Unenforceable Credit Agreements

aj2703

I'd like to know where people stand when it comes to using this loophole against a DCA where they have brought your debt for a fraction of the price, yet still want the full amount back from you. I would have no problem paying back the origional credator i.e bank etc, but my main gripe is the DCA's who profit without the initial outlay...

PROLIANT

I will debate tomorrow guys, the Dirty Dozen is starting @ 8:00 on Five, last chance of chillin before work tomorow.
Good night.

noah271007

aj2703 wrote: »

I'd like to know where people stand when it comes to using this loophole against a DCA where they have brought your debt for a fraction of the price, yet still want the full amount back from you. I would have no problem paying back the origional credator i.e bank etc, but my main gripe is the DCA's who profit without the initial outlay...

That's a good point. However creditors are entitled to chose and write off debts in their own discretion. DCA makes money by chasing debts. If anyone get into this situation dealing with DCA, then insist to pay the outstanding debt to your creditor directly and not to DCA. I know some of you will say that would be impossible for example account closed etc. Doing this way often helps to remove defaults as no payment have been made to the DCA. This is an argument many people have used when challenging removing defaults and in a lot of cases it has been quite successful. I am not sure if there is a loophole as such as default would already have taken place.

KrisD

PROLIANT wrote: »

I have debated honestly and reasonably with you and the rest of the "people" on this thread, don't switch it on me because we now have an equilibrium of thought across the thread; No matter what subject we debate on Bert, I say black - you say white, we could be debating about the weather and you would still argue till the cows come home.
I am tired, I have had a good night and a lovely meal with my girl, and I am not going to let this digital bandwagon spoil my evening.
Good night.

You are seriously deluded. Simon Templar you are ridiculous. Read your posts lads. As stated before you simply like to condemn and shout down those with a different opinion to yours. Your points are badly argued usually with a simple premise and nothing to back it up. I advise that you don't even bother - you're not going to win any debating trophies in the near future! It's obvious you enjoy a row but would need to learn how to argue.

simon_templar_2

Sorry Kris but you really are barking up the wrong tree. I dont have to justify anything to you. I have posted many helpful comments so my comments are not ridiculous. I do not condemn, shout down and am not interested in 'debating trophies. Further me i can back up anything i say, however i dont need to do so with you on the points you are raising above. Im not bothered if you want to agree or not so dont bother reading my posts in future.

PROLIANT

KrisD wrote: »

You are seriously deluded. Simon Templar you are ridiculous. Read your posts lads. As stated before you simply like to condemn and shout down those with a different opinion to yours. Your points are badly argued usually with a simple premise and nothing to back it up. I advise that you don't even bother - you're not going to win any debating trophies in the near future! It's obvious you enjoy a row but would need to learn how to argue.

Deluded? I think not sir - you are clearly deluded.
I am not the one trying to avoid repaying my creditors and using this bandwagon for promoting loop-holes and such crap, has anybody been successful in having the debt written off...erm no!
I await your "deluded" reply Mr KrisD.

bert&ernie

simon_templar wrote: »

Sorry Kris but you really are barking up the wrong tree. I dont have to justify anything to you. I have posted many helpful comments so my comments are not ridiculous. I do not condemn, shout down and am not interested in 'debating trophies. Further me i can back up anything i say, however i dont need to do so with you on the points you are raising above. Im not bothered if you want to agree or not so dont bother reading my posts in future.

I've reviewed your posts on this thread and can sumarise your contribution to the debate as follows:

You called the OP a chancer; repatedly slagged of the CAG forum; posed an asinine rhetorical question about taxpayers driving tanks, and then proceeded to tell us that we've got you all wrong - that you've actually made some helpfull remarks - presumably these are on some other thread?

You say that you dont have to justify anything. I quite agree. I think you will find this is the very arguement that I and others have been making, and the one that you have so manifestly failed to engage in any meaningfull way.

PROLIANT wrote: »

Deluded? I think not sir - you are clearly deluded.
I am not the one trying to avoid repaying my creditors and using this bandwagon for promoting loop-holes and such crap, has anybody been successful in having the debt written off...erm no!
I await your "deluded" reply Mr KrisD.

Proliant mate, you cant have it both ways - its either a "sadistic" loophole and to make use of it is "a bit like humping somebody else’s wife then kicking the shat out of the betrayed husband", or a load of cobblers that nobody should worry about. Which is it to be?

PROLIANT

bert&ernie wrote: »

Proliant mate, you cant have it both ways

Why not?

simon_templar_2

Well, well Bert&Ernie you must have far too much time on your hands and are a person who is very uptight. Try relaxing and counting to ten, take a deep breath and chill.

Swans1912

mmmm, I don't agree with people using this as a way to get out of paying their debts but I can't help to think that in the same position I would probably be trying!