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

~Brock~

bert&ernie wrote: »

I think we have established that some people have a moral problem with those that might seek to use legal means to avoid repaying money they have borrowed. I seem to recall that some people expressed similar views about bank charge reclaiming. We can argue about whether or not these two issues are morally equivalent, but they both involved what could be described as legal technicalities and the net effect is the same - costs will be transfered to the broader customer base.

Yes but reclaiming bank charges does not also include trying to reclaim the whole frickin' overdraft!!!

skintandscared_2

bert&ernie wrote: »

Such an insightful piece of analysis. You are making an assumption that the lender cant be prevented from defaulting the account or that the CRA records can't be deleted. I'm not going to say with any certainty that they can, but I don't think you are in a position to make your statement as if it were a matter of fact.

Lets for one minute assume that you are correct. This would still help someone who is at risk of being pursued through the courts for the debt. So, depending on circumstance, it may not be as stupid as you say.

I'll agree that paying someone to do this for would appear to be unwise - given that you could do it yourself.

Well my "insightful analysis" is merely based on everything I've read about this process so far, on this board and in a separate legal forum. The only people gaining from it so far are the "experts" charging to do it. I haven't yet heard of any success stories though.

I've had most of my credit cards since the 1990's and this is the first time I've had problems repaying them. I wouldn't consider trying to get out of repaying what I've spent. Why should I?! I am entering a DMP so I can repay everything - albeit over a longer time period than the creditors would like.

bert&ernie

~Brock~ wrote: »

Yes but reclaiming bank charges does not also include trying to reclaim the whole frickin' overdraft!!!

well thanks for stating that bleedin' obvious... but completely irrelevant fact. My point was that they both amount to losses for the bank - losses that it seeks to recover from the rest of its customers.

You're entitled to make your own moral assessment of each issue, but the net result is the same.

DirectDebacle

Been following this thread with some interest and a lot of amusement. Post #1 actually referred to credit card debt but as is the way on MSE it quickly expanded to cover about any form of credit imaginable.

There have been some good posts and some not quite so good. The most bizarre I find from Bert&Ernie. They are quite contradictory, and in terms of the actual discussion make no valid contribution at all. They consist entirely of comments on the tone and style of others but not on the substance. I am not sure which posts are posted by Bert and which are posted by Ernie. It is possible they are the both the same person a la Norman Bates. Proliant, who is clearly against people engaging in debt avoidance is chastised by Bert or is it Ernie and then uktyler receives the sort of treatment (without the bad language) from Ernie or is it Bert for engaging in the type of financially responsible way that they have lambasted Proliant for wishing he had done and expressing his determination to 'do the right thing'.Bert&Ernie or both of them make these comments without once ever donating an opinion on where they stand on credit card debt. Outstanding!:rotfl:

My view is if you've made your bed then lie in it. I understand if you are going under with a millstone of debt around your neck (which hasn't occured through circumstances beyond your control eg ill-health) then you will clutch at any straw to get out of it. I hope these people don't succeed but neither would I stand on their shoulders whilst they go under either.

~Brock~

bert&ernie wrote: »

You're entitled to make your own moral assessment of each issue, but the net result is the same.

I think that you will find that the majority of my contributions to this subject have been to attempt to highlight the immorality of the firms that advertise their 'services' to a potentially vunerable audience. Although I realise this thread is the result of a number of merged ones, I am at least trying to keep to the spirit of the OP's question.

These are no doubt the same firms that were advertising last year for bank charge victims. Obviously pickings there are slim at the minute so they have moved on. God knows what the next hot topic's gonna be....

Any suggestions?

uktyler

~Brock~ wrote: »

These are no doubt the same firms that were advertising last year for bank charge victims. Obviously pickings there are slim at the minute so they have moved on. God knows what the next hot topic's gonna be....

Any suggestions?

It has to be mortgages next.

Has Your Bank Been Brought out by the Government?
Why are you paying taxes and a mortgage?
We can write off your mortgage for you!
All for a fee of just £999.99 (non refundable if you get laughed out of court)

~Brock~

uktyler wrote: »

It has to be mortgages next.

Has Your Bank Been Brought out by the Government?
Why are you paying taxes and a mortgage?
We can write off your mortgage for you!
All for a fee of just £999.99 (non refundable if you get laughed out of court)

Hahahaha - where do I sign? :rotfl:

bert&ernie

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Been following this thread with some interest and a lot of amusement. Post #1 actually referred to credit card debt but as is the way on MSE it quickly expanded to cover about any form of credit imaginable.

There have been some good posts and some not quite so good. The most bizarre I find from Bert&Ernie. They are quite contradictory, and in terms of the actual discussion make no valid contribution at all. They consist entirely of comments on the tone and style of others but not on the substance. I am not sure which posts are posted by Bert and which are posted by Ernie. It is possible they are the both the same person a la Norman Bates. Proliant, who is clearly against people engaging in debt avoidance is chastised by Bert or is it Ernie and then uktyler receives the sort of treatment (without the bad language) from Ernie or is it Bert for engaging in the type of financially responsible way that they have lambasted Proliant for wishing he had done and expressing his determination to 'do the right thing'.Bert&Ernie or both of them make these comments without once ever donating an opinion on where they stand on credit card debt. Outstanding!:rotfl:

My view is if you've made your bed then lie in it. I understand if you are going under with a millstone of debt around your neck (which hasn't occurred through circumstances beyond your control eg ill-health) then you will clutch at any straw to get out of it. I hope these people don't succeed but neither would I stand on their shoulders whilst they go under either.

Glad you find the thread amusing - I'm having fun with it too.

I'm not sure why you find my posts contradictory - perhaps you could explain this to me? As for your assessment that they don't make any contribution, well I guess I'll have to live with that - I'm heartbroken.

The thread has become some kind of moral debate over whether of not people should use legal technicalities to avoid repaying debt. My views on this aren't really relevant as I don't profess to be any kind of moral authority. I don't own a high horse and I don't live in a ivory tower.

Perhaps I have been a little confrontational with a couple of posters on this tread - I just cant resist pricking over inflated egos. I support Mr P's right to espouse his views, but I don't support the way in which he deals with his frustration at those who don't share those views. 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.

uktyler

bert&ernie wrote: »

uktyler seems to believe that his success is entirely down to his own efforts and that he has in no way benefited from circumstance.

I have benefited, yes.

I have benefited from not taking out large amounts of credit that I can't repay. I struck lucky with the housing market, but like others I could see the market was going to drop.

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.

I've seen enough examples of irresponsible borrowing to know a proportion of my money from credit agreements goes to people who should know better than to borrow money they can;t repay.

Tell me why I should help to pay off someone else debts?

What benefits are these, the higher interest rates to cover not payers?

skintandscared_2

bert&ernie wrote: »

Glad you find the thread amusing - I'm having fun with it too.

I'm not sure why you find my posts contradictory - perhaps you could explain this to me? As for your assessment that they don't make any contribution, well I guess I'll have to live with that - I'm heartbroken.

The thread has become some kind of moral debate over whether of not people should use legal technicalities to avoid repaying debt. My views on this aren't really relevant as I don't profess to be any kind of moral authority. I don't own a high horse and I don't live in a ivory tower.

Perhaps I have been a little confrontational with a couple of posters on this tread - I just cant resist pricking over inflated egos. I support Mr P's right to espouse his views, but I don't support the way in which he deals with his frustration at those who don't share those views. 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.

Please don't take this the wrong way as I'm not trying to be offensive - just maybe put a little perspective of what other people see in your posts. I think your recent posts are a little contradictory in that you are a little sarcastic with me for suggesting that these "debt wiped" schemes might not work (indicating, perhaps erroenously, that you would agree with this method of cancelling debts), but then you go on to state that reclaiming bank charges amounts to losses for a bank, which are passed to the other customers, and that you don't agree with that either. I think there is just some confusion about what your point is. I'm sorry, but it comes across as you are just arguing for argument's sake

I have only just joined this thread - I only looked out of interest as I find this CCA thing fascinating and I am keeping an open mind on it until I learn more. But your response to my first post was very sarcastic and quite aggressive. In fact, your responses to many other posters are similarly sarcastic and aggressive. I am not an argumentative person and don't wish to get into a heated debate on this subject because, let's face it, it's something that nobody really knows much about yet - as no cases have been finalised. Maybe you just need to calm down a little bit.