Unenforceable Credit Agreements

nzseries1

Please see this thread, where this topic has been done to the death:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1400177

theladyknows

After the bankers bankrupting the country and the goverment using our money to bail them out I have no problem with people trying to get out of credit card agreements.
You throw money at someone and they'll more than likely spend it. Just who does read all the small print about late payment fees and charges!
And if this does make credit harder to get I'm all for that as well.

Robert_Sterling_3

nzseries1 wrote: »

Please see this thread, where this topic has been done to the death:

Evidently not. Like Elvis it lives on.

debttornado

Hi
Someone PM'd me about this. Luckily I have lurked long enough to be sceptical. I have put the person on my ignore list but is there something else I should do?

PROLIANT

theladyknows wrote: »

After the bankers bankrupting the country and the goverment using our money to bail them out I have no problem with people trying to get out of credit card agreements.
You throw money at someone and they'll more than likely spend it. Just who does read all the small print about late payment fees and charges!
And if this does make credit harder to get I'm all for that as well.

This attitude is what got the majority of UK credit consumers in to problems in the first place, the "I don't care" blame culture attitude that seems to be the modus operandi of many British people, how about the millions of people who apply for credit and over-commit themselves to then say "oh it was not my fault it was the banks!" - Crap.
Come on, sort yourselves out!

fermi

debttornado wrote: »

Hi
Someone PM'd me about this. Luckily I have lurked long enough to be sceptical. I have put the person on my ignore list but is there something else I should do?

If someone PM'd you offering or advertising these types of services then report them.

Copy the text of the PM into an email along with the username (case sensitive) of who PM'd you, and then send it to [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

jacquihay

pt2537 wrote: »

can i just ask, for those who seem to be of the opinion that it is wrong to use the law to defend yourself, to stop a creditor from taking your home from you when the agreement which they are reliant upon is legally defective AND ITS NOT A TECHNICALITY BTW ITS LAW, those who are taking the moral highground on this

How many of you have reclaimed bank and credit card charges?

seems to me that there are double standards here, its on the one hand to reclaim charges, using the law but its not fair to challenge the credit agreements using the same law

were you not indebted to the bank by way of charges? were those charges not in our opinion unlawful? there is no difference in challenging a credit agreement or reclaiming a penalty charge

I agree with pt 100%.

Some of you on here are very self opinionated with the attitude of well you just want to get out of paying what you owe.

To add to the examples Pt has raised, how many of you have used 0% balance transfer deals which you so actively encourage? Go on hands up!

So who do you think pays for that privilege? yes the rest of us who have current credit card agreements and have had interest rates hicked up without consultation to pay for you. These companies are bleeding the consumer dry with their high interest rates. Lets face it the Bank of England base rate is low, but not one of my credit card companies has been considerate to me to bring my interest back into line with this. This is unfair.

Paul_Herring

how many of you have used 0% balance transfer deals which you so actively encourage?

How is borrowing money at a lower rate (then repaying it back) remotely comparable to not returning the money you borrowed to start with?

There is at least 2 orders of difference here (tens vs thousands of pounds.)

So who do you think pays for that privilege? yes the rest of us who have current credit card agreements and have had interest rates hicked up without consultation to pay for you.

I think you'll find that it is the result of people not paying back the capital under these 'unenforcable contracts' that is causing more of the increase rather than any perceived loss of interest due by the minority of all those taking the companies up on thier 0% deals.

bert&ernie

Paul_Herring wrote: »

How is borrowing money at a lower rate (then repaying it back) remotely comparable to not returning the money you borrowed to start with?

There is at least 2 orders of difference here (tens vs thousands of pounds.)

I think you'll find that it is the result of people not paying back the capital under these 'unenforcable contracts' that is causing more of the increase rather than any perceived loss of interest due by the minority of all those taking the companies up on thier 0% deals.

Its comparable on the basis that the bank passes this cost onto other customers. The fact that the individual sums of money involved are different is not relevant to this point.

The moral argument put forth on this and other threads is that individual customers are wrong to withhold payment on unenforceable agreements because they are indirectly taking money from innocent customers who now have to pay higher rates to offset the loss. The same simplistic reasoning should therefore be applied to anyone who has a beneficial relationship with their bank because they too are funded by others.

The moralists usually attempt to differentiate the various ways to profit from the bank into those that are "right" and "wrong". They will say that it is right to take a 0% offer because the bank intended to offer this. The bank may not have explicitly intended to enter into an unenforceable agreement, but it was entirely within its gift not to. It is therefore either negligence or an informed intent to assume the risk of unenforcability.

It is both naive and unreasonable to expect an individual consumer to give up their legitimate legal rights simply because the bank chooses to offset the cost of their own negligence or risk taking.

Paul_Herring

The moral argument put forth on this and other threads is that individual customers are wrong to withhold payment on unenforceable agreements because they are indirectly taking money from innocent customers

as opposed to the moral argument that they borrowed the money in good faith and should pay it back rather than trying to renege on that good faith and try to get out of their debt? :rolleyes: