Unenforceable Secured Loans

petermb_2

petermb wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you think bribery, fraud and breach of contract is ok for the lenders to get away with as long as the borrower pays regardless.

That is exactly what you are condoning.

Also, I would not call the above "trivial loopholes", would you?

~Brock~

petermb wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you think bribery, fraud and breach of contract is ok for the lenders to get away with as long as the borrower pays regardless.

Well it seems to work for claims management companies

iolanthe07

So let me get this straight, you think bribery, fraud and breach of contract is ok for the lenders to get away with as long as the borrower pays regardless.

That is exactly what you are condoning.

Of course I'm not condoning criminal behaviour, wherever it comes from. I am also not condoning people who borrow recklessly and then attempt to evade paying back their debt by finding artful dodges in voiding a contract because of some minor technical glitch.

FraudBuster

It is estimated that there are millions of potential claims.

Who has estimated this?

The national debt charities?

mouncey

The self righteous attitude of some of the posters on here makes me despair. Most people in debt want to repay what they borrowed but don't want to be subject to underhand tactics by some debt collection companies.

~Brock~

mouncey wrote: »

The self righteous attitude of some of the posters on here makes me despair. Most people in debt want to repay what they borrowed but don't want to be subject to underhand tactics by some debt collection companies.

The assumption of some posters that these tactics are aimed only at those who are at the mercy of debt collection companies makes me despair.

Check out the publicity generated by these lowlife 'claims' companies. Where does it say 'this only applies if you are having problems with DCA's'? Where does it even say that you have to be in arrears or unable to afford your payments?

My issue has always been the misinformation that '80% of your credit agreements may be flawed' thus encouraging desperate and/or gullible people to part with money that they probably haven't got. I would imagine that alley cats have got better morals.

petermb_2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you think bribery, fraud and breach of contract is ok for the lenders to get away with as long as the borrower pays regardless.

That is exactly what you are condoning.

Of course I'm not condoning criminal behaviour, wherever it comes from. I am also not condoning people who borrow recklessly and then attempt to evade paying back their debt by finding artful dodges in voiding a contract because of some minor technical glitch.

The issues i raise with the lenders on behalf of clients is about fraud and bribery.
Hardly a minor glitch.

petermb_2

FraudBuster wrote: »

Who has estimated this?

The national debt charities?

It dont take much working out. According to a number of articles in the press there are over 20million single premium PPI policies in the UK for a start.

FraudBuster

petermb wrote: »

It dont take much working out. According to a number of articles in the press there are over 20million single premium PPI policies in the UK for a start.

Advice from CAB on PPI.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/d_payment_protection_insurance.pdf

I cannot find advice from the national debt charities about unenforceable secured loans.

amj_2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

If they borrowed it, they should pay it back. That's what the rest of us do. The attitude of "lets see if we can wriggle out of our just dues" is contemptible.

Contempible is too mild a word to describe the way the industry works.

Not content with messing up the world economy they then expect the tax payer to bail them out, and then jack up lending rates and fees :mad:.


Its a fighting fire with fire situation!