I have un-enforceable loan - but company say they will default me, if I stop paying?

Ichimoku

I've just read through this thread and I'm astounded to see how many people feel its OK to force their own morals down the throats of others.

It's quite ironic that those who take the moral high ground fail to see how their own morals come into question when they sit in judgment of others. Who are they to judge anyone? In my experience, those that take the highest moral ground usually have the biggest skeletons in their cupboards!

I wouldn't claim to fully understand the original poster's circumstances, so I will respect his decision to pursue his case. If he isn't justified in claiming, he will have himself to live with.

What also amazes me is that some people seem to think the law doesn't apply to banks. What do you think the law is there for, if not to be applied? If it weren't applied, where is the deterrent? Are you happy for banks to lose loan contracts, or to blatantly break the terms they contain? (Prescribed terms on many CCA loan contracts are wildly inaccurate, and are thus unenforceable if challenged).

Continuing with such reasoning, if I have a contract with you, and I break the terms, should I be allowed to just get away with it? Because that is what you're effectively saying about loan agreements. If you don't like the law, then campaign to have it changed but please don't criticise those who choose to exercise their right to justice as dictated by the statute book.

My other half provides a good example of how the High Street banks have been treating customers for many years.

She was hit with massive bank charges for years, and it was done in such as way as to perpetuate the problem e.g. applying a grossly unreasonable charge with no notification just before a direct debit is going out, thus giving the bank reason to apply another huge charge, and so on.

The bank's remedy for this was to tell her that she needed to take out a personal loan, which they, of course, supplied. She was told she had no option otherwise her bank account would be closed. They also 'sold' her single premium PPI despite the fact that she was a housewife at that time, so would be unable to claim against it.

Some time later, she was unable to return to work as planned due to serious birth complications, and so was struggling financially. The bank's response to this was to insist that she take out another loan, not in addition to the first one, but to replace it (at a higher APR and with a new single premium PPI added to the loan. There was no refund of a proportion of the first PPI premium).

To cut a long story short, the bank ended up replacing the second loan with a third one, at a higher APR again, and, yes, you've guessed it, with another single premium PPI policy added onto it, with no refund of any of the previous premium.

She now has a loan of around £17,000 (over half of which has been to pay for PPI over the three loans), when the only problem she had originally was that she dipped a few hundred pounds overdrawn with her current account each month. A simple overdraft facility would have been a more appropriate option but they wouldn't agree to do that.

Sadly, they saw her coming, and used threats to make her comply with their desire to milk her for all she was worth, and a whole lot more besides. Some dodgy 'doorstep' lender? No, one of the biggest High Street names that has been in the news a lot recently for receiving huge taxpayer bailouts.

I don't believe it will be possible to pursue a claim that the loan was mis-sold (apart from the PPI element of it), so the only route to address this issue is to look at the enforceability of the loan agreement. Luckily, it seems that the bank have made some errors and some of the prescribed terms are inaccurate, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. We shall pursue the claim with vigour.

Now, I don't really care what the moralists have to say about this, I'm perfectly comfortable with my decision and with my ability to self-regulate my moral code.

The fact is, the banks have been getting away with all manner of bad practice over the years, then squandering their ill-gotten gains on dodgy financial instruments abroad. As taxpayers, we will be paying for this for a generation at least. For anyone to say that a few personal loans are going to make the slightest difference to the situation is deluding themselves. Please look at the bigger picture people. Look at the share price of any big bank - they all resemble a very steep cliff. This has nothing to do with writing off a few personal loans and everything to do with backing junk foreign mortgage investments.

In any case, I'm pretty sure that the banks will get off lightly. There are probably millions of people who have had excessive bank charges applied, or have been mis-sold PPI, etc that will never make a claim against their bank, largely due to a lack of awareness. This will massively outweigh the few thousand who might attempt to make a claim that could be deemed exploitative.

Personally, I'd like to see this forum used by people to help and advise each other, and not for self appointed, self righteous puritans to exercise their indignation every time they see something they have taken it upon themselves to sit in judgment over.

I wonder how long it's going to take for some Smart A**e to accuse me of judging the judges, although I haven't actually done so!!??

tartanterra

Ichimoku wrote: »

Personally, I'd like to see this forum used by people to help and advise each other, and not for self appointed, self righteous puritans to exercise their indignation every time they see something they have taken it upon themselves to sit in judgment over.

Hello, pot calling kettle.....can you hear me kettle.......over!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Hucks77

Ichimoku wrote: »

I've just read through this thread and I'm astounded to see how many people feel its OK to force their own morals down the throats of others.

It's quite ironic that those who take the moral high ground fail to see how their own morals come into question when they sit in judgment of others. Who are they to judge anyone? In my experience, those that take the highest moral ground usually have the biggest skeletons in their cupboards!

I wouldn't claim to fully understand the original poster's circumstances, so I will respect his decision to pursue his case. If he isn't justified in claiming, he will have himself to live with.

What also amazes me is that some people seem to think the law doesn't apply to banks. What do you think the law is there for, if not to be applied? If it weren't applied, where is the deterrent? Are you happy for banks to lose loan contracts, or to blatantly break the terms they contain? (Prescribed terms on many CCA loan contracts are wildly inaccurate, and are thus unenforceable if challenged).

Continuing with such reasoning, if I have a contract with you, and I break the terms, should I be allowed to just get away with it? Because that is what you're effectively saying about loan agreements. If you don't like the law, then campaign to have it changed but please don't criticise those who choose to exercise their right to justice as dictated by the statute book.

My other half provides a good example of how the High Street banks have been treating customers for many years.

She was hit with massive bank charges for years, and it was done in such as way as to perpetuate the problem e.g. applying a grossly unreasonable charge with no notification just before a direct debit is going out, thus giving the bank reason to apply another huge charge, and so on.

The bank's remedy for this was to tell her that she needed to take out a personal loan, which they, of course, supplied. She was told she had no option otherwise her bank account would be closed. They also 'sold' her single premium PPI despite the fact that she was a housewife at that time, so would be unable to claim against it.

Some time later, she was unable to return to work as planned due to serious birth complications, and so was struggling financially. The bank's response to this was to insist that she take out another loan, not in addition to the first one, but to replace it (at a higher APR and with a new single premium PPI added to the loan. There was no refund of a proportion of the first PPI premium).

To cut a long story short, the bank ended up replacing the second loan with a third one, at a higher APR again, and, yes, you've guessed it, with another single premium PPI policy added onto it, with no refund of any of the previous premium.

She now has a loan of around £17,000 (over half of which has been to pay for PPI over the three loans), when the only problem she had originally was that she dipped a few hundred pounds overdrawn with her current account each month. A simple overdraft facility would have been a more appropriate option but they wouldn't agree to do that.

Sadly, they saw her coming, and used threats to make her comply with their desire to milk her for all she was worth, and a whole lot more besides. Some dodgy 'doorstep' lender? No, one of the biggest High Street names that has been in the news a lot recently for receiving huge taxpayer bailouts.

I don't believe it will be possible to pursue a claim that the loan was mis-sold (apart from the PPI element of it), so the only route to address this issue is to look at the enforceability of the loan agreement. Luckily, it seems that the bank have made some errors and some of the prescribed terms are inaccurate, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. We shall pursue the claim with vigour.

Now, I don't really care what the moralists have to say about this, I'm perfectly comfortable with my decision and with my ability to self-regulate my moral code.

The fact is, the banks have been getting away with all manner of bad practice over the years, then squandering their ill-gotten gains on dodgy financial instruments abroad. As taxpayers, we will be paying for this for a generation at least. For anyone to say that a few personal loans are going to make the slightest difference to the situation is deluding themselves. Please look at the bigger picture people. Look at the share price of any big bank - they all resemble a very steep cliff. This has nothing to do with writing off a few personal loans and everything to do with backing junk foreign mortgage investments.

In any case, I'm pretty sure that the banks will get off lightly. There are probably millions of people who have had excessive bank charges applied, or have been mis-sold PPI, etc that will never make a claim against their bank, largely due to a lack of awareness. This will massively outweigh the few thousand who might attempt to make a claim that could be deemed exploitative.

Personally, I'd like to see this forum used by people to help and advise each other, and not for self appointed, self righteous puritans to exercise their indignation every time they see something they have taken it upon themselves to sit in judgment over.

I wonder how long it's going to take for some Smart A**e to accuse me of judging the judges, although I haven't actually done so!!??

I have been Pro 'pay what you borrow' but this is poor from whichever bank took her for a ride. PPI for a housewife on more than one occassion is shocking :eek: .
I hope you get a result and change banks!! :rolleyes: Maybe i have been lucky and have not had a bad experiece, this forum flags up exactly the pitfalls to avoid!

Ichimoku

"Hello, pot calling kettle.....can you hear me kettle.......over!"

Perhaps you ought to read the last line of my previous post again - you've obviously risen to the challenge of being the first Smart A**e!! Well done

Ichimoku

Hucks77

Poor isn't the word - she only made me aware of the whole story recently.

She recently sent an SAR request and we've just received a load of paperwork back from the bank. On one PPI application, the bank has ticked that she was employed, but has left the employer details blank!

I think the point I was trying to make is that there are many genuine cases out there, and it's very difficult to obtain justice as the banks make things as difficult as possible and the authorities are so overstretched.

If the law didn't exist, lenders could (and would) exploit the situation to the max. As it is, some lenders don't provide copies of loan agreements as they are compelled to do by law (it even becomes a criminal offence after a certain amount of time). If the law was more relaxed, the lenders would be laughing all the way to the er...bank!

I've heard of enough horror stories to be convinced that the banks don't deserve any protection. As I said in my previous post, I'm certain that they'll get away with far more than they'll lose through opportunist claims due to the millions of people they've ripped off over the years.

I didn't want to name the bank, but let's just say it has it's origins north of the border. I had to laugh when the first response to my post was from "tartanterra" - my missus has certainly suffered at the hands of a tartan terror!

willo65

Why did the bank loan her money in the first place if she had no income? and did she not read the agreements before she signed them?

I would still say if you borrowed the money then you should pay it back. I pose the same question to you as another poster:

If a family member loans you money do you refuse to repay on the grounds of not having a CCA?

lclclclc

lending to a family member is unregulated, where as loan agreements are regulated?

willo65

lclclclc wrote: »

lending to a family member is unregulated, where as loan agreements are regulated?

But if you take the stance of the "Loan" wherever it is from then surely it is the same principle. You borrowed it, you should pay it back.

lclclclc

Your opinion which you are entitled to. I am of a different opinion, given the information I have and DON'T available to me, and my circumstances

willo65

lclclclc if you are employed in financial services would a debt that you are refusing to pay not jeopordise(sp) your job?