What do you think?

louiser123

No

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

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.

good lord!!! people who evade debt are as good as murderers!!!

where do you get your moral highground from???

i think there is a huge difference between the two dont you???
so i would get the same response from you as i would if i borrowed your money and didnt pay it back to the one i got if i murdered one of your family???

what a total heap of garbage!!

the poll is asking is it morally right, morally being the operative word.
most people who find themselfs in the other scenario of simply cant pay still feel it is morally wrong but try thier best to actually pay.

i say if you spend it you pay back!! ( unless there is a reason as to circumstance that it cant be, but thats for another poll!!)

petermb_2

~Brock~ wrote: »

"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.

I think that the speak of morals in this is quite rediculous. The banks have no morals here. I know of at least two that will actually fund claims against their fellow institutions for a good return on their investment and of course immunity from presecution for themselves from that claims organisation.

If an agreement stands up to the test of the CCA then it stands. If it fails the test then the lender must beware.

You must remember that it is the legal profession that fights such actions. The claims company in the vast majority of cases is merely an introducer to the solicitor. So to blame this all on claims companies is rediculous. You might as well have a go at the Appeal court judges who set the precedences while you are at it.

Mozette

No

Morally you should pay back what you borrow. Just because the banks are a useless bunch of greedy wotsits doesn't mean you have to sink to their level.

~Brock~

No

petermb wrote: »

I think that the speak of morals in this is quite rediculous. The banks have no morals here. I know of at least two that will actually fund claims against their fellow institutions for a good return on their investment and of course immunity from presecution for themselves from that claims organisation.

If an agreement stands up to the test of the CCA then it stands. If it fails the test then the lender must beware.

You must remember that it is the legal profession that fights such actions. The claims company in the vast majority of cases is merely an introducer to the solicitor. So to blame this all on claims companies is rediculous. You might as well have a go at the Appeal court judges who set the precedences while you are at it.

You appear to have misinterpreted what I said. I am not blaming everything on claims companies, I am simply blaming them for the majority of the misleading advertising that has taken place. As introducers to the solicitors it is in their interest to farm as many claims as possible. They do this by making unsubstantiated and potentially misleading statements in their adverts. This appears to have now been recognised by the MoJ. I also suspect that the majority of these companies are acting illegally by not holding the correct category of Consumer Credit License, as required by the OFT since April 2008.

I do not work for a bank (although I did over 20 years ago but got out for good behaviour :j). I am also no fan of the banks for the global mess we are now in. What I do not do, however, is preach on and on about them having no morals that that they should therefore be screwed to the wall.

Forums such as this gives an ideal platform for all sorts of conspiracy theorists who happily blame banks for every single ill in our society. Some people appear so entrenched in their views that no amount of change or improvement from the banks will ever change their perceptions.

Banks are necessary and what we currently need is for banks to start lending again. No lending equals no economic recovery, unemployment of a scale we could not imagine, and a complete breakdown of the fabric of this countries balance sheet.

Your colours are firmly nailed to the mast Peter - your living appears to be derived from assisting claims against banks, and as such your opinions will naturally be of a very one sided nature. I have no axe to grind on either side of the fence, except when I see innocent and potentially vunerable people taken in by the exaggerated claims of certain claims management companies and the bottom feeding lawyers that they supply.

LongTermLurker

No

~Brock~ wrote: »

"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.

What a stunning post, I couldn't have made the point better myself.

I'd even go as far as to vote it "top post" status :T :beer:

LongTermLurker

No

louiser123 wrote: »

good lord!!! people who evade debt are as good as murderers!!!

where do you get your moral highground from???

i think there is a huge difference between the two dont you???
so i would get the same response from you as i would if i borrowed your money and didnt pay it back to the one i got if i murdered one of your family???

He's getting quite confused today isn't he?

It's clear he doesn't see avoiding financial responsibility in the same light as being a murderer, but in Post #35 TheExpert asked if SR saw a difference, and in post #36 his response (first) was

Your line of argument is mental. People who challenge illegal credit agreements are as bad as murderers. Honestly - mental.

So there he is saying they aren't the same (edit, I'm assuming an invisible question mark at the end of the word "murderers") - fair enough. But then in the same post, he says

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

So there he seems to be saying they ARE the same and if there's a "murderer's loophole" it's a fair route

Very confused, it seems.

petermb_2

~Brock~ wrote: »

You appear to have misinterpreted what I said. I am not blaming everything on claims companies, I am simply blaming them for the majority of the misleading advertising that has taken place. As introducers to the solicitors it is in their interest to farm as many claims as possible. They do this by making unsubstantiated and potentially misleading statements in their adverts. This appears to have now been recognised by the MoJ. I also suspect that the majority of these companies are acting illegally by not holding the correct category of Consumer Credit License, as required by the OFT since April 2008.

I do not work for a bank (although I did over 20 years ago but got out for good behaviour :j). I am also no fan of the banks for the global mess we are now in. What I do not do, however, is preach on and on about them having no morals that that they should therefore be screwed to the wall.

Forums such as this gives an ideal platform for all sorts of conspiracy theorists who happily blame banks for every single ill in our society. Some people appear so entrenched in their views that no amount of change or improvement from the banks will ever change their perceptions.

Banks are necessary and what we currently need is for banks to start lending again. No lending equals no economic recovery, unemployment of a scale we could not imagine, and a complete breakdown of the fabric of this countries balance sheet.

Your colours are firmly nailed to the mast Peter - your living appears to be derived from assisting claims against banks, and as such your opinions will naturally be of a very one sided nature. I have no axe to grind on either side of the fence, except when I see innocent and potentially vunerable people taken in by the exaggerated claims of certain claims management companies and the bottom feeding lawyers that they supply.

I have never hid the fact that I am a claims professional. Fortunately there are a few of us that place ethics high on the list of priorities like not charging fees,.

I do agree with much of the above

Sammy_Girl

No

There are always 2 camps for this debate. Those who agree to exploit the loophole and those who don't.

Personally, I take the ground that you borrow the money, you pay it back.

There are tough times ahead, we all know. That doesn't mean that we should forget our financial obligations. People will hit on hard times and that is why there are organisations such as the CAB and the CCCS. Lenders do freeze interest if requested, and they do accept payment plans. It may take intervention from the CAB and CCCS, but it can happen. This allows individuals to pay back what they can afford over a period of time.

I've been there, done that, and am on my last debt. I am in a better position financially now than I was 3 years ago, so have been able to up my payments considerably. I now have the satisfaction of knowing that I paid back the money that I owed. In a funny way, my situation has taught me a great deal about my personal financial management and spending habits. I have credit cards, but I only spend on them what I can afford to pay back at the end of the month. If I want something, I will save up for it. I get married in August this year, a wedding that is not far off the national average cost, and I'm pleased to say that me and OH worked bloody hard to pay for it. Nothing will be bought on credit for that wedding, and we wont still be paying 5 years later.

Credit is not a right. It shouldn't be used and abused.

PROLIANT

No

One of the most sensible post's on this poll so far.
Thankyou

Sammy_Girl

No

PROLIANT wrote: »

One of the most sensible post's on this poll so far.
Thankyou

Who me.... :A