Panorama: Can't Pay, Won't Pay

bert&ernie

~Brock~ wrote: »

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.......

I found the story amusing too - as a juxtaposition of PPI and shoe sales. However, it doesn't really tell you anything other than that fact that buying shoes is different to buying PPI.

If your are using it to try and suggest that PPI sales are over-regulated, then I really don't think it works. I won't deny that the regulated sales process is clunky and inconvenient for a lot of customers. However, its there to protect consumers from the very real threat of mis-selling.

This is a massive money spinner for lenders and they have always sold it hard, even more so now that the credit crunch has severely eaten into margins on credit sales. Demand is also rising from consumers who are scared of loosing their jobs due to the recession.

Perhaps there's still time for them to make a few bucks before the competition commission spoil the party, but then I guess you'll be objecting to their proposals too?

marshallka

bert&ernie wrote: »

I found the story amusing too - as a juxtaposition of PPI and shoe sales. However, it doesn't really tell you anything other than that fact that buying shoes is different to buying PPI.

If your are using it to try and suggest that PPI sales are over-regulated, then I really don't think it works. I won't deny that the regulated sales process is clunky and inconvenient for a lot of customers. However, its there to protect consumers from the very real threat of mis-selling.

This is a massive money spinner for lenders and they have always sold it hard, even more so now that the credit crunch has severely eaten into margins on credit sales. Demand is also rising from consumers who are scared of loosing their jobs due to the recession.

Perhaps there's still time for them to make a few bucks before the competition commission spoil the party, but then I guess you'll be objecting to their proposals too?

I am a PPI reclaimer and think that all sales of single premiums and forced upon other sales are wrong. However, I can see the funny side of the little tale. Its about where does it all end... .

~Brock~

bert&ernie wrote: »

I found the story amusing too - as a juxtaposition of PPI and shoe sales. However, it doesn't really tell you anything other than that fact that buying shoes is different to buying PPI.

If your are using it to try and suggest that PPI sales are over-regulated, then I really don't think it works. I won't deny that the regulated sales process is clunky and inconvenient for a lot of customers. However, its there to protect consumers from the very real threat of mis-selling.

This is a massive money spinner for lenders and they have always sold it hard, even more so now that the credit crunch has severely eaten into margins on credit sales. Demand is also rising from consumers who are scared of loosing their jobs due to the recession.

Perhaps there's still time for them to make a few bucks before the competition commission spoil the party, but then I guess you'll be objecting to their proposals too?

OMG :eek: I didn't realise this was going to get dissected to the n'th degree !!

I posted the story because of this.

Originally Posted by marshallka
A lot of people making claims against banks start off claiming for just the PPI being missold and get told by the bank "you signed the agreement so that is that". Now if they have no recourse through the FOS and are struggling to make ends meet then why should they not claim back for the same reasons.

I was respectfully trying to point out that trying to exploit loopholes and get debt written off is NOT the same reasons as claiming back mis-sold PPI. In order to illustrate this I make the point of advising that the FSA does not regulte the sale of unsecured credit (unlike PPI). I then went on to say that I didn't think that it would be good for the majority of consumers if this were to happen, and asked where would it end. I then submitted the story as a tongue in cheek example of where it could all end.

I appreciate that you guys are all obsessed with PPI, but can we please allow this thread to get back on topic, which as I see it is back to talking about a couple who are basking in a publicity windfall (again) courtesy of the BBC, after swindling several lenders out of money knowing full well what they were doing and in a pre-emptive manner.

In my day you used to have to do that with a sawn off shotgun and a silly mask. Oh well.... that's progress I suppose.

maxdp

~Brock~ wrote: »

OMG :eek: I didn't realise this was going to get dissected to the n'th degree !!

I posted the story because of this.

Originally Posted by marshallka
A lot of people making claims against banks start off claiming for just the PPI being missold and get told by the bank "you signed the agreement so that is that". Now if they have no recourse through the FOS and are struggling to make ends meet then why should they not claim back for the same reasons.




I was respectfully trying to point out that trying to exploit loopholes and get debt written off is NOT the same reasons as claiming back mis-sold PPI. In order to illustrate this I make the point of advising that the FSA does not regulte the sale of unsecured credit (unlike PPI). I then went on to say that I didn't think that it would be good for the majority of consumers if this were to happen, and asked where would it end. I then submitted the story as a tongue in cheek example of where it could all end.

I appreciate that you guys are all obsessed with PPI, but can we please allow this thread to get back on topic, which as I see it is back to talking about a couple who are basking in a publicity windfall (again) courtesy of the BBC, after swindling several lenders out of money knowing full well what they were doing and in a pre-emptive manner.

In my day you used to have to do that with a sawn off shotgun and a silly mask. Oh well.... that's progress I suppose.

This from the person that used up half a board talking about selling shoes:rolleyes: although amusing:D off the subject:eek:

petermb_2

We Seem to have to repeat stuff over and over. Some get it some dont. So just for the benefit of those who dont seem to understand at all.

It is fine for the banks to make £Billions of profit as long as they make it honestly. The problem with Single premium PPI is that it isnt honest. It is a con. When up to 80% of the premium is shared between the lender and your broker so you are just rewarding them for providing you with a pig in a poke I think you have to draw the line.

But then it goes further. My sentiment is that if you live by the sword you die by it too. So if you are going to use the law of the land to bully and pester people who are having difficulties you had better have got your sums and your agreements right.
The lenders cant have it both ways. You cant use the law when it suits and then bleat when it turns to bite you back.

The lenders are really in for a tough time in the coming months and years as they have committed so many sins and got away with it by using bully boy tactics.

But then what goes around comes around.

I have always said " How do you compensate someone for losing their home? How do you compensate a bread winner when he has lost his family after losing his home? How do you compensate a family when the breadwinner ended it all because he lost his family home?

If the loan was unenforceable or voidable, God help the lender. And the legal profession to a degree. In most cases the courts have just rubber stamped repossessions, quite often without ever really wanting to see if the actual preceedings were legal or not.

credithelp

petermb wrote: »

We Seem to have to repeat stuff over and over. Some get it some dont. So just for the benefit of those who dont seem to understand at all.

It is fine for the banks to make £Billions of profit as long as they make it honestly. The problem with Single premium PPI is that it isnt honest. It is a con. When up to 80% of the premium is shared between the lender and your broker so you are just rewarding them for providing you with a pig in a poke I think you have to draw the line.

But then it goes further. My sentiment is that if you live by the sword you die by it too. So if you are going to use the law of the land to bully and pester people who are having difficulties you had better have got your sums and your agreements right.
The lenders cant have it both ways. You cant use the law when it suits and then bleat when it turns to bite you back.

The lenders are really in for a tough time in the coming months and years as they have committed so many sins and got away with it by using bully boy tactics.

But then what goes around comes around.

I have always said " How do you compensate someone for losing their home? How do you compensate a bread winner when he has lost his family after losing his home? How do you compensate a family when the breadwinner ended it all because he lost his family home?

If the loan was unenforceable or voidable, God help the lender. And the legal profession to a degree. In most cases the courts have just rubber stamped repossessions, quite often without ever really wanting to see if the actual preceedings were legal or not.

Here, here!

Now play nice guys and enough with the criticising of the 'shoes' sketch - it was damn funny ... and relevant!

annieadvisor

I agree - lets get back on the subject matter.

One thing is straight here the couple on the panorama show ended up with egg on their face by incurring huge legal bills which can never be written off/ included on a bankruptcy/ be forgotten. So who really won?

There are many so called experts out there only too willing to offer no win no fee and give people false hope as well as dodgy advice. Where are all these people when creditors want to go to court and in some cases list this for trial? Why cant people understand that free advice services can actually do this at no cost and give them the real picture - heck we even go to court with them for free (provided they have a case).

I am sick of picking up the pieces of **** advice and having to tell people that the hopes they had of 1. nver having to pay back anything 2.original information was wrong, 3. yes you have signed a credit agreement and anything won will be swallowed up by the bill from the so called expert advisors, 4. You dont actually have a case and 5. the money you invested in your "free advice" has put you at risk of losing your home because you were so desperate you tried anything and 6. sorry about your bank account being frozen after your claim for unfair charges and 7. you really arent guaranteed to get the charges back so it was a bad idea to bank on it (no pun intended).

Am I making myself clear?

As usual some herberts think they can make money without giving a damn about the consequences. we pick up desperate people thinking they can win and need representation on a case with no merit. Get the message - legal aid do not pay for barristers in hopeless cases does that tell you something?

Rant over. Pay your debts and give those with an actual genuine case the pathway to justice.

~Brock~

annieadvisor wrote: »

I agree - lets get back on the subject matter.

One thing is straight here the couple on the panorama show ended up with egg on their face by incurring huge legal bills which can never be written off/ included on a bankruptcy/ be forgotten. So who really won?

There are many so called experts out there only too willing to offer no win no fee and give people false hope as well as dodgy advice. Where are all these people when creditors want to go to court and in some cases list this for trial? Why cant people understand that free advice services can actually do this at no cost and give them the real picture - heck we even go to court with them for free (provided they have a case).

I am sick of picking up the pieces of **** advice and having to tell people that the hopes they had of 1. nver having to pay back anything 2.original information was wrong, 3. yes you have signed a credit agreement and anything won will be swallowed up by the bill from the so called expert advisors, 4. You dont actually have a case and 5. the money you invested in your "free advice" has put you at risk of losing your home because you were so desperate you tried anything and 6. sorry about your bank account being frozen after your claim for unfair charges and 7. you really arent guaranteed to get the charges back so it was a bad idea to bank on it (no pun intended).

Am I making myself clear?

As usual some herberts think they can make money without giving a damn about the consequences. we pick up desperate people thinking they can win and need representation on a case with no merit. Get the message - legal aid do not pay for barristers in hopeless cases does that tell you something?

Rant over. Pay your debts and give those with an actual genuine case the pathway to justice.

That's probably the best post on this thread, and from someone who obviously has experience of the 'downside' of this scam. Well done Annie and thank you.

bert&ernie

annieadvisor wrote: »

I agree - lets get back on the subject matter.

One thing is straight here the couple on the panorama show ended up with egg on their face by incurring huge legal bills which can never be written off/ included on a bankruptcy/ be forgotten. So who really won?

There are many so called experts out there only too willing to offer no win no fee and give people false hope as well as dodgy advice. Where are all these people when creditors want to go to court and in some cases list this for trial? Why cant people understand that free advice services can actually do this at no cost and give them the real picture - heck we even go to court with them for free (provided they have a case).

I am sick of picking up the pieces of **** advice and having to tell people that the hopes they had of 1. nver having to pay back anything 2.original information was wrong, 3. yes you have signed a credit agreement and anything won will be swallowed up by the bill from the so called expert advisors, 4. You dont actually have a case and 5. the money you invested in your "free advice" has put you at risk of losing your home because you were so desperate you tried anything and 6. sorry about your bank account being frozen after your claim for unfair charges and 7. you really arent guaranteed to get the charges back so it was a bad idea to bank on it (no pun intended).

Am I making myself clear?

As usual some herberts think they can make money without giving a damn about the consequences. we pick up desperate people thinking they can win and need representation on a case with no merit. Get the message - legal aid do not pay for barristers in hopeless cases does that tell you something?

Rant over. Pay your debts and give those with an actual genuine case the pathway to justice.

A very pragmatic view.

I think its important that people know that pursuing the unenforceable agreement route is not easy and, to do it yourself, you need to have your wits about you.

Claims companies are filling the gap between those who can fend for themselves and those who choose to go to the not-for-profit debt counselors. I'm not happy about this, but thats the way the world works - there are always people ready to exploit the desperate and gullible.

This gap will continue to exist until the mainstream advice and counseling organisations start to view it as a legitimate debt remedy. I can only speculate as to why they don't, but it would seem to me that they view it as a moral issue and they also want to protect their relationship with lenders.

credithelp

bert&ernie wrote: »

A very pragmatic view.

I think its important that people know that pursuing the unenforceable agreement route is not easy and, to do it yourself, you need to have your wits about you.

Claims companies are filling the gap between those who can fend for themselves and those who choose to go to the not-for-profit debt counselors. I'm not happy about this, but thats the way the world works - there are always people ready to exploit the desperate and gullible.

This gap will continue to exist until the mainstream advice and counseling organisations start to view it as a legitimate debt remedy. I can only speculate as to why they don't, but it would seem to me that they view it as a moral issue and they also want to protect their relationship with lenders.

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.