credit card clearance

never-in-doubt

ShelfStacker wrote: »

The people I've seen on this board who've been interested in pursuing the CCA route haven't, by and large, been made redundant or anything like that though. They've simply overstretched themselves, and want a quick way out of their debt without paying any of it back (usually expressing some form of bitterness towards the companies they've looked to screw over), or are just chancing.

Fair point SS, i've noticed that too but then weren't those posts from the spammers causing trouble? I am not condoning the illegal method of gaining stuff for free, naturally. I am simply quoting the law.

Of course different people will have different views, but let me make clear this thread was intended for the honest people that have had a hard time, not for people that just want to shirk their debts.

Also, I did say if this helps one person it has served its purpose.... true?

Thanks for your input, appreciated... :T

Innocent_Guy

never-in-doubt wrote: »

am I missing something here?

I have never suggested, implied or hinted that this is a get out of your debt scheme. It is law. End of the matter. My opinion doesn't count, i'm purely advising people of their legal obligations.

I would like to remind everyone that although we ALL have our own personal beliefs and opinions this site is here to assist people and inform them regarding their current situations.

As I am sure you are all aware we do get numerous users asking about getting debt written off and this thread simply explains it to them.

If a user who intends to get their debt written off views this thread at least it means that they haven't bugged any of the people who have issues with this.

ShelfStacker_3

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

As your sig says you work for the HSBC i will ask if i presented you with a CFS filled in with a debt charity that showed zero surplus to pay any creditor anything, and the totals for each catagory where well below the CFS trigger figures, and no assets what would your company do?

I have no idea, that's nowhere near my job role.

dealer_wins

never-in-doubt wrote: »

ok..... like saying 'don't wanna die in a plane crash? Don't board a plane'

Bad comparison. Its called taking a calculated risk boarding a plane.

When you borrow money, whether from family, a friend, or a company, you have a moral duty to repay what you borrowed.

I truly hope that no one gets their dept wiped out as that is an insult on everyone who pays theirs.

Lets hope you never lend hard earned money to someone who then sticks two fingers up when you want it back!!

fermi

ShelfStacker wrote: »

I have no idea, that's nowhere near my job role.

I think the point was that banks and debt collectors are sometimes very quick to threaten legal action, even when it is clear that someone cannot pay more than a small or token amount due to their circumstances.

In those cases I would consider it fair game to turn the tables and use the law yourself.

The callous and unreasonable behaviour from collection departments that we see on DFW is shocking.

BigLad_2

Well, I was going to hold my tongue but...

If viewers disagree with the content of a thread then it would be appreciated if you refrained from posting merely to vent your moral indignation, or your approbation. All this does is raise the post count, with the inevitable arguments on personable responsibility. By doing so it dilutes the factual content of the thread and makes it tough reading for anybody actually trying to sort the wheat from the chaff and gain understanding of the issue at hand.

If you feel that strongly about it then start your own thread to debate the morality of the issue, or PM the person concerned. There are threads here that are virtually unreadable due to these posts which add nothing to the factual discussion.

Thanks to Never-In- Doubt for attempting to provide some information. Shame your thread has been hijacked...

I won't post again - if you want to express your indignation, outrage etc. just PM me.

Cheers

BigLad.

P.S. Yes I'm a newbie but the post above reflects my experience here with many threads :-).

Useless_with_wonga

How about those of us that are paying and have been quite happy to do so through a DMP. Ok the payments were not at the level of the contractual payments but they were not a million miles off either with assurance that as and when our situation improved so would the payments.
Countless unanswered letters to the creditor from ourselves and DMP company(charity)
Paying all we can at the moment creditor acepting payments for over 6 months then out of the blue bish, bash ,bosh, we are demanding full payment or increase of £260 PCM or we are off to court for a Charging Order. They know full well both are unattainable.
For us its never been about avoidance however if they choose to use the law in an effort to steamroller us i reserve the right to use the law to defend myself.
I understand the previous posters stance all i can say is i hope that you never find yourself in a sea of debt its horrible and if it were not for these boards a lot of folks would be non the wiser as to their rights and the creditors would steam roller everyone into oblivion. Its not a crime to be in debt and those of us who are and have recognised that we need help i would suggest are the sensible ones as we will surely be reformed by the experience. I feel sorry for those that have yet to have the realisation that they are but a pay cheque away from joining us.

rog2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

am I missing something here?

I'm not sure if you have missed anything, nid. I simply saw the thread developing into an open 'brawl' and wanted to clarify my own position.
I post mainly on the DFW board, where many people have very serious issues with debt and are looking to this site in general for helpful advice and support - many of the DFW posters have been the unfair victims of creditors and dcas who will, often, see the most vulnerable of debtors as 'fair game' and will, in many cases, alter or withhold information to the detriment of the debtor, in the name of 'easy money'.
The overwhelming majority of posters seeking advice and support fall into the 'can't pay' category, rather than the 'won't pay' category.
For these people it is, unfortunately, often only through forums like this, that they can be directed towards the sources that are most likely to be able to give them the best, and more importantly, impartial and professional advice.
For these people, the simple process of requesting a true copy of the original executed consumer credit agreement can not only serve to validate, or otherwise, the claims of the creditor/dca, but it can, equally, prove whether the 'alleged debt' is enforceable or not. For someone who has had to endure the physical and mental harassment of dca phone calls, threats of 'legal action' and 'doorstep collectors' the results of a cca, whether positive or negative, request can help to put the situation back on a level playingfield and give that debtor a better choice of options as to how to proceed. Very few creditors or dcas will advise a 'debtor' to check the legality of that creditor or dca's demands.
Where I have the problem is that the cca request is seen by many, as some of the posts on your thread will confirm, as nothing more than a way to find 'loopholes' that will release a debtor from his obligations.
Consequently a 'whole new industry' has emerged - enticing 'debtors' to build up debt in the knowledge that there are (not could be) fundemental flaws in all consumer credit agreements, and that, for a fee, they can get those debts written off.
Not only does this offer 'false hope' to many debtors, it also creates the opinion that every debtor who requests a copy of his cca is doing so purely to avoid responsibility for a debt.
And finally (I promise) please do not misunderstand me when I say that posters could be forgiven for reading your posts as advocating this latter approach.
Thank you.

ICan'tStandIt

BigLad wrote: »

Well, I was going to hold my tongue but...

If viewers disagree with the content of a thread then it would be appreciated if you refrained from posting merely to vent your moral indignation, or your approbation.

Why, because it might make some question the motives behind their actions ?

My main beef with this business of trying to escape debts on legal technicalities is with those that have enough money in the bank to pay it all off anyway. They simply don't see why they should.

I think that Martin Lewis, for all his justified "bank bashing", does himself a disservice in being associated with such behaviour. He does nothing to support or promote financial responsibility.

Using the law against an aggressive debt collecting agency is one thing, but trying to get a debt written off just because someone doesn't think they should pay it back is something totally different. I hope every person trying such a tactic falls on their backsides.

Maybe they wouldn't be so keen if further applications for credit might be declined, on the basis that they seem to have such an issue with paying back the bank's money, that they didn't have any issue at all in spending.

ICan'tStandIt

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Fair enough, but does it justify a creditor charging 30% intrest on an agreement that quotes no intrest at all

Even more so if you take off that intrest and lo and behold, you actually have paid back everything, except that intrest, that the agreement never said you would pay:rolleyes:

And yes that is a REAL example of the likes of littlewoods accounts

If only life was as black and white as you paint it

I didn't say that banks can act outside of the original T&Cs and I know that life isn't all black and white. I live in the real world too !

It's one thing to just expect the orginal agreement to be stuck too, but it's something else again just to demand it be ripped up and refuse to pay anything back.

Anyway, any money that does get refunded (on top of all the PPI etc that has already been given back, plus all the bad dept write-offs etc) has to come from somewhere.

The banks WILL have the last laugh.