Unenforceable Credit Agreements

bert&ernie

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:

What would such a hypothetical technicality be?

Even if there was such a technicality, its highly unlikely that the bank would use it. Not out of altruism, or some sense of moral duty, but because it has a reputation to protect - any bank seen to behave in such a way would be unlikely to keep its customers.

That isn't to say that banks aren't fond of enforcing the fine print in their agreements when it suits them.

rh41

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

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.

I think you should remeber that because the banks arent functioning and lending as they should, companies are going bust.
We cannot blame just the banks we share some blame ourselves. Banks need to repay the government the billions of our money, and to do that they need to operate on commerical terms. They are not and never should be a charity.

pink_princess

Whilst i don t deny that debt should be paid back,It was a newbie asking for help not recrimination .A simple link or advice would of done.If you s would like to discuss the moral implications of it all why not start a thread in discussion time and have a debate on the issue instead of putting down some-one who needs help and didn t recieve it.
I have pm ed the op a useful link i just hope they log back on to see it.
I also hope you s all feel proud of your comments and actions.

PROLIANT

pink_princess wrote: »

Whilst i don t deny that debt should be paid back,It was a newbie asking for help not recrimination .A simple link or advice would of done.If you s would like to discuss the moral implications of it all why not start a thread in discussion time and have a debate on the issue instead of putting down some-one who needs help and didn t recieve it.
I have pm ed the op a useful link i just hope they log back on to see it.
I also hope you s all feel proud of your comments and actions.

Nothing to feel proud about hinney, just pointing out a few facts.
If we started a dedicated thread on "moral stances" here on MSE we would never have the full debate as those who disagree would just stay clear anyway.
Also the OP would never benefit from any further education on his/here situation; a one sided view and advice from similar characters would never really benefit he or she would it?

Mozette

bert&ernie wrote: »

What would such a hypothetical technicality be?

Even if there was such a technicality, its highly unlikely that the bank would use it. Not out of altruism, or some sense of moral duty, but because it has a reputation to protect - any bank seen to behave in such a way would be unlikely to keep its customers.

That isn't to say that banks aren't fond of enforcing the fine print in their agreements when it suits them.

I've no idea what such a technicality would be! The point I was making was, if the debt dodgers on here think it's reasonable to not pay money they have borrowed on a legal technicality, how would they feel about the opposite situation? If the instution they borrowed off was able on (a hypothetical) technicality, to be entitled to have the sum they owed paid back twice? Would they think that was okay, so long as it was a legal technicality allowing it.

I can't imagine what such a clause would be, but that is irrelevant to the point I'm making. I doubt that any bank would enforce it even if there were; after all, there's enough fuss when the banks enforce the terms and conditions of the account such as charges and interest.

Put simply then, what I'm asking is: do the debt dodgers think it cuts both ways, or do they want to have their cake and eat it?

Mozette

pink_princess wrote: »

Whilst I don't deny that debt should be paid back; it was a newbie asking for help not recrimination. A simple link or advice would have done. If you would like to discuss the moral implications of it all why not start a thread in discussion time and have a debate on the issue instead of putting down some-one who needs help and didn't recieve it.
I have pm ed the op a useful link I just hope they log back on to see it.
I also hope you all feel proud of your comments and actions.

If you don't deny that debt should be repaid, then the OP has had some helpful advice: pay back what you've borrowed!

I'm proud of not trying to wriggle out of any of my responsibilities and facing up to the consequences of my actions. Sorting your own life and problems out actually feels good.

TheExpert

I think the point all those who support not repaying these debts are missing is that the moral obligation is NOT to the bank, but to your family, your children and your country.

For every 100 people trying to wriggle out of paying these credit card debts, every hard-working person in the UK has to pay £1 to help the banks who cannot get their money back. When thousands upon thousands of people do this over and over again, the only thing that will happen is the children of these selfish egoists along with the rest of us will try and foot the bill.

Let's say 100,000 people go and "use loopholes" in this country (before you even consider bad small business debts, defaulting mortgages or anything else. This would amount to less than 0.2% of the population, so not completely overblown considering current economic conditions. That would mean that every employed person will have to fork out £1000 in order to keep the country afloat and not follow the likes of Zimbabwe down the drain. To the average employed person, this is over 5% of their annual salary. So we are talking about an equivalent of a 5% increase in ALL tax, including the original 6k-odd where you pay nothing, and the subsequent brackets.

The fact of the matter is that the British Economy is more or less a zero-sum game to an extend and especially so in the current economic climate. If selfish arrogant wasters continue to live the life of scrounging ignorant thieves (look up this word in the dictionary, it might shed a light onto what you are trying to do), then Iceland's crisis will suddenly look like a best-case scenario.

I could draw many vivid comparisons to try and illustrate my point in simpler terms, but I am afraid that will only fall on deaf ears of the leeching hyenas within our society.

One last point. If you cannot afford your debt, how about this amazing solution: You cancel your sky subscription, don't go to the pub twice a month, eat a packed lunch instead of buying one, cancel your newspaper subscription, don't buy any music and/or computer games, don't buy any new shoes when you already have 5 perfectly fine and wearable pairs, drink water instead of pricey coffee, walk the 500 metres you would spend £1.60 on the bus for, go work three evenings a week at your local co-op/tesco/whatever because I almost always see ads for temp jobs at these places. Hey presto! You suddenly have £200 extra a month to repay the money that you needlessly spent on your shiny new 42 inch plasma/xbox/bunch of DVDs/Surround Sound System/new car to replace one that worked absolutely fine/big new mobile phone with tons of features that not only do you not use, but most probably are unaware of and don't know what they do.

kthnxbai,

TheExpert

bert&ernie

Ah, The Expert has spoken. That's quite a rant, please allow me to address it section by section:

TheExpert wrote: »

I think the point all those who support not repaying these debts are missing is that the moral obligation is NOT to the bank, but to your family, your children and your country.

So who is the bank morally responsible to? You seem to suggest that the bank is merely acting as a proxy for wider society in its relationship with its customers. This is clearly not the case, as most banks are owned commercially and are, in fact, responsible to their shareholders. The fact that the government has a stake in some banks doesn’t change this this fact. Banks exist to generate a profit for their shareholders - not to discharge some kind of moral obligation to society.

TheExpert wrote: »

For every 100 people trying to wriggle out of paying these credit card debts, every hard-working person in the UK has to pay £1 to help the banks who cannot get their money back. When thousands upon thousands of people do this over and over again, the only thing that will happen is the children of these selfish egoists along with the rest of us will try and foot the bill.

This is an interesting assertion - would you care to explain how you arrived at these figures? Could you also define who you consider to be a hard working person as this sounds like the kind of meaningless rhetoric that politicians of all colours are so keen to trot out these days. Your conclusion is also surprisingly emphatic given the lack of substance backing up your argument. Arguably, future generations will pay a much higher price for macro level financial mismanagement of governments and banks that for any loans written off due to unenforceability.

TheExpert wrote: »

Let's say 100,000 people go and "use loopholes" in this country (before you even consider bad small business debts, defaulting mortgages or anything else. This would amount to less than 0.2% of the population, so not completely overblown considering current economic conditions. That would mean that every employed person will have to fork out £1000 in order to keep the country afloat and not follow the likes of Zimbabwe down the drain. To the average employed person, this is over 5% of their annual salary. So we are talking about an equivalent of a 5% increase in ALL tax, including the original 6k-odd where you pay nothing, and the subsequent brackets.

Again, it would appear that you are plucking figures out of the air and plugging them into meaningless calculations in an attempt to make your agreement look convincing.

TheExpert wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that the British Economy is more or less a zero-sum game to an extend and especially so in the current economic climate. If selfish arrogant wasters continue to live the life of scrounging ignorant thieves (look up this word in the dictionary, it might shed a light onto what you are trying to do), then Iceland's crisis will suddenly look like a best-case scenario.

The economy is self evidently NOT a zero-sum game - its purpose it to generate wealth as well as re-distribute it. Arguably, it is much better at generating wealth for those who already have it than it is at redistributing it to those that don’t, but this is another argument entirely. That said, the traits of a zero sum game are sometimes evident - especially in financial services where you will find little in the way of actual economic production. I have argued previously that the banking industry exhibits the traits of a zero sum game in the sense that losses incurred through one group of customers are, more often than not, offset against increased profit levied from another group. In this sense, what makes a stoozer any different to someone who fails to repay an unenforceable debt? They are both acting within the law in a way that the lender did not intend. The result is exactly the same - someone else has to pay. The only difference is in the way people like yourself apply a moral filter to the way you view the world. The fact that banks have ALWAYS attempted to privatise their profits and socialise their losses is not an excuse to berate individuals for pursuing actions that benefit themselves over others.

The fact that banks wilfully entered into agreements that they didn’t bother to check were enforceable proves that their money is not being taken by deception or by force. If someone doesn’t repay a loan because of the banks incompetence then they have made a fair profit against the banks loss. If we follow your twisted logic and your belief in the fallacy of the economy as a zero-sum game, then we might conclude that all profit is theft.

TheExpert wrote: »

I could draw many vivid comparisons to try and illustrate my point in simpler terms, but I am afraid that will only fall on deaf ears of the leeching hyenas within our society.

I think terms like "leeching hyenas" are quite vivid enough to illustrate your distaste and utter contempt for people who wish to exercise their legal rights in a free society.

TheExpert wrote: »

One last point. If you cannot afford your debt, how about this amazing solution: You cancel your sky subscription, don't go to the pub twice a month, eat a packed lunch instead of buying one, cancel your newspaper subscription, don't buy any music and/or computer games, don't buy any new shoes when you already have 5 perfectly fine and wearable pairs, drink water instead of pricey coffee, walk the 500 metres you would spend £1.60 on the bus for, go work three evenings a week at your local co-op/tesco/whatever because I almost always see ads for temp jobs at these places. Hey presto! You suddenly have £200 extra a month to repay the money that you needlessly spent on your shiny new 42 inch plasma/xbox/bunch of DVDs/Surround Sound System/new car to replace one that worked absolutely fine/big new mobile phone with tons of features that not only do you not use, but most probably are unaware of and don't know what they do.

Perfectly reasonable advice. Sadly it doesn't do much to inform the debate about unenforceable agreements. You might like to think that thrift and hard graft make a man morally superior, but sadly if he is struggling to repay an unenforceable agreement, it doesn’t make him any less a fool.

TheExpert wrote: »

kthnxbai,

TheExpert

what exactly do you profess to be an expert in btw?

ILW

Setting aside the legality, would you consider shoplifting morally OK if you were hungry?

LongTermLurker

To be honest, I think it shows a "dastardly streak" to want to wriggle out of your financial obligations because someone has told you about a loophole. Morals aside, because as someone said, they are subjective, do the people who back the cause for living life to the full at others' expense feel happy working all week to pay their mortgage and buy food for the family while seeing their permadole neighbours living a life of luxury, raking in god knows what benefits and being able to buy new electronic equipment because they don't have to pay rent? It's not a case of jealousy either, it's more a case of "why should I bother when I can live better for free?" Personally, I bother because I enjoy working and knowing that what I have, I've earned.

Living life to the full and getting out of paying it back is no different imo to living life to the full on benefits with no intention of ever working again. It doesn't make them morally wrong, it just makes them lazy, dishonest scroungers.