Unenforceable Credit Agreements

alidai

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Yes but the banks made the error in the first place. Come on, they were throwing mney at us for the last few years so they deserve a bit of revenge.

REVENGE??? For what??
For running a business and offering credit cards and loans like they've always done? Oh yes sorry, they forced people to take them out and never mentioned that you'd have to pay them back at all.

Your attitude is exactly why this country is going the way it is. People who borrow money they know they cant afford to pay back and then weasel their way out of it somewhere down the line, leaving the rest of the country to pay for it.

And before you say it, it isn't the banks that you're getting revenge on (revenge for what i'd ask), but it affects every other person in this country.

Your attitude is unfortunately that of many in these parts who think they can have an excuse for everything and that nothing is their fault.

jopwo_87

alidai wrote: »

REVENGE??? For what??
For running a business and offering credit cards and loans like they've always done? Oh yes sorry, they forced people to take them out and never mentioned that you'd have to pay them back at all.

Your attitude is exactly why this country is going the way it is. People who borrow money they know they cant afford to pay back and then weasel their way out of it somewhere down the line, leaving the rest of the country to pay for it.

And before you say it, it isn't the banks that you're getting revenge on (revenge for what i'd ask), but it affects every other person in this country.

Your attitude is unfortunately that of many in these parts who think they can have an excuse for everything and that nothing is their fault.

Very well said.
This is a never ending debate though, you'll never win against the people who think the world owes them something.

fto

Why when the op asks a question, do people feel they need to view personal opinions.
I have my own view on this, but i am not going to force it down the ops throat. It all gets very boring..........

cos_2

I find this so amusing. How many times have I read a thread from some poor soul who has missed a payment or otherwise broken 'the rules' and this forum screams at them, "You signed up to a contract! It's ALL YOUR FAULT because you agreed with the rules when you took out your loan/credit card!"

But here the rule seems to be, "It doesn't matter that the rules are wrong, it's a moral obligation! Forget the contract and just pay up anyway!"

Double standards?

Halloway

fto wrote: »

Why when the op asks a question, do people feel they need to view personal opinions.
I have my own view on this, but i am not going to force it down the ops throat. It all gets very boring..........

This is an internet forum. It's a place where people air their opinions. That is not forcing anything down anyone's throat, it's what this place is for.

Halloway

cos wrote: »

I find this so amusing. How many times have I read a thread from some poor soul who has missed a payment or otherwise broken 'the rules' and this forum screams at them, "You signed up to a contract! It's ALL YOUR FAULT because you agreed with the rules when you took out your loan/credit card!"

But here the rule seems to be, "It doesn't matter that the rules are wrong, it's a moral obligation! Forget the contract and just pay up anyway!"

Double standards?

There is a difference between getting burned for making a mistake and coolly taking out a loan or CC and then trying to wheedle out of it because of some perceived legal loophole. I happen to think that too many companies make too much money by screwing over hapless individuals who make a small mistake such as a late payment.

I do not think the same thing applies to loans and credit cards except in the extreme examples of loansharking and usury that sometimes occur at the dodgier end of the market. It is not easy to take out a loan accidentally. It is a deliberate act and the money is lent by the financial institution in good faith. Morally the debtor is required to pay back his debt. If the law allows, for no good reason, that moral requirement to be avoided then I believe the law is wrong in that respect.

I view these attempts to wriggle out of a debt in the same light that I view making fraudulent and inflated claims on insurance policies; it is wrong and as many others have pointed out, the rest of us end up paying for a few individual's greed and inability to take responsibility for their actions.

Halloway

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Thanks for the compliment!

No problem. I'm always happy to make someone's day. :beer:

orangetrader

My advice to the ORIGINAL QUESTION would be shop around and find a company who is NOT charging a fee for the check. I agree with previous posters who say its a win-win for companies that hold back an admin charge or charge you a fee to "audit" your credit card. There are companies who will do a free check, find one of those.

bert&ernie

Halloway wrote: »

In what respect is my mentioning 'self-respect' ironic, please?

As you've probably noticed, the mods appear to have intervened last night and deleted posts made between 10PM and 10AM this morning. Presumably, a particular term was causing offence.

If I can remember correctly, this was my response to you with the offending term redacted:

bert&ernie wrote:

You appear to have confused self-respect with your own self-righteousness. Your type of narcissistic moralising betrays a desperate need for the respect of others.

You have come to the right place for this. xxx-xxxx may not be the most eloquent term, but you will find plently of like minded souls here.

bert&ernie

Halloway wrote: »

There is a difference between getting burned for making a mistake and coolly taking out a loan or CC and then trying to wheedle out of it because of some perceived legal loophole. I happen to think that too many companies make too much money by screwing over hapless individuals who make a small mistake such as a late payment.

The only difference is who gets burned for their mistake.

Halloway wrote: »

I do not think the same thing applies to loans and credit cards except in the extreme examples of loansharking and usury that sometimes occur at the dodgier end of the market. It is not easy to take out a loan accidentally. It is a deliberate act and the money is lent by the financial institution in good faith. Morally the debtor is required to pay back his debt. If the law allows, for no good reason, that moral requirement to be avoided then I believe the law is wrong in that respect.

Its very easy to write loans that are enforceable in law. It was a deliberate act by the lenders to write loans that they knew may not be enforceable. Faith has nothing to do with it - they took a risk which is now materialising. The bank feels no moral obligation to the debtor - its just a commercial relationship. Corporations are essentially amoral, if they appear to be acting morally its simply because that makes commercial sense in a given situation. Consumer protection laws reflects the fact that consumers and lenders are not equal, and that they do not negotiate a contract as peers. We can argue about the extent to which the law should protect individuals from their own choices, but the fact remains that it does put some very specific obligations onto lenders. Rather than moralising about this, perhaps you should lobby your MP to have the law changed?

Halloway wrote: »

I view these attempts to wriggle out of a debt in the same light that I view making fraudulent and inflated claims on insurance policies; it is wrong and as many others have pointed out, the rest of us end up paying for a few individual's greed and inability to take responsibility for their actions.

That's a spurious comparison. "wriggling out of a debt" as you put it, doesn't require a debtor to mislead the lender - it is not fraud. Your attempt to paint it as such is no different to the shrill accusations of "theft" made by some of the less sophisticated contributors to this and related threads. I had expected better from you.

The rest of us may indeed end up paying for "a few individual's greed and inability to take responsibility for their actions". Might I suggest that the object of your moral outrage should be the lenders, who make the rules of the game, instead of the individual consumers who play it?