Credit Card & Loan Balance's Wipped Clean !!!

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

PROLIANT wrote: »

At no point have I expected my "abusive" posts to be condoned, where did I say that? I speak my mind and if I upset people, tough. Its only a public forum, nothing sacred to protect here, I am a British citizen and I am entitled to free-speech whether that be on this digital bandwagon, in a newspaper or in a public arena, I will say what I want to who I want, I will not be dictated to by any forum diplomats who sit on the fence, I am on my side of the fence and will do as I please. End of.

Can we correct you on some points here. First and foremost, this is not a "free speech" forum, it is a privately owned space that has Rules and T&Cs which you agree to abide by when you sign up. To that end, you will not "do as you please" unless you wish us to stop your posting privileges. If you wish to say what you want to who you want, we must ask you to find a forum that allows it. This is a MONEY SAVING site, provided as a free resource to you.

[Deleted User]

bert&ernie wrote: »

I've no interest in whether or not you get banned. However, I don't want the thread to get locked or deleted simply because you feel the need to make abusive posts. The fact that you appear to be taunting the mods suggests to me that you would be more than happy for this discussion to be stifled simply because you choose not to be civil.

That said, it is highly amusing to watch you spitting your dummy out over this.

Well said. I agree.

[Deleted User]

Excellent...

PROLIANT

MSE_Forum_Manager wrote: »

First and foremost, this is not a "free speech" forum..

.....Then get your web developer to put a notice on the forum front page telling people this.

MSE_Forum_Manager wrote: »

it is a privately owned space that has Rules and T&Cs which you agree to abide by when you sign up..

.....Ammend your T&C's to reflect this, no good rattling your sabre at people if you can't back it up, at no point in your "script" does it forbid the use of free speech. :think:

NickX

Proliant, the use of bad language is not justifed, the forum clearly states "Please be nice to all moneysavers". Swearing at them is not being nice.

Your moral stance on this issue has been noted and you have made your viewpoint clear numerous times, but by resorting to bad language you are not doing yourself any favours. It just looks as though you cannot hold a constructive argument, you would be better not to post at all.

For what its worth I wouldn't like to see you get banned because you have brought some commendable qualities to the forum particularly in the sub-prime thread, but I think by continually losing you cool on this topic you are risking getting banned and it would be a shame.

DirectDebacle

The MSE Managers remarks apply to all. Look at this cocktail of vitriol and venom with a dash of jealousy, served up to uktyler.

Originally Posted by uktyler
Its because I work hard, and only buy the things I need, so don't have much debt. We sold our house before the crash started and have purchased a small holding in Europe.

I'm definitely not wealthy, I won't pay tax because I will only work a few months a year, so under the tax threshold. I won't be able to get credit as I won't be working full time.

If I want anything I will have to save up for it, my parents did that, I did the same as a child, but people today don't. If they want something they buy it on credit. Cars, sofas, computers, you name it, you can get credit for it. The problem is that before its paid off what you brought is worthless.

I guess I'm old fashioned, don't borrow unless you can afford to pay it back and only if you need to, don't borrow because you want something.

So your fortune is simply down to your virtue whilst anyone else's misfortune must be down to their own !!!!lessness. Nice! Except that, in your case, you have benefited from the massive inflation in house prices caused by cheap credit and the willingness of so many to borrow beyond their meansYou cashed in at just the right time, and have chosen to leave us all with the bill for the years of excess. You're alright Jack. I trust you'll be popping back occasionally to see how we're coping (and perhaps for a bit of NHS healthcare).

He (they) assume uktyler has made a fortune without knowing at what price he bought at or sold for. uktyler later volunteers he made a whole £20k. after doing much improvement work to his property. Hardly a fortune.
Then words are put into uktylers mouth to suggest he is saying that he considers others not in his fortunate position to be !!!!less and that he has benefitted from that conduct.
I rather think he benefitted from his own good financial management and hard work. Any benefit from HPI would be beyond his control, not his fault. It could be argued that uktyler' conduct was a downward pressure on HPI and if more people had followed his example the housing market would have not run the course that it did.
Then to suggest he is leaving the country, with his 'fortune', in order to leave the rest of us to pick up bill (he had virtually no part in racking up) is ludicrous.

Contradictions? Explain the logic of this:

uktyler seems to believe that his success is entirely down to his own efforts and that he has in no way benefited from circumstance. They both front the view that they can only be threatened by the perceived irresponsibility of others and fail to see that they may have, at one time or an other, shared some benefit from it.

uk tyler isn't in debt because he managed his finances responsibly, not because others mis-managed theirs. Are you suggesting if everybody had behaved responsibly then uktyler would now be in deep debt?

I haven't managed to find anything in Proliant' posts claiming that irresposible behaviour leading to his debt is now of benefit to him.


Your posts are in the main self opinionated garbage. For someone who professes to have no moral authority,not own a high horse nor live in an ivory tower, posts of this sort could suggest to others that the author of them actually thinks they do. I agree that your views aren't relevant on the issue raised in post #1, as one has not yet been given. If there is no point of view why bother posting on a thread in the first place.

Which brings me back to thread. I have to declare that I do not possess a credit card and never have. Therefore I have no credit card debt, which is undoubtedly something to be sneered at. To manage in this day and age without one must mean I disadvantaged others and benefitted from their unfortunate position in order to avoid having this apparent necessity. I would disagree.

I view companies that are advertising on the internet, claiming to be able to wipe your debts clean for a fat fee, should be treated with much caution. On the face of it, it seems they are trawling for the last few pennies they can extract from the desperate and vulnerable before they finally go under. Reminds me of crocodiles slithering off the riverbank to feast upon the floundering wilderbeast.

If such loopholes do exist why have the CAB and other reputable debt counselling services not latched onto it yet. Surely MSE and other sites would be shouting this from the rooftops by now.

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

PROLIANT wrote: »

.....Then get your web developer to put a notice on the forum front page telling people this.

.....Ammend your T&C's to reflect this, no good rattling your sabre at people if you can't back it up, at no point in your "script" does it forbid the use of free speech. :think:

Hi Proliant

From our T&Cs:

"9.2.1 post or transmit material that infringes the intellectual property rights or other rights of others or post or transmit any material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, hateful, or embarrassing to any other person as determined by us in our sole discretion"

covers the fact that you can't say anything you want

From our Rules, post 1:

"It’s my aim to make this a great place to be for people to chat about saving money and build a MoneySaving community, free from nasty comments, sales techniques, people driven by profit, advertising and confusion. These rules have been designed to help that. Yet remember this is a privately owned site. Posting is a privilege, not a right. Any posts or anyone that threatens the site’s resources or makes it a worse place to be will be stopped appropriately solely at the discretion of MoneySavingExpert.com with or without reasons given".

likewise explains that there are conditions to the tone and content of posting.

Finally, Martin has posted on > THIS < himself in the FORUM RULES section:

"Let me make it plain I cannot afford to give you the moderation you need. I cannot justify deleting. This isn't a democracy. It is a private forum. I've made it plain these aren't free speech boards. I can't afford the legal bills if they were. This is about helping people save money."


However, overriding all of this is the fact i've just told you, so from this point in there should be no problem. This isn't about stopping people having viewpoints, it's about ensuring people show common courtesy to each other and make their posts in a considered and civil manner. Disagreement is fine, it's about the way people disagree and respect for other posters. This applies to all users of this site.

NickX

DirectDebacle wrote: »

If such loopholes do exist why have the CAB and other reputable debt counselling services not latched onto it yet.

Don't be so sure about that. CAB (Citizen's Advice Bureau) will regularly advise its clients to request the CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) from a Debt Collection Agency on the basis that if they do not provide the required legal documentation then the debt becomes unenforceable and does not have to be repaid.

This would appear to be the primary strategy that these "shark" type organisations are working with aswell.

DirectDebacle

NickX wrote: »

Don't be so sure about that. CAB (Citizen's Advice Bureau) will regularly advise its clients to request the CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) from a Debt Collection Agency on the basis that if they do not provide the required legal documentation then the debt becomes unenforceable and does not have to be repaid.

This would appear to be the primary strategy that these "shark" type organisations are working with aswell.

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure, I just didn't know. It was a genuine question not a rhetorical one. I confess I have little knowledge in these matters and you obviously have some. So in laymans terms is it the case that there is not a 'legal loophole' with regards to the credit agreement (contract) to be exploited but more a case of not adhering to court procedure. That is if a DCA fails to provide information it is required to give then this would be grounds for a court ruling that the debt was not recoverable? If that is so then there would be bound to be appeals and as sure as eggs are eggs in future a DCA wouldn't trip up on that one again. Interesting.

NickX

I think they key to this is that the DCA's purchase the defaulted debts from the original creditors at a vastly reduced rate (perhaps 20-30% of the face value of the debt).

However, the creditor knows that some of these debts are legally unenforceable because either they have "lost" the original CCA or the debt is approaching 6 years old when it becomes statute barred and not legally enforceable.

Once the debt is with the DCA, the methods of collection change considerably. DCA's will use tactics of aggression, threats and general unpleasantness to get repayment. In many cases they are able to make collection on debts that are legally unenforceable simply by scaring the debtor. The people who work for DCA's are generally not nice, their sole aim is to get money from the debtor and they will say anything to get that payment. They will threaten site visits, removal of property, repossession, prison, anything they can think of to get the repayment.

Now, those in the legal profession know that debts that are statute barred or that do not have a correct CCA are unenforceable and this is a method used to fight the DCA's for those struggling with debts. This has been going on for years, long before the likes of these organisations ever existed. By doing this the debtor is exercising their legal rights, they should not be paying any organisation to do this for them. CAB have access to professional legal advice and have done for years.

These new organisations appear to be saying that by paying them they have other methods of proving the debt is unenforceable even if the CCA exists and the debt is not statute barred. They seem to say that pre-2007 it is the case that the CCA may contain omissions which make the debt unenforceable. Whilst this may be the case, it is still true that any solicitor worth his fee should know this and be able to advise. These companies are merely middle men who then outsouce the CCA challenge to a solicitor and make a nice profit at the same time (just as the personal injury claims companies do aswell). Why pay a middleman ?? If you have a legal right to challenge something, get the professional advice and do it yourself.

There is nothing illegal or unlawful about doing this, but before Proliant gets worked up with me, the moral implications of doing this is something that the individual concerned will have to decide for themselves.