What do you think?

Silver_Rocket

PROLIANT wrote: »

I do not recall stating that? Can you quote my post where I mentioned that please.

Apologies Prol it was "The Expert".

:beer:

PROLIANT

No

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

Apologies Prol it was "The Expert".

:beer:

No problem.

TheExpert

No

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

I think if you read my post again you'll see that I am saying that anyone who takes the stance that they are is mental.

Proliant stated that - I think it's nonsense.

I think that if you reread my post again, you will find that you completely misunderstood my point.

I put other cases where "the law" upheld decisions, which everybody including you would consider to be wrong, immoral and unjust. This indicates that attributing "right" and "wrong" tags to things purely on the back of a court case is not correct as if you were to do that, it is ok for a murderer to avoid prison because the law worked out that way.

My speeding fine analogy is probably best. If everyone suddenly finds a loophole, which allows them to not pay speeding fines on the premise that "the government has tons of money anyway and all the MPs earn ridiculous amounts", is that also ok? Is it ok that everybody's taxes will go up to make up the deficit? And afterall, you were only speeding because you were late somewhere, so that's excusable, right?

Note: In the above example, the Government plays the role of the bank. Taxes play the role of Interest. Speeding plays the role of spending beyond your means.

Comprendes?

Silver_Rocket

TheExpert wrote: »

I think that if you reread my post again, you will find that you completely misunderstood my point.

I put other cases where "the law" upheld decisions, which everybody including you would consider to be wrong, immoral and unjust. This indicates that attributing "right" and "wrong" tags to things purely on the back of a court case is not correct as if you were to do that, it is ok for a murderer to avoid prison because the law worked out that way.

My speeding fine analogy is probably best. If everyone suddenly finds a loophole, which allows them to not pay speeding fines on the premise that "the government has tons of money anyway and all the MPs earn ridiculous amounts", is that also ok? Is it ok that everybody's taxes will go up to make up the deficit? And afterall, you were only speeding because you were late somewhere, so that's excusable, right?

Note: In the above example, the Government plays the role of the bank. Taxes play the role of Interest. Speeding plays the role of spending beyond your means.

Comprendes?

You used the emotive example of a case where a person avoided a murder conviction by way of a loophole. You're intention was clear. If the law if faulty it should be amended. However it is not the law which is faulty in unenforceable debts - it is the banks who have not followed the law when drafting agreements or when maintaining records of those agreements.

By the way - there is very little money in speed cameras - even petrol head Clarkson admits that.

"The Department of Transport (DoT) said in the financial year 2006-7 it received an income of £104m from speed cameras. A spokeswoman said it gave councils a share of £110m each year in grants to spend on road safety issues - allocated on the basis of accident statistics rather than as a percentage of cash received."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7685550.stm

Oh - they actually lose money.

TheExpert

No

Silver_Rocket wrote: »

You used the emotive example of a case where a person avoided a murder conviction by way of a loophole. You're intention was clear. If the law if faulty it should be amended. However it is not the law which is faulty in unenforceable debts - it is the banks who have not followed the law when drafting agreements or when maintaining records of those agreements.

By the way - there is very little money in speed cameras - even petrol head Clarkson admits that.

"The Department of Transport (DoT) said in the financial year 2006-7 it received an income of £104m from speed cameras. A spokeswoman said it gave councils a share of £110m each year in grants to spend on road safety issues - allocated on the basis of accident statistics rather than as a percentage of cash received."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7685550.stm

Oh - they actually lose money.

Do you even know the law you are talking about? It was applied retrospectively. At the time of the agreement, there was no need to keep the signed copy forever for the reason that there is tons of other evidence (eg you paying your bills) of the fact that you agreed to having a credit card. Hence all banks did everything according to the law up until the change was introduced.

If tomorrow the government passed a law saying that anyone who doesn't have a copy of the original mortgage offer from the bank is to have their homes repossessed, I assume that would be fine by you as well, right?

What I don't understand is what people like you are trying to argue.

Why SHOULD YOU be able to go, get £2000 for no apparent reason and never pay it back? Go on. Tell me without referring to signing pieces of paper, etc. Why should you just go, take somebody's money and not give it back? Because you are a leaching scum. The end.

Silver_Rocket

TheExpert wrote: »

Do you even know the law you are talking about? It was applied retrospectively. At the time of the agreement, there was no need to keep the signed copy forever for the reason that there is tons of other evidence (eg you paying your bills) of the fact that you agreed to having a credit card. Hence all banks did everything according to the law up until the change was introduced.

If tomorrow the government passed a law saying that anyone who doesn't have a copy of the original mortgage offer from the bank is to have their homes repossessed, I assume that would be fine by you as well, right?

What I don't understand is what people like you are trying to argue.

Why SHOULD YOU be able to go, get £2000 for no apparent reason and never pay it back? Go on. Tell me without referring to signing pieces of paper, etc. Why should you just go, take somebody's money and not give it back? Because you are a leaching scum. The end.

Rubbish.

Unenforceable agreements were part of the original 1974 act. The lenders were required to produce them on request.