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

Thecreditcruncher_2

Neillgb wrote: »

How would you feel if somebody avoided repaying you because you had forgotten to dot an I or cross a T in the contract?

No doubt you would just shrug, shake them by the hand and say it's OK because it's 'legal'........give them a cheery wave as they disappear round the corner giving you the finger.

---

I happened to watch a program last night on which Martin Lewis himself featured. It was the Tonight program. It featured insurance companies, most particularly, Scottish Widows whom is owned by Lloyds TSB. It showcased several individuals whom were let down by these financial institutions due to technicalities in their contracts, some of which were completely unrelated to the problem. In one case, a woman was unpaid due to non disclosure of a minor bout of depression many years back even though the claim was for breast cancer!!! :mad: What has depression got to do with cancer? These menial discrepancies allow the financial institutions to walk away from the contracts without paying these broken, disabled and helpless individuals many thousands of pounds.
So yes, these financial institutions have always tried to find ways of avoiding paying their customers due to a forgotten dotted i or crossed t. It just seems that when the customer finds a way of doing the self same thing back.... this is frowned upon. My position is that you should never take on any form of debt unless you can repay it, but, if the banks have incorrectly drawn up their contracts and have not disclosed material peices of legislative information on them why shouldn't they be subject to the same scrutiny that they subject their customers to when looking at paying their debts. If the financial institutions can get away with not paying their way, you can bet your life that they will...
So if the consumer can get away with it 'IN LAW' then good luck to them :T . The consumer credit act is there for a reason, it protects BOTH the customer and the financial institution.

Neillgb

The cases you highlight are, of course, outrageous and the authorities should throw the book the organisations in question. The wronged parties should be paid in full and receive compensation.

However, two wrongs don't make a right.

I wonder if we will see Martin Lewis on TV supporting the financial institutions against unscrupulous customers that seek to avoid paying their debts because of 'menial discrepancies'.........

Thecreditcruncher_2

Morals are what shape society and save most of us from anarchy. The problem is though it is all very well taking the moral high ground on an issue such as this where the thought of not paying a debt is nothing short of scandalous. The issue here, is not whether it is moraly acceptable to find a way of debt avoidance, it is whether or not the law dictates that this is allowed. It is all too common a tale hearing of the driver whom consumed too much alcohol and ended up killing innocent victims because he/she decided it would be o.k to drive home and leaves court with just a fine and a ban... moraly this is unnacceptable, but legally it is how it is. Or what about other such morally incomprehensible outcomes relating to peodophiles, murderers, rapists and so on...... We could find 100's of issues where morally the outcome was far from acceptable but was dealt with fully within the confines of the law!! What I am trying to say is, morally, debt avoidance is not right, but legally, if it is within the confines of the law then whether we like it or not it has to be accepted. This moral issue can be put on both sides of the fence as I have explained in my earlier post, it's not right for Financial institutions to try and find ways of avoiding their duty to pay out customers, and equally, it's not right for customers to find ways of avoiding paying their creditors. But whether we like it or not, if it's within the criteria set out in the statutes of law then i'm afraid we have to accept that that is how it is.

PROLIANT

....They broke the law lending the money????? !!!!!! are you for real? YOU ASKED THEM FOR A FAKIN LINE OF CREDIT, THEY TRUSTED YOU WITH IT AND NOW YOU DONT WANT TO PAY IT BACK? Get a proper job and stop stiring up trouble on here with deluded scams that are, if successful, going to contribute to the poor state of the resecsion that we are currently in, selfish, greedy b@stard!

[Deleted User]

PROLIANT wrote: »

....They broke the law lending the money????? !!!!!! are you for real? YOU ASKED THEM FOR A FAKIN LINE OF CREDIT, THEY TRUSTED YOU WITH IT AND NOW YOU DONT WANT TO PAY IT BACK? Get a proper job and stop stiring up trouble on here with deluded scams that are, if successful, going to contribute to the poor state of the resecsion that we are currently in, selfish, greedy [EMAIL="b@stard!"]b@stard![/EMAIL]

Proliant,

I dont think theres any need to get so upset and certainly no need for the bad language and abuse handed out here...

TheExpert

I really don't understand the delusion that a load of people live in.

Let's get the situation straight.

You don't have enough money to pay for your home, pay for food, pay for petrol, to send your kids to school, whatever. Along comes a bank and says: "Here is a small amount of money to help you out in hard times. I will give you this money provided you pay it back with some interest and on the basis that you will not try to borrow more money from me than I am allowing you to."

Without this money, your life would arguably be much tougher and you would not be able to afford that TV you got last year or redecorate the spare bedroom.

Then, once you have borrowed all that money, you turn round and say "Hey, you know what? I have read this big fat book about law, where there is some really small font writing, saying that because you did not record every single call I made to you starting from 10 years ago, because you do not have every single piece of paper I have sent you stored somewhere and readily available or your company has charged me too much interest, despite me agreeing verbally AND in writing to said interest being charged, I DO NOT WISH to repay you any of the money I borrowed from you."

You then have (or perhaps don't have) the brains to come to a public board and claim that it is FAIR that you do not repay a loan, which you asked for and needed in the first place?

---

How about this situation:

You place a deposit of £10,000 into a bank. 10 years later, the bank sends you a letter saying that because you did not sign the papers in the correct way, because you no longer have a copy of the telephone conversation during which you agreed the deposit terms and you failed to mention the address you lived at 20 years ago, they will actually take all your money and not pay you back anything at all.

Would that also be fair? Technically this deposit is an identical agreement to a credit one, except the bank takes credit from you and pays you interest on it. Moreover, the conditions are much more flexible, eg. the bank will repay the entire sum owed whenever you wish to have the money (not something most people could do with their debt).

PROLIANT

You are so right, you have hit the nail on the head...unfortunately you will come up against a group of "nay-Sayers" on here that will try and defend their actions with patter that does not withstand.
They would sharp change their tune if the bank chose not to allow them access to their hard-earned wages at the end of the month, if my business was screwed by its customers over a lame, cowardly technicality like discussed above and it hit me financially, I would pursue them to court and try my best to destroy them in every way possible, I borrow from my Bank and credit cards et al, I repay them every month, if I live beyond my means then that is my fault...not the banks.
Thank again for the post, lets just hope the naive followers of the "digital bandwagon on here learn a lesson in financial life.

jimmer1980

In my situation I would have had to go bankrupt if my creditors did not stop the interest & refund the charges. Then they would have got a lot less than they are now.

I'm not saying that it is someone elses fault for my situation. I completely take responsibilty for it.

That is why I am trying to pay as much back as possible.

I could not go bankrupt because of my career. I only intend to pay as much back as possible. If my creditors would have re-financed my debt over a longer period of time, I would have taken that option.

I do wish that people would stop tarring everyone with the same brush.

It's not about not paying. It's about paying as much as you can afford.

calibrax

PROLIANT wrote: »

if my business was screwed by its customers over a lame, cowardly technicality like discussed above and it hit me financially, I would pursue them to court and try my best to destroy them in every way possible, I borrow from my Bank and credit cards et al, I repay them every month, if I live beyond my means then that is my fault...not the banks.

Same here. But having said that, some people have used similar arguments to slag off people claiming back their bank charges, i.e. "it was in the contract you signed that you'd get charged £28 for going overdrawn, so if you went overdrawn then accept the consequences". So how do you differentiate between the two?

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that people shouldn't try and wriggle of credit agreements on technicalities, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here

PROLIANT

calibrax wrote: »

Same here. But having said that, some people have used similar arguments to slag off people claiming back their bank charges, i.e. "it was in the contract you signed that you'd get charged £28 for going overdrawn, so if you went overdrawn then accept the consequences". So how do you differentiate between the two?

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that people shouldn't try and wriggle of credit agreements on technicalities, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here

Ok, this debate, if there is such a thing, is a closed loop and will never stop going round and round and round therefore what is the point? People are typically people... and will do what they want, so no matter how right or wrong something is if they are going to do it they will.
Greed, selfishness and self-importance are on the agenda here, I loath such things and basically can't be @rsed anymore with this "bandwagon-spin" So, Calibrax, you are on the fence...fair enough but me I am dead against the whole thing cos at the end of the day it is other consumers whom pay for all of the mistakes of others, the banks et al are in business to make money from providing financial services..Not to give money away for free because of a stupid legal technicality, the day will come when a greedy little person claims thousands from a bank because they could not budget and manage their money...then the bank will take their house off them on a "technicality".