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

~Brock~

Perhaps I might add another few thouhts to this debate, having been lurking as an unregistered user for a while and finding myself interested in this subject.

The companies that promise this type of service all appear to be very similar. They have all recently sprung up and all say the following to a greater or lesser extent

• that the 'majority' of credit agreements are unenforceable
• that they can get the debts wiped out completely
• that there is proven case law surrounding this
• that they have 'teams' of specialists at their disposal

Now let's consider some other facts.

1. Case Law upon which this 'service' relies.

e.g. Wilson v 1st County Trust - this case is notable because the judge declared that the debt was not only unenforceable but that also the amount lent did not have to be repaid. First County Trust made the mistake of including their arrangement fee for the loan as part of the cash sum borrowed, thus mistating the amount of credit. What you are not told, and with every respect to First County Trust, who were a relatively small pawnbroker, is that is it really likely that our national lenders, with teams of lawyers, are going to make the same mistakes?

Wilson v Hurstanger - this revolves around agency law and undisclosed commissions. What no-one again is telling you is that this could only apply to those loans that are arranged by entering into an agency agreement (and paying a fee) to a broker. Whilst this may well be common for secured loans, is this really how you go about arranging credit card or bank loans?

2. It's not all plain sailing however.....

This is what the courts think of chancers who are obviously trying to worm out of their obligations.

http://www.mishcon.com/news/articles/docs/article_119.aspx

It's worth reading this in full because it is hilarious. Remember this is the type of guy that was setting himself up as a 'debtbuster' !!

It is mildly amusing that some of the 'debtbuster' companies' websites actually carry an outdated news video celebtrating this guys 'successes'. He appears to be lauded as some sort of hero to these people.

3. These companies are making misleading claims - enough for both the Ministry of Justice and the OFT to issue a joint warning about their activities.

It is also interesting to note that none of the companies that have so far emerged appear to hold a valid consumer credit licence, which is a new requirement of the CCA 2006 for any company involved in debt negotiation or reduction on behalf of consumers. Which means they appear to be operating illegally.

4. Most of these companies charges up front fees with no or little guarantee of success (despite their claims). Some even appear to advocate paying their fees by adding to existing credit cards or even taking out new ones. Absolutely disgraceful. What is to stop them just raking in the money at the front end and doing no actual work on their clients behalf and then disappearing into the night as quickly as they arrived?

So - there you go. Just my little 2p worth.

If you are in debt and have half an ounce of responsibility and common sense then please do seek help. There are many free sources of good advice and an increasing number of solutions that can help in genuine cases.

If you are looking for a way to cheat and scam those lenders who you were probably only too grateful for when they lent you the money - and you anjoy the thrill associated with gambling with (what's left of) your money - then by all means give these morally bankrupt firms a try. Just remember however - they advertise that they can find loopholes and technicalities in your credit agreements. Heres what the Honorable Mr Simon Brown QC thought about that in May of this year.

"" It is worth remembering that the context and purpose of the CCA: the Consumer Credit Act was introduced to protect the individual unsophisticated in financial affairs in contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. It was not designed to help individuals in the financial services business make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities."

I'm not generaly a betting person but I know where my money would be.

Case closed. :beer:

SpoonyOh

It is worth remembering that the context and purpose of the CCA: the Consumer Credit Act was introduced to protect the individual unsophisticated in financial affairs in contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. It was not designed to help individuals in the financial services business make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities.

Too true. Like Brock, I've lurked for ages but felt compelled to respond to this discussion.
I've never felt that banks' charges were fair, but having been signed up by a well-known bank at the age of fourteen (in-school banking should be banned IMO), I have to admit I've been quite ignorant of other banking products. They gave me an overdraft at eighteen and I was rather !!!!less. Having owned up to my mistake, I am paying off my debts gradually (and the MSE way too ), and I have discovered the joy of basic bank accounts. This is perfect for me, as I now get exactly what I wanted from my original bank account, but without the temptations of loans/overdrafts/credit cards.
The idea that you can use a loophole to evade paying what you owe is extremely unworkable. Having said that, if I found I could do it to the bank I gave eleven years of interest, charges, regular loan repayments and the like, I would. It goes against my own principles, but I'd feel damn justified because everytime I phoned them, I couldn't get an advisor who spoke reasonable English. Every time they phoned me, they got payments, they got to harass me, they made all the demands and threats that have been well-documented elsewhere on this board. A corporation doesn't have emotions, but someone who is heavily pregnant and been told that they'll take your maternity pay away does, I assure you.

Ezee_3

if i draw up a contract with a company (especially a financial institution) and i mess up they would drive a truck through any loopholes and ensure they didnt pay me a penny...

so if they have messed up then good luck to you...

they can write it down as a loss anyway so it will then not have to pay tax on it... so effectivley that is as beneficial to them as seling the debt on

PROLIANT

Ezee wrote: »

if i draw up a contract with a company (especially a financial institution) and i mess up they would drive a truck through any loopholes and ensure they didnt pay me a penny...

so if they have messed up then good luck to you...

they can write it down as a loss anyway so it will then not have to pay tax on it... so effectivley that is as beneficial to them as seling the debt on

...a degree in economics?

bert&ernie

PROLIANT wrote: »

...a degree in economics?

your point is?

PROLIANT

bert&ernie wrote: »

your point is?

Mind your own business, I am quoting another peer...

calibrax

PROLIANT wrote: »

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

Noooo, I'm not on the fence... I agree with you! like I said, I was just being devil's advocate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocatus_diaboli

(...in case anyone is unfamiliar with the phrase)

Thecreditcruncher_2

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 b@stard!

---

Thanks for your quality reply....
1: Where in my posts have I stated that they have broken the law lending out money?
I think you will find that I have stated that the lending institutions have, in some cases, not adhered to the credit consumer act 1974 s174 (3,4,5) by omitting information that they are required to provide BY LAW. All I am doing is stating FACT and nothing more. This does not indicate that I agree to anybody attempting to renege on their debts simply by mentioning it.

2: Where in my posts have I suggested that I personaly wish to avoid paying back any creditors I may have? At no time in my life have I attempted to avoid paying for debts that I have willingly taken on. Nor will I do so in the foreseeable future.

3: You suggested that I 'get a proper job', I can't actualy see the cohesion that exists between the type of job a person has and that same person's willingness to repay their debts?
Are you suggesting that a shelf stacker (or similar low earning job), for example, has less willingness to repay their debt than say, a senior manager (or similar higher earning job)? The type of job somebody has, or hasn't, got is totally irrelevent.

To quote that I am stirring trouble is suggesting that I am fabricating my comments or that they are not true. I have only stated FACT and at no time have I suggested that anybody actualy attempts to avoid their debt. I have, however, stated that if they feel that that is the course of action that they wish to take then if they succeed in their aim, wether or not we agree with it, as long as it has been done within the law what can be done to stop them. The companies themselves use the self same technicalities in law to avoid having to pay out substantial sums of money all the time, people whom have given them money with the expectation of getting it back when applicable. It isn't right that individuals seek ways of avoiding paying out, in the same way as it isn't right that the companies seek ways of avoidance as well, the simple fact is though...it happens wether we like it or not.
The reason I posted the FACTS on here was to stop the hearsay and rumour and to explain exactly why these debt avoidance companies have started to appear and under what pretence they offer their services as they don't tell people this in their literature.
As for your last three kind words...? You have made me take a long hard look at myself, and I have to admit to over indulging at times, but I always give wherever I can.

bert&ernie

PROLIANT wrote: »

Go fuk yourself........

I see you've resorted to abuse again.
This issue really winds you up doesn't it?

PROLIANT

bert&ernie wrote: »

I see you've resorted to abuse again.
This issue really winds you up doesn't it?

Yes it does, I could not be chewed with typing a response to the above therfore I choose to "shorten" the response with abuse, it suits me fine and I am still waiting for a ban from the site.....not yet my dear friends, not yet. BRING IT ONE!