What do you think?

PROLIANT

No

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

Oh no I see you did already.

Hmmm.....:think:

gomer

No

I have no problem with challenging the authenticity of a credit agreement BEFORE you spend the credit, but to just spend the money then worm your way out of paying is a cop out & with that sort of culture it's no wonder there's little or no credit left to lend people who WANT to pay it back.


So there.

LongTermLurker

No

My thoughts on the matter are clear on the other thread.

SR, is there a need to stalk people round the board and shift the contents of one thread across to another? I know they're linked but it's clear you both have differences of opinion so I don't see what the gain's gonna be. If someone robs a bank, murders someone or steals a loaf of bread, someone will think it's wrong and the perpretrator won't give a toss. That's life.

Silver_Rocket

LongTermLurker wrote: »

My thoughts on the matter are clear on the other thread.

SR, is there a need to stalk people round the board and shift the contents of one thread across to another? I know they're linked but it's clear you both have differences of opinion so I don't see what the gain's gonna be. If someone robs a bank, murders someone or steals a loaf of bread, someone will think it's wrong and the perpretrator won't give a toss. That's life.

I think you'll find that yer man Proliant didn't bother to respond to any of my points and went off and started a ludicrously slanted poll instead.

People who have debts declared unenforceable are within the law. If the banks lose money that way it's because they have broken the law by failing to stick to the terms of the CCA.

gomer

No

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

I think you'll find that yer man Proliant didn't bother to respond to any of my points and went off and started a ludicrously slanted poll instead.

Erm... maybe he just didn't want to answer you. Still doesn't justify you stalking him accross the threads. You don't agree with him & he doesn't agree with you - move on.

Silver_Rocket

gomer wrote: »

Erm... maybe he just didn't want to answer you. Still doesn't justify you stalking him accross the threads. You don't agree with him & he doesn't agree with you - move on.

I think when he starts a poll that obviously takes it's inspiration from my remarks I'll just post where I like thanks mate.

Calchas

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

I think when he starts a poll that obviously takes it's inspiration from my remarks I'll just post where I like thanks mate.

I couldn't agree more!

May I just ask, in the interests of sport, you give PROLIANT a bit more of a chance?

It's a bit one sided at the moment!

And this when PROLIANT has the moral highground! :rotfl:

If you don't ease up, he'll bu**er off and start another thread!

PROLIANT

No

I said no agro please, the idea of this poll was to get a general opinion of what different peoples views on this subject are, there are many threads popping up all over the forum so I just wanted to centralise the debate, that was all.
We all have different opinions on different subjects so lets just keep it civil please if you don't mind, if you want to slag me off or have a go do it via PM or email: [EMAIL="proliant@inbox.com"]proliant@inbox.com[/EMAIL] any and all grievances can be posted here.

LongTermLurker

No

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

I think you'll find that yer man Proliant didn't bother to respond to any of my points and went off and started a ludicrously slanted poll instead.

People who have debts declared unenforceable are within the law. If the banks lose money that way it's because they have broken the law by failing to stick to the terms of the CCA.

Your second paragraph is correct, 100% - but that's not what people have been on about. What gets people's goat is that that the goal of those making the claims, particularly the OP on that thread, is simply to get out of paying. They are looking for a loophole so that they don't have to meet their responsibilities.

OK, let's look at two scenarios

1. I take out a loan for £10,000 and after paying some of it off I find my circumstances have changed and I can't carry on the payments. I ask the lender for help/time but they don't want to listen. They act like backstreet loansharks and threaten me with debt collectors/eviction/etc. While looking at my options, I notice that they didn't send me the information I would expect to receive. Looking further into it, I find the agreement wasn't enforcable and choose to protect myself by defending myself (or paying a professional to do so) in court. I have no qualms about that.
2. I take out a loan for £10,000 and after paying some of it off I see an advert saying "not all credit agreements are enforceable". I contact the agency and, looking at my documentation, they tell me it's an illegal contract. I shout "woohoo!" and smile in the knowledge that I have paid £500 for a 10 grand motor. I'm the same person that claimed damages a few years ago because I wasn't watching where I was going and tripped in the street over a less than perfectly laid pavement. I had an "accident" but never mind, I can make money out of it being someone else's fault.

I retain my analogy between the person in example #2 and a benefit scrounger. They want something for free and end up better off than people who respect themselves.

Incidentally, iirc, someone on the other thread suggested that a poll be started, so I don't see how "me man" can be accused for starting it, though yes, it's not the least biased wording I've ever read but I guess people will vote how they feel and won't see him as a preacher who's gospel must be obeyed.

gomer

No

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

I think when he starts a poll that obviously takes it's inspiration from my remarks I'll just post where I like thanks mate.

Don't be so up yourself 'mate'. You were not the only person who disagreed with him or made the same remarks, other people made the same remarks on the other thread long before you but they didn't feel the need to credit themselves for this poll.

He doesn't have to answer your questions.