loan taken out before April 07 you may be entitled to have the balance cleared

Natalie6999

~Brock~ wrote: »

You know what? I think that single statement sums this whole attitude up. Let's break it down.

"People suffer unfortunate events in their lives that have an effect on their ability to pay"

Quite true - I have no problem with that statement. However some people take steps to mitigate this by having some protection in place to cover things like redundancy and unforseen illness. This can be PPI, or some other income replacement insurance - it could even be (heaven forbid) an emergency savings fund.

Instead of bleating about such cover being mis-sold (and I have no sympathy for companies that do mis-sell it by the way), the media should understand the important part such cover plays - escpecially nowadays. In the event that the individual chooses not to cover themselves, because they presumably are not prepared to spend the extra few quid a month, it seems that they view it as the lenders fault for lending it in the first place and should therefore immediately seek a way out of paying it when the going gets tough.

"it could be you next & would you not take advantage of any measure to help you maintain your standard of living?"

The first thing I would do is look at how I could cut back, in order to ensure that those people I had entered into contracts with would be repaid to the best of my ability. How many people nowadays would consider dropping the Sky Sports and movies package, or maybe cutting down on the beer & fags? A certain standard of living is also not a god given right - escpecially when it was artificially boosted by unsustainable borrowing with no safety net in place.

To blame the lenders for the consequence of this is simply the easy way out and the longer it goes on for the longer the general population will be made to suffer from the fallout of the lack of availible credit. There are also, it seems, plenty of people around to encourage such attitudes, more for personal gain rather than any moral crusade.

Grow up people and take some responsibility !!!!!!.

Yes people should take out some cover to provide if they lose their job or suffer illness, but for all that you can pay out for years to provide that cover, it generally only lasts for twelve months. After that time has passed, how are you supposed to pay your debts?

The banks & loan companies should take some of the responsibility by giving people who have hit hard times longer to pay or accept a reduced repayment from genuine customers who under different circumstances would have paid up in full.

A certain standard of living is vital for anyone trying to survive & rebuild their lives, if only for their sanity, have you ever suffered from stress or depression from losing your job or from illness of yourself or a loved one?

Credit-Crunched

I have been made redundant and it was hard, hellish. However like brock said, whilst i worked i saved, put money aside for such occurances.

I went without the odd luxury whilst working so i could have a nest egg to fall back on, i ahve loans, but i still paid them as i benefited from them. As soon as the proverbial hits the fan, i did not look for ways of weasling out of my responsibilites i took control and re-adjusted my life.

I love a pint of cider and i love rugby, however at £2.50 a pint and £18 a match i went without, i lived cheaper and stayed in.

I have worked in finance for many years now and i do note see lenderes as anything other than a business. If people keep hitting them, they will not lend to us, we need them as much as they need us. Fact.

During my financial career i have seen many income and outgoing forms, the amount of people who put essential as fags/booze/sky etc is un-real. When i asked if they could justify a £65 pcm sky package they thought i was crazy.

I was trying to help them by drawing up a budget, but they would not drop their luxuries. I was offering IP and CIC / life cover and they shunned it as expensive. Yet they pay that much to Mr. Murdoch every month (ironic that eh)

Now these people who have p*ssed their loans up against the wall, have no savings, refused to purchase suitable insurances are looking for ways out. Well its me and the other mugs who pay their loans that suffer...

itsnever2lateisit?

~Brock~ wrote: »

Quite true - I have no problem with that statement. However some people take steps to mitigate this by having some protection in place to cover things like redundancy and unforseen illness. This can be PPI, or some other income replacement insurance - it could even be (heaven forbid) an emergency savings fund.

Instead of bleating about such cover being mis-sold (and I have no sympathy for companies that do mis-sell it by the way), the media should understand the important part such cover plays - escpecially nowadays. In the event that the individual chooses not to cover themselves, because they presumably are not prepared to spend the extra few quid a month, it seems that they view it as the lenders fault for lending it in the first place and should therefore immediately seek a way out of paying it when the going gets tough.

While I hear what you say, and in broad terms agree, please remember that PPI policies contain exclusions which make such products unsuitable for many, for example the self employed, ever though until recently Insurers still tried to sell such policies.

The recent increase in loan rates has as much, if not more, to do with replacing lost PPI income now they have been caught red handed, than increasing provisions for bad debt

kurjam

owner wrote: »

SPAM ! reported.

um hello, i put the link up as the first person could not.
i thought i was helping, others out.
obviously people have other ideas and dont appreciate help !!!

~Brock~

Natalie6999 wrote: »

have you ever suffered from stress or depression from losing your job or from illness of yourself or a loved one?

Actually, yes I have. Difference appears to be that I did not blame anyone else for the situation :rolleyes:

petermb_2

I admire some of you financial guys loyalty to your masters. However, your masters do not always feel the same way as you about the situation.
I know of at least two major institutions that actually fund claims against their competitors. Of course, in exchange for immunity from prosecution themselves.

Think on guys, the lenders have always looked at it as dog eat dog and that means for their customers too. They really have been nothing short of mercenary in their treatment of borrowers but all I hear is bleating when the boot appears on the other foot. You will get no sympathy, no apologies and no regrets about what I do and what I know about their shortcomings.

However,
The claims industry is and always has been full of crooks and get rich quick boys who will ultimately destroy any business they put their hands on. Far too many of them are too busy taking money off potential claimants instead of running cases against lenders. That will be one of the saving graces for the lenders.

Incipience

Our banking system is in meltdown through no fault of there own, and it is us the consumer that has to pick up the tab.

Yes it is Totally True that hundreds of thousands of people have been incorrectly sold loans that may in fact be liable to be written off.

Now we talk morals, here. The banking industry has been ripping off consumers for years. The underhand tactics are nothing short of illegal, perhaps not criminal but illegal all the same.

Whilst I agree that one should repay money borrowed, but when you have people who have paid off £40k on a £43k loan and still owe over £56k then you have to question why and how can this be.

If a technicality exists, then perhaps it would be better to pay of the original amount borrowed minus any interest and charges and any over payments are refunded.

However, if the law did not exist then lenders would exploit it to the very end.

While I would not expect every claim to succeed, however a small percentage of claims will at the very least encourage future illegal actions to be limited.

Credit-Crunched

"Whilst I agree that one should repay money borrowed, but when you have people who have paid off £40k on a £43k loan and still owe over £56k then you have to question why and how can this be."

I do not disagree at all, unfair loans with MISSOLD ppi policies are not a fair entitiy.

We agree on this point, i am jsut saying that people looking at writing off loans to get out of a commitment is wrong.

petermb_2

Incipience wrote: »

Our banking system is in meltdown through no fault of there own, and it is us the consumer that has to pick up the tab.

Yes it is Totally True that hundreds of thousands of people have been incorrectly sold loans that may in fact be liable to be written off.

Now we talk morals, here. The banking industry has been ripping off consumers for years. The underhand tactics are nothing short of illegal, perhaps not criminal but illegal all the same.

Whilst I agree that one should repay money borrowed, but when you have people who have paid off £40k on a £43k loan and still owe over £56k then you have to question why and how can this be.

If a technicality exists, then perhaps it would be better to pay of the original amount borrowed minus any interest and charges and any over payments are refunded.

However, if the law did not exist then lenders would exploit it to the very end.

While I would not expect every claim to succeed, however a small percentage of claims will at the very least encourage future illegal actions to be limited.

There has been much hot air vaunted on here about writing loans off and walking away and quite, in other words unenforeability. I think that the cases of this will actually be very few and far between. It is not that easy to win such a case.

However, it is far more likely that a loan or ancilliary products will be deemed voidable. Voidability means that you borrowed the money so you must pay it back. As the contract is void there can be no interest and charges, only the money that was originally borrowed less any compensation and interest. Put simply all payments made on the account will become capital repayment.

We are talking about issues of law that have gone to appeal court here, not technicalities.

There! that should make you bleaters a little happier.

CHR15

petermb wrote: »

However, it is far more likely that a loan or ancilliary products will be deemed voidable. Voidability means that you borrowed the money so you must pay it back. As the contract is void there can be no interest and charges, only the money that was originally borrowed less any compensation and interest. Put simply all payments made on the account will become capital repayment.

Thats made this bleater a little happier, thanks for that explanation (although I am still unsure if interest is included or not, your post seems to contradict).

I think that explanantion will disappoint precisely the posters who are looking to see if the loan is voidable though (and forms the basis for all the arguing).

There is a definite tidal wave of people asking if they can simply stop paying and owe nothing (and even be refunded on the money they have paid).

I can't speak for all, but it's those people who get my back up.