Unenforceable Credit Agreements

~Brock~

PROLIANT wrote: »

Your asking on the wrong forum, try the hub of claims central on the consumer action group.

Lol :rotfl:Absolutely spot on. The epicenter of what I term 'man in the pub' syndrome, where people believe every single piece of advice given, no matter how flawed, from complete strangers.

bert&ernie

~Brock~ wrote: »

Lol :rotfl:Absolutely spot on. The epicenter of what I term 'man in the pub' syndrome, where people believe every single piece of advice given, no matter how flawed, from complete strangers.

(to the OP)

As opposed to here, where you will will receive little advice but plenty of judgement from a bunch of reactionaries who are deeply offended by, and indeed fearful of, any challenge to their rather simplistic moral stance.

You may however be able to able to elicit their sympathy if you throw yourself at their feet, demonstrate your worthiness and convince them that you are ready to repent.

If you are not ready be either vilified or patronised , then I suggest that you take the advice offered by previous posters, namely:

1. Learn to search the MSE forums;
2. Take a look at the CAG forums;
3. Take all advice with a generous pinch of salt.

Good Luck!

rsykes2000

bert&ernie wrote: »

(to the OP)

As opposed to here, where you will will receive little advice but plenty of judgement from a bunch of reactionaries who are deeply offended by, and indeed fearful of, any challenge to their rather simplistic moral stance.

You may however be able to able to elicit their sympathy if you throw yourself at their feet, demonstrate your worthiness and convince them that you are ready to repent.

If you are not ready be either vilified or patronised , then I suggest that you take the advice offered by previous posters, namely:

1. Learn to search the MSE forums;
2. Take a look at the CAG forums;
3. Take all advice with a generous pinch of salt.

Good Luck!

Alternatively (to the OP), don't try and spam this forum with vaguely concealed adverts for your company(ies). Maybe my cynical side, but everyhing they posted seemed to lead to wanting people to check out those companies and attempting to deflect criticism.

Keith

rking wrote: »

Thanks, I'm not in debt. I'm just struggling to believe that this could be a legitimate option that won't affect my credit rating! I'll keep reading...

If you don't have debt, then you wouldn't be using the company so therefore it won't effect your credit rating.

bert&ernie

rsykes2000 wrote: »

Alternatively (to the OP), don't try and spam this forum with vaguely concealed adverts for your company(ies). Maybe my cynical side, but everyhing they posted seemed to lead to wanting people to check out those companies and attempting to deflect criticism.

I'm well aware that the OP is almost certainly spamming with the "is this true..." routine. However, there are no dodgy links in the post, so I leave people make their own mind up - something on an alien concept to some characters on this board.

~Brock~

bert&ernie wrote: »

(to the OP)

As opposed to here, where you will will receive little advice but plenty of judgement from a bunch of reactionaries who are deeply offended by, and indeed fearful of, any challenge to their rather simplistic moral stance.

You may however be able to able to elicit their sympathy if you throw yourself at their feet, demonstrate your worthiness and convince them that you are ready to repent.

If you are not ready be either vilified or patronised , then I suggest that you take the advice offered by previous posters, namely:

1. Learn to search the MSE forums;
2. Take a look at the CAG forums;
3. Take all advice with a generous pinch of salt.

Good Luck!

Thought you might bite at that

I have no issue whatsoever with people with genuine problems seeking help or advice. I also (believe it or not) have no problem with people claiming monies that have been WRONGFULLY taken from them.

I do have a problem with the latest bandwagon that people from the murkier depths of the 'claims' industry have jumped upon in respect of the unenforceability bollox. Read carefully the original post.* Apparently this is as a result of a Government order to stop people going bankrupt. Have you ever heard so much tosh? Who is spreading this rubbish.............those who have a vested interest in signing up as many vunerable people as possible. These are people with the morals of alleycats - 10 times worse than the banks they claim the moral high ground to.

As for CAG - great website - great resource. Unfortunately many of their members appear to carry chips on their shoulders about banks and the credit industry in general that are so heavy they end up walking around in circles. A balanced opinion is hard to find, and I hate to think how many people's credit ratings have been trashed by one sided advice.

I actually think that we both share many similar views in terms of our principles bert, but even if we don't, the healthy debate it creates makes this forum all the better IMHO.

* The thread I was posting in was merged while I was typing this - I am referring to post #319

simon_templar_2

CAG forum sucks big time. Talk about blinkered and unable to see any other view other than their own. And if you should even try to take them to task, well all the toys come out the pram. If you try to have a debate they accuse you of being a troll/fascist/nazi/wum/evil/nastypasty etc!

bert&ernie

~Brock~ wrote: »

Thought you might bite at that

I have no issue whatsoever with people with genuine problems seeking help or advice. I also (believe it or not) have no problem with people claiming monies that have been WRONGFULLY taken from them.

I do have a problem with the latest bandwagon that people from the murkier depths of the 'claims' industry have jumped upon in respect of the unenforceability bollox. Read carefully the original post.* Apparently this is as a result of a Government order to stop people going bankrupt. Have you ever heard so much tosh? Who is spreading this rubbish.............those who have a vested interest in signing up as many vunerable people as possible. These are people with the morals of alleycats - 10 times worse than the banks they claim the moral high ground to.

As for CAG - great website - great resource. Unfortunately many of their members appear to carry chips on their shoulders about banks and the credit industry in general that are so heavy they end up walking around in circles. A balanced opinion is hard to find, and I hate to think how many people's credit ratings have been trashed by one sided advice.

I actually think that we both share many similar views in terms of our principles bert, but even if we don't, the healthy debate it creates makes this forum all the better IMHO.

* The thread I was posting in was merged while I was typing this - I am referring to post #319

the merge caught me out too.

My problem is that deciding whether someone was "genuinely" "wronged" often gets reduces to a simple moral judgement. Frankly, I don't think any of us here are in any position to make this decision.

I would argue that the claims industry needs better regulation. The claims you refer to are indeed tosh. There seems to be a rather amusing conflation of IVAs and unenforcablilty - perhaps betraying the fact that the companies involved in marketing both solutions seem to have a lot in common.

I don't want to regulate free speech on forums though, so I'm afraid that the old adage of caveat emptor needs to apply here. I think its a good thing for people to question authority and orthodoxy, but I'm also worried that many people seem happy not to apply the same rigour when evaluating the more subversive or contrarian views found on forums and blogs. I certainly don't want anyone to put too much faith in anything I say - I'll be more than happy if someone simply consider that I may be right and goes away to find out for themselves.

Here's to a healthy debate:beer:

~Brock~

simon_templar wrote: »

CAG forum sucks big time. Talk about blinkered and unable to see any other view other than their own. And if you should even try to take them to task, well all the toys come out the pram. If you try to have a debate they accuse you of being a troll/fascist/nazi/wum/evil/nastypasty etc!

Lol - glad to see I'm not alone.

The difference between this forum and CAG is that this forum contains a healthy mix for views about banks, credit and money in general. There is a healthy proportion of posters here who still enjoy a 'normal' relationship with their bank and creditors that doesn't involve trying to either instigate or defend litigation against them.

I would prefer not to take my financial advice from someone who displays their past financial disasters in their signature like some perverse 'badge of honour' thank you very much.:beer:

~Brock~

bert&ernie wrote: »

the merge caught me out too.

My problem is that deciding whether someone was "genuinely" "wronged" often gets reduces to a simple moral judgement. Frankly, I don't think any of us here are in any position to make this decision.

I would argue that the claims industry needs better regulation. The claims you refer to are indeed tosh. There seems to be a rather amusing conflation of IVAs and unenforcablilty - perhaps betraying the fact that the companies involved in marketing both solutions seem to have a lot in common.

I don't want to regulate free speech on forums though, so I'm afraid that the old adage of caveat emptor needs to apply here. I think its a good thing for people to question authority and orthodoxy, but I'm also worried that many people seem happy not to apply the same rigour when evaluating the more subversive or contrarian views found on forums and blogs. I certainly don't want anyone to put too much faith in anything I say - I'll be more than happy if someone simply consider that I may be right and goes away to find out for themselves.

Here's to a healthy debate:beer:

Excellent post bert. :beer: