had to leave the industry."
“What did he do wrong?”
"Sold a pair of carpet slippers."
"What's wrong with that?"
"Turned out the guy hadn't got a carpet. So you see, I need to build up a full picture of you. For example, do you need the shoes for business or pleasure or business and pleasure? How many shoes have you got already? How many casuals, suede, plimsolls, sandals, Wellingtons, etc? How many suits ‑ what colour are they? Have you athletes foot? Can you touch your toes? Any corns or bunions or has your family a history of foot rot? What kind of socks do you wear? ‑ How often do you cut your toe‑nails? How much do you earn and what's your overall clothes budget? Well thank you for that information. I'll give it some serious thought and would like you to come back in two weeks’ time.”
Two weeks later....
"Ah good morning, Sir. I've given it serious thought and what you need is a pair of black leather shoes."
"Isn't that what I asked for in the first place?"
"With respect Sir, you have had the benefit of my professional advice based upon all the relevant facts as given and you now know with some certainty that you require black leather shoes. All that guesswork has been taken out of it. Here's your Suitability Letter, and Key Features Documents ‑ I recommend you buy these black leather shoes because they'll keep your feet dry, match your suits, look smart and you can afford them."
"Well, I'm glad that's settled!"
`You want the shoes then?"
`Yes please."
"Right, if you'd like to complete this application form, and here's your Personal Illustration. It shows a complete breakdown of costs and profits and includes my 50p commission. Your Key Features Documents describe in great detail how the shoes are made, and highlights the risk factors."
"Risk factors?"
`Yes, for example if you live too long the shoes may need repairing. On the other hand, if you die before you've had your wear out of them I'm afraid there'll be no refund, even if they don't fit another member of your family."
“I see."
"So, just to recap: You've got my card, both Key Facts documents, your Key Features Documents, Brochure, Personal Illustration, Suitability Letter. Now Sir, you will get a letter from my Head Office telling you that I do in fact work for A.& R. Sole Ltd and also a Statutory Cooling-off Notice. You can still return the shoes within 30 days and have a full refund if you don't like them for any reason. Incidentally, how are you paying?"
"Cash."
"Sorry, Sir. That’s not allowed. You'll have to run home and get your cheque book. Also, whilst you're at it, could you bring me a recent utility bill, your passport and Council Tax bill to prove your identity. One last thing Sir, do any of you friends require shoes?"
:rotfl:

(due credit to the original author of the above - whoever he/she is!)

Brock

Funny as heck! Although, it's only that funny because it's true!

It's nice to see that an injection of humour can sometimes galvanise the subject in one's mind.

By the way, it sounds like the kind of satire that Bird & Fortune would do.

~Brock~

credithelp wrote: »

Brock

Funny as heck! Although, it's only that funny because it's true!

It's nice to see that an injection of humour can sometimes galvanise the subject in one's mind.

By the way, it sounds like the kind of satire that Bird & Fortune would do.

Hi credithelp. I'm pleased you found my little story funny and also understood the context in which I posted it. I was starting to lose the will to live.......

marshallka

~Brock~ wrote: »

:eek:

Same reasons!!??

The whole PPI shambles is about non compliance with FSA Regulations.

The FSA do not regulate unsecured credit. God help us all if they ever did. Where will it end?

In the shoe shop (in the not too distant future?)
"I would like to buy a pair of black leather shoes please."
"Sir, if only it were that simple. Here's my card and a set of Key Facts documents."
"What are these for?"
"They tell you that I can only talk to you about shoes and allied products sold by this shop. I can't talk to you about shoes sold by any other shoe shop nor can I give you any advice on, say, sausages for instance"
“I see."
"Probably the best way to proceed is to show you where we fit into the footwear industry. We buy in most of our products from the Far East at a fairly modest price and sell them onto the public at a considerably higher price; but of course out of the mark up we have to pay for transportation, import duties, rent and rates, display staff, sales staff, cleaners and administration, etc., etc, and, of course, our shareholders have to be paid a dividend out of the remaining profits. Not many people think about this when they buy their shoes but we think it's important, so with this in mind I'd like to ask you a few questions to make sure you get the shoes, or even boots, that are exactly right for you. It may be, when I have all the facts, I recommend that you do not buy my footwear at all. May I proceed?''
"What, do you want to know?”
"Well, how many arms and legs have you got for a start?”
"What have arms got to do with shoes?”
"Well, Sir. If, for example, you only have one arm and I sold you a pair of shoes with laces that could be construed as bad advice by BASTIRO.”
'What is BASTIRO?"
"The Boot and Shoe Trade & Industry Regulatory Organisation"
"What would they do?"
"Put the boot in. A friend of mine had to leave the industry."
“What did he do wrong?”
"Sold a pair of carpet slippers."
"What's wrong with that?"
"Turned out the guy hadn't got a carpet. So you see, I need to build up a full picture of you. For example, do you need the shoes for business or pleasure or business and pleasure? How many shoes have you got already? How many casuals, suede, plimsolls, sandals, Wellingtons, etc? How many suits ‑ what colour are they? Have you athletes foot? Can you touch your toes? Any corns or bunions or has your family a history of foot rot? What kind of socks do you wear? ‑ How often do you cut your toe‑nails? How much do you earn and what's your overall clothes budget? Well thank you for that information. I'll give it some serious thought and would like you to come back in two weeks’ time.”
Two weeks later....
"Ah good morning, Sir. I've given it serious thought and what you need is a pair of black leather shoes."
"Isn't that what I asked for in the first place?"
"With respect Sir, you have had the benefit of my professional advice based upon all the relevant facts as given and you now know with some certainty that you require black leather shoes. All that guesswork has been taken out of it. Here's your Suitability Letter, and Key Features Documents ‑ I recommend you buy these black leather shoes because they'll keep your feet dry, match your suits, look smart and you can afford them."
"Well, I'm glad that's settled!"
`You want the shoes then?"
`Yes please."
"Right, if you'd like to complete this application form, and here's your Personal Illustration. It shows a complete breakdown of costs and profits and includes my 50p commission. Your Key Features Documents describe in great detail how the shoes are made, and highlights the risk factors."
"Risk factors?"
`Yes, for example if you live too long the shoes may need repairing. On the other hand, if you die before you've had your wear out of them I'm afraid there'll be no refund, even if they don't fit another member of your family."
“I see."
"So, just to recap: You've got my card, both Key Facts documents, your Key Features Documents, Brochure, Personal Illustration, Suitability Letter. Now Sir, you will get a letter from my Head Office telling you that I do in fact work for A.& R. Sole Ltd and also a Statutory Cooling-off Notice. You can still return the shoes within 30 days and have a full refund if you don't like them for any reason. Incidentally, how are you paying?"
"Cash."
"Sorry, Sir. That’s not allowed. You'll have to run home and get your cheque book. Also, whilst you're at it, could you bring me a recent utility bill, your passport and Council Tax bill to prove your identity. One last thing Sir, do any of you friends require shoes?"
:rotfl:

(due credit to the original author of the above - whoever he/she is!)

Actually I have just read this did find it amusing so credit where credit is due. PMSL:T ... but the PPI reclaiming goes on cause they ripped us off. Plain and simple as that..Its nothing about FSA regulations, its about we were not given choices about where to buy our PPI or if we even wanted/needed it at all and induced to more debt needlessly...They were greedy...and we want back what is ours...