Unenforceable Credit Agreements

anotherpaul_2

Maybe there should be a sticky on this? Hopefully a few more people would see it and not post.

Silver_Rocket

Some interesting points from both sides here but I'd like to ask the people who feel they have a "moral obligation" to the banks how they feel about some of the following.

Firstly as people correctly point out an incredible amount of taxpayers money has been put up by the Government in order to prop up the banking system. The purpose of this was to get banks lending again not so much to support consumers but by and large to support small to medium businesses in order to keep people in work. The banks haven't done this and in addition at the time of the first bailout LIED about their actual loses. Your taxes have been handed over to organisations who have been completely reckless and irresponsible in the way they regulated themselves for a number of years and show little or no sign of taking steps to reform. These organisations are actively harming small businesses by raising the cost of borrowing for even well run highly viable companies.

Bank charges - they know many of them are illegal. They know they owe people millions in charges. The banks have connived with Government to drag the issue through the courts as slowly as possible in order to delay any payout. Considering the state that the ecconomy and banks are now in I'd expect that we will never have a satisfactory conclusion to the issue.

" The FSA announced this morning it's extending the current bank charges waiver by a further six months meaning the hold has now been in place for a year and a half with still no end in sight."

Morality? The banks have lost and they still keep stolen money.

Last year when the interest rates started to fall a spokesman for I believe The Council of Mortgage Lenders said on Radio Four that the cuts in rates were unlikely to be passed onto home owners because (I paraphrase) "Over the last few years when the market has been booming we have all had to SUBSIDISE borrowers in order to remain competitive" - this from a man who represents a group of organisations posting ludicrous, obscene, profits year on year during the boom. In the last few months when the rates have fallen further still lenders have consistently tried to hold back the cuts from home owners.

You as a tax payer have a majority shareholding in several banks now. Are those banks acting in the interests of their own shareholders in the way that they did when they were held by private capital?

I would have to say no.

"well they ought to remember what goes around - comes around."

Sounds like the lesson the bank needs taught.

LongTermLurker

simon_templar wrote: »

Are you one of those people who max out their card spending the money on holidays abroad, plasma tvs, designer clothes etc then decide i dont want to pay this back and so get all that for free?

Looks that way There seem to be too many people who think saving money is all about defrauding the companies that agree to fund their over-inflated appetite for worldly goods they can't afford. Their reasoning is they're just getting their own back on the nasty credit companies who lent them money when they asked for it.

It seems to come as a shock to some people when the credit companies actually ask them to pay for the loan :eek::rolleyes:

Nigella_2

There was a case where debt was avoided on a technicality but it cost more to pursue!

I don't think you can really use it as a way to avoid debt as up to a judge in the end.

johnllew

anotherpaul wrote: »

Maybe there should be a sticky on this? Hopefully a few more people would see it and not post.

They are doing it on purpose to drum up business. Notice how they are usually new posters?

withnell

I saw a programme on some people who'd managed to have 100k of credit card debt wiped off due to wording on CC agreements. They then were asked how much it had cost them - "about 100k"

LongTermLurker

withnell wrote: »

I saw a programme on some people who'd managed to have 100k of credit card debt wiped off due to wording on CC agreements. They then were asked how much it had cost them - "about 100k"

That would seem to sum up the intelligence of anyone who spends more than they earn and then ask if they have to pay it back :rolleyes:

withnell

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

The banks haven't done this and in addition at the time of the first bailout LIED about their actual loses

This is a point oft misquoted in the media these days, indeed on Newsnight the presenter was corrected on this 3 times in a row by the guests. The banks didn't lie about their exposure to sub-prime investments, the issue was that no one knew who owned what. The bonds have been chopped up and resold several times round, so it's unclear what total exposure is.

Mozette

So if for some legal technicality the bank could say, "you know all that money you've paid us? Well you didn't do ... whatever... so we're not legally obliged to put it towrds your debt; we're allowed to just keep it."

That would be okay would it?


No, didn't think so:rolleyes:

PROLIANT

Mozette wrote: »

So if for some legal technicality the bank could say, "you know all that money you've paid us? Well you didn't do ... whatever... so we're not legally obliged to put it towrds your debt; we're allowed to just keep it."

That would be okay would it?


No, didn't think so:rolleyes:

Agreed, it would be interesting to see the response from the British public, just out interest, have you noticed most of the "people" on this colourful bandwagon who are trying to take over the world all seem to reside south of the border? Not many Scottish folk trying to bring down the banks and finance houses, maybe just a British thing.