What do you think?

claire6hy

No

normanmark wrote: »

You spend it, you pay it back. Simple

too right
the more people that worm out of it, the higher interest will get to make upfor it surely!

TheExpert

No

I wonder what all the people, who are for using loopholes think of these:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/moss-escapes-drugs-charges-because-of-legal-loophole-404240.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1108525/Katie-Price-uses-legal-loophole-escape-speeding-charge.html

http://www.rockawave.com/news/2006/0317/Community/056.html

I guess all these are also ok since they found a legal loophole. So if you can find a loophole and hire a good lawyer, using class A drugs in public, avoiding fines and KILLING PEOPLE IS FINE, right?

Silver_Rocket

TheExpert wrote: »

I wonder what all the people, who are for using loopholes think of these:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/moss-escapes-drugs-charges-because-of-legal-loophole-404240.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1108525/Katie-Price-uses-legal-loophole-escape-speeding-charge.html

http://www.rockawave.com/news/2006/0317/Community/056.html

I guess all these are also ok since they found a legal loophole. So if you can find a loophole and hire a good lawyer, using class A drugs in public, avoiding fines and KILLING PEOPLE IS FINE, right?

Emotive garbage.

TheExpert

No

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

Emotive garbage.

rather than write 1-2 word answers, you could perhaps tell us where you draw the line.

Is avoiding speeding fines through loopholes ok, because the government makes tons of money and the Prime Minister earns so much cash?

How do you differentiate the legal loopholes which set a killer free to people not repaying their debt? According to your line of argument, there should be no distinction since these are all in line with law and were decided upon in court.

Silver_Rocket

TheExpert wrote: »

rather than write 1-2 word answers, you could perhaps tell us where you draw the line.

Is avoiding speeding fines through loopholes ok, because the government makes tons of money and the Prime Minister earns so much cash?

How do you differentiate the legal loopholes which set a killer free to people not repaying their debt? According to your line of argument, there should be no distinction since these are all in line with law and were decided upon in court.

Your line of argument is mental.

People who challenge illegal credit agreements are as bad as murderers.

Honestly - mental.

You post like a tabloid journalist.

As it happens I do think the letter of the law is absolutely vital. If there are problems with the law it should be changed.

You advocate ignoring the law when it suits. You can't have that. The law is the law.

petermb_2

TheExpert wrote: »

rather than write 1-2 word answers, you could perhaps tell us where you draw the line.

Is avoiding speeding fines through loopholes ok, because the government makes tons of money and the Prime Minister earns so much cash?

How do you differentiate the legal loopholes which set a killer free to people not repaying their debt? According to your line of argument, there should be no distinction since these are all in line with law and were decided upon in court.

We are referring to the Consumer Credit Act here. The legislation that was created to protect the public from unscrupulous lenders. So there was a whole raft of law passed because the lenders are angels right?

The people who are against claims quote "loopholes". These are not loopholes. If the lender follows the law then there are no claims. Simple.

We are talking about the Law. The same law for lenders and for borrowers.

You speak of murder. Legally murder is contrary to common law. Some of the laws that the lenders have broken in ripping the public off are in breach of common law also.

I dont know what you claim to be an expert in but legal issues regarding claims and the facts and the law surrounding them is not one of them.

kiora

No

Methinks that Silver Rocket is being slightly Troll like, I think instead of trying to hijack Mr P's Poll by posting pointless comments he should let others have their say, just cos you dont agree with him doesn't mean you have the right to slag him off.

gomer

No

kiora wrote: »

Methinks that Silver Rocket is being slightly Troll like, I think instead of trying to hijack Mr P's Poll by posting pointless comments he should let others have their say, just cos you dont agree with him doesn't mean you have the right to slag him off.

That's pretty much what i tried to say last night, but Mr Rocket seemed to think he could credit himself with this thread & just continue harassing Mr P regardless on the principle that he had refused to reply to him on another thread. :rolleyes:

kiora

No

Maybe Mr Rocket should light his fuse and launch himself into space and float round there with all the other debris up there lol:rotfl: :rotfl:

~Brock~

No

petermb wrote: »

We are referring to the Consumer Credit Act here. The legislation that was created to protect the public from unscrupulous lenders. So there was a whole raft of law passed because the lenders are angels right?

The people who are against claims quote "loopholes". These are not loopholes. If the lender follows the law then there are no claims. Simple.

We are talking about the Law. The same law for lenders and for borrowers.

"It is worth remembering that the context and purpose of the CCA: the Consumer Credit Act was introduced to protect the individual unsophisticated in financial affairs in contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. It was not designed to help individuals in the financial services business make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities."

They are not my words, but the words of The Honourable Simon Brown QC to the Rankines.

No one is denying that the CCA should offer protection, it is the euphoria created by the dodgy advertising and false claims from ambulance chasing companies that create the impression that walking away from debts is simply a walk in the park. These misleading claims can be directly linked to the numbers of posts on forums such as this by people who appear to believe everything they read, aided by those who appear to have a vested interest in encouraging them. Even the Ministry of Justice has woken up to this very issue.

These companies care not one jot about the morals being polled in this thread - or even the eventual results of their claims - they are simply riding the latest bendwagon that started at the turn of the millenium with endownment claims, then accident claims then bank charges claims.