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

enjoyincubus

lclclclc wrote: »

The only people who could be affected by the action that we are taking, is shareholders, the banks bottom line and profits are not as good, they dont get paid a good dividend...hmmm...so thats another can of worms, shareholders, most likely the government..they need to obviously see profits for their preference shares to be exercised..but then again the government are probably looking at their stakes as a 3,4,5 year investment..so without creating a whole different argument - this wont really affect shareholder ( taxpayer ) value in the short or long term, as all this will blow over in the next year or so, in terms of PPI reclaim and unenforceable loans..and the amounts paid by the banks in term of compensation, cancellation of loans, will not permeate and reach the taxpayer/consumer in a way, that we can actually see. i think the government have bigger things to worry about.

Diminishing returns is never a good situation for shareholders. Shareholders expect to make an increasing amount back on their shares each year. If this doesn't happen then the likeliness is that they will move their money elsewhere. Shareholders can also vent their unhappiness at smaller dividends by voting out members of the board etc.

Therefore the banks (as would any other business) try their hardest for this situation not to occur. So if profits look to be reducing then prices will have to rise or products made less costly to provide.

lclclclc

I get what you're saying, but I know enough to know, that there aren't as many private investors involved in the equity market as there used to be... the reality of it is, is its mainly hedge funds, prop desks and asset managers ( ok pension funds are involved ) - but again - in terms of the consumer being hurt- it will take a long long time for this to feed back down to them. Share prices can go up as well as down, we know that.. there are so many technical and fundamental factors that drive share price and shareholder value, that what I am doing is not really going to have a huge effect. So to my mind, in the grand scheme of things, I am taking on the big big organisations.. and I am not hurting anyone by rightfully exercising my rights under consumer law. I feel vindicated by taking the course of action that I am taking,and the more of us that do do it, will show the banks up for what they are!!! time to re-dress the balance in the favour of the consumer. We have trusted banks, and look where it has got us.. 1000's out of jobs in banking, £ billions written off by banks etc etc - shareholder value there?! , and cap in hand to the government... they wont release credit to the market,to get the merry go round going again - be it small business or consumer, because all they are interested in, is having a good or better bottom line.

Hippocampus

1sue23 wrote: »

I am very old fashioned ,but in my day if you borrowed the money you paid it back ,when you took out the loan was it your intention not to repay the loan ?

Why is there not a "P*ss off, your post is totally unhelpful" button?

Hippocampus

Let's face it... the massive hits the banks have taken recently have absolutely nothing to do with the tiny fraction of money paid out in bank chargs, missold PPI etc. It IS partly due to the sheer arrogance of the heirarchy in thinking that they could tag along to the American dream of Lend to Anyone Regardless, by foolishly investing in the sub prime markets of the US. !!!!!! did they THINK was going to happen when millions of debtors were physically unable to repay their debts, and houses were repossesed on a massive scale? Or was that just someone else's problem, and it was never going to happen anyway, so why worry about it?

No, the banks' profits have not taken a nosedive because of a few bad debts in the UK. Their problems stem from much closer to the boardroom.

Hippocampus

Renovatio wrote: »

It's to$$ers like the OP that are adding to the problems of this country:mad:

If you have borrowed money, you should pay it back. If you are a thieving weasel that reneges on the credit agreement, you should have a 10 year ban on obtaining credit.

Obtaining credit is a privilege NOT a right!

What about the thieving weasels in the finance sector who have squandered OUR money on foolish pipe dreams?

Or is that OK because they are big boys and can do difficult sums better than the rest of us?

~Brock~

lclclclc wrote: »

thank you for giving me even more motivation... I'm even more determined to succeed, because I know i am in the right.. and I can be proved so, and stuff your rhetoric, where the sun doesn't shine..

Good luck in your quest.

I know if I was opposite you in the courtroom I would point out to the judge that, as you are employed in financial services, you are unlikely to have been prejudiced by some alleged error on your agreement in the way that an uneducated lay-person may be, and your actions are more likely to be of a pre-metitated nature. Might just slip in the Rankine case as well

lclclclc

I have had the loan for a few years, I have a few years left the loan.. so dont see how that could be thought of as pre-meditated. I am claiming back what is rightfully mine, and I will hold them accountable.. and fight my battle..If they meet me in a courtroom - they dont have my agreement - its as simple as that..not enforceable.

RobertoMoir

lclclclc wrote: »

Thank you for the posts, both the encouraging & not so encouraging ones. I'm not really asking for someone to pass judgement on me. I have fought long and hard with the bank concerned,and in the 15 years I have been with them, I have experienced some awful levels of customer service. The action I am taking is the last thing I want to do, but I feel compelled to stand up for myself against this massive corporation. I reduced a massive overdraft i had with them, down to almost nothing.. now I was incredulously told by someone in their call centre, and even someone in their branch, I would have been better off keeping a large overdraft ?!!! my profile on their systems has actually worsened, all because i decided I wanted to be responsible, and have less debt. Banks should be responsible, and be encouraging people to de-leverage themselves given the current financial environment...

Corporations like the one I am fighting against, allow for liabilities such as bad debt every year, they insure themselves against claims such as this,and bank charge reclaims such as this...I understand that some people will say, its the rest of us ( customers of ABC/YYZ bank,that will end up having to pay for this.. but the fact is, that it will never really permeate down to the rest of the customers, because like I have said above, they allow for bad debts in their accounts, and insure themselves with Lloyds of London etc for such things. If anything, this is a positive thing for us consumers.. it'll make the banks, sit up, take notice, and get their houses in order.

I've got no sympathy for them pulling dirty tricks to recover unenforceable debts, but you do realise your plea for them to get their house in order can basically be taken as saying banks shouldn't do business with people like you. And frankly, if you want to justify yourself by saying "they just claim it on the insurance innit", then I hope that declining to do business with people like you is exactly what banks start to do.

lclclclc

RobertoMoir wrote: »

I've got no sympathy for them pulling dirty tricks to recover unenforceable debts, but you do realise your plea for them to get their house in order can basically be taken as saying banks shouldn't do business with people like you. And frankly, if you want to justify yourself by saying "they just claim it on the insurance innit", then I hope that declining to do business with people like you is exactly what banks start to do.

thanks for that....how is it up there, on your moral high ground? I'm within my rights to challenge, and thats what I am doing - when people like you express your opinion, which is entitled - you are only making me more determined. If this was the only debt i had, I would still be challenging this, as its a point of principal - thank god the positive responses outweigh the negatives on this website/forum - I dont need to do business with the banks anymore, I'm doing ok thanks !! and I doubt many more people can even do business with them, as the banks have themselves so highly geared, they can't even lend to anyone.. I'll use the useful information given to me by certain people on this website, and people like you, well, go and live a miserable existence. I dont need to justify myself to dour and moralisitic people like you!! I came on here for advice, not be judged by anyone..get a life.

RobertoMoir

lclclclc wrote: »

thanks for that....how is it up there, on your moral high ground? I'm within my rights to challenge, and thats what I am doing - when people like you express your opinion, which is entitled - you are only making me more determined. If this was the only debt i had, I would still be challenging this, as its a point of principal - thank god the positive responses outweigh the negatives on this website/forum - I dont need to do business with the banks anymore, I'm doing ok thanks !! and I doubt many more people can even do business with them, as the banks have themselves so highly geared, they can't even lend to anyone.. I'll use the useful information given to me by certain people on this website, and people like you, well, go and live a miserable existence. I dont need to justify myself to dour and moralisitic people like you!! I came on here for advice, not be judged by anyone..get a life.

Firstly, as I said, I don't have any sympathy for them pulling stunts to chase un-enforcable debt.

Secondly, I was simply pointing out the logical inconsistencies in one of your own statements. I guess the truth hurts twice as much when you manage to hoist yourself on it, eh?

For someone who claims not be awfully bothered by the opinions of others, you seem to be awfully touchy about, well, other peoples opinions.