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

lclclclc

thank you for your unintelligible comments...I'll continue to use your views as motivation to succeed..

McKneff

[quote 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.[/quote]

Justifying yourself is all you have been doing since post 1,
You dont sound as if you are an unintelligent man so you must have expected some flak.
I dont know why you originally asked for any advice, throughout thread it seems as if you know exactly
what you are going to do.

Hippocampus

withabix wrote: »

That will be that mirror you're looking at.

Once again, I rest my case.

MORPH3US

Hippocampus wrote: »

Kneejerk idiocy just makes you look a !!!!!!.

Can you please refrain from petty name calling and swearing. There is no need for it.

Cheers

RobertoMoir

Renovatio wrote: »

I am all for the banks marking these "unenforceable debts" as being in default. If these individuals, who happily borrowed and spent the money, want to squirm out of paying, it should be the detriment of their credit file. Let them reap what they sow by suffering with the consequences for six years:D

Let me get this straight.
Surely the debt should be marked in default at the time that happens.
As you can see from my other replies in this thread, I strongly believe lenders should be able to chase debt. However:

• There does come a point where it becomes harassment.
• Arguably, this point is reached when they start defaulting people out of spite.
• Banks need to follow procedures properly. Penalising someone else because of their own mistakes is wrong.

In this particular case, for all that I've given the OP a bit of a hard time myself, it's clear that the bank have some problems with their paperwork in this case as described. We've essentially given the OP a hard time for not taking responsibility for their own actions (debt) in our opinion. We can't have it both ways; the banks need to take it on the chin when they drop the ball too.

Hippocampus

MORPH3US wrote: »

Can you please refrain from petty name calling and swearing. There is no need for it.

Cheers

You are correct, and I apologise for my barely disguised profanity.

However, it does appear that other posters may libel the OP by accusing him of stealing and theft without anyone jumping down their throats. Now that bothers me more than a little.

Thank you for your impartiality. :T

lclclclc

MORPH3US wrote: »

Can you please refrain from petty name calling and swearing. There is no need for it.

Cheers

agreed - I apologise to anyone that I may have offended in my posts. I have just been a bit taken aback by some of the comments such as weasel etc etc, there was no need for that. I truly just came onto this website to recount similar stories with fellow posters.

enjoyincubus

RobertoMoir wrote: »

In this particular case, for all that I've given the OP a bit of a hard time myself, it's clear that the bank have some problems with their paperwork in this case as described. We've essentially given the OP a hard time for not taking responsibility for their own actions (debt) in our opinion. We can't have it both ways; the banks need to take it on the chin when they drop the ball too.

If a bank intends to lend someone money and the legislation governing the transaction states that the bank has to keep a copy of the credit agreement on record for it to continue being valid, then if they lose said document in my opinion it is totally their fault. They need to take that one on the chin and tighten up for next time.

I don't have a problem if someone can get out of a loan on a technicality, I wish I could get out of mine the same way. Its not something I would try however, unless I was desperate. I spent the money so my part of the deal was to pay the bank back. It is quite clear that we all feel differently about this one, and some more strongly than others!

Hippocampus

Let's turn the arguement around a little. Banks themselves are not averse to using a "loophole" to avoid paying their debts.

Part of the deal as I understood it was that my bank would treat me fairly and justly. After all, if you can't trust a bank, who can you trust?

Unfortunately, it came to my attention that they actually owed me a not inconsiderable sum of money. Having challenged them on that, they eventually agreed to repay SOME, but not all of that money back. Why not the whole amount? Simply because they didn't have to by law, since some of that disputed sum was "erroneously" removed from my account over 6 years ago, and therefore fell outside the limitation period which the law dictates by statute.

So, do two wrongs make a right? Should I, and others, simply hold on to the moral high ground, in the full knowledge that these corporations use every trick in the book to unlawfully prise cash out of customers when they think they can get away with it?

What do you think?

maz1964

oh dear what a thread

but i like the debate it shows differences of opionions and experiences at its best or worst whatever which side of the fence we face

i can only add to what i initially said, experience counts a lot more than a mere opinion, and i have to say whatever you feel you have to do - you have to do

i didnt expect this type of back lashing at someone who had presented his idea and legal information to be so much attacked, but then the world overall isnt fair, only personal experience will teach you lots

i reiterate a contract is a contract, done properly and correctly as it was intended by the original creator of the credit agreement legislation then it should be correct and legal, where banks got greedy and didnt follow the paperwork correctly by getting the contract signed sealed and delivered, then they pay the price of not getting their own house in order and should pay the penalty.

So for you moral posters, im asking and been asking for my copy of my agreement and been defaulted and happily im saying they have terminated my agreement unlawfully, i will be taking the bank to court if they dont beat me first to get my default removed and to pay them only the arrears and not the full amount as they have not supplied me with the cca and neither is the default notice been processed legally. oops should i say oh dear mr bankers you just havent followed the proper proceedures that you famously say you follow, but look sir you didnt give me proper notice to pay my arrears!

nah they pay legal eagles over 40,000 to get it right, ill let my defence do the talking and wil be claiming my costs too

oh sweet justice at its best!

so dont be spiteful whoever said, about us getting a default and our credit files trashed, it can only happen legally and i quote LEGAllY IF the bank did its job properly and legally

i hope you win your battle original poster cos knowing your rights is the best way forward and dont take any notice of ones who dont understand the points of law or even understand their own rights

oh so sorry if ive upset a few and if you are a bank reading this, just get your house in order i resent having to pay my taxes for you getting it wrong!

laters have a fun eve maz1964:cool: