Would my argument hold water in Law!

theoilyone

Hello here is a question and it relates to the Government baling out banks and financial institutions with (my/your) taxpayers money.

The RBS claims that I owe them 9500 GBP due to my husband declaring bankruptcy back in 2006 due to ill health. As a joint holder of the account the bank now asks me to repay them, which i start to do, then along comes the Government and because the bank has declared my debt as a loss, gives money to the bank to cover the (money) loss that they have incurred as a result of my inability to repay my debt due to my husbands bankruptcy.

The net result appears to be that the bank has recovered the debt that I owed by way of the Goverment giving them the money.

Do I still owe the money now, after all the bank has now recovered the money.

So I feel that I should stop repaying the (loan) debt to the bank as they have already been paid the money for that debt by a benevolent benefactor, which surely must release me from repayment as they have now not made a loss at all.

According to british Law (English) recovery of a loss only occurs if a loss has been made, in this scenario no loss has been incurred by the bank for my supposedly outstanding debt.

Lets discuss this, I have also posted this under banking.

Robert_Sterling_3

In my opinion No
Others opinions may follow which may differ.

theoilyone

Just a quick update here I have decided that I will stop all repayments and try to start a test case supported either by interested parties or legal aid as I am on benefits anyway.

I feel this is actually uncharted waters but I am keen to gather anyones opinion or maybe you would like to join me in a class action say against the Nat west bank or Capquest or Aktiv kapital.

theoilyone

I think an opinion of NO is ok but surely an argument as to why you think No is an appropriate answer should be attached, otherwise I have to throw your opinion out as unproven. What we need is a real world answer.

TheGrant

You've not paid your debt. That's fully recoverable. (Barring agreements etc.)

A debt and a loss are not the same.

Go for your court case though, judges need a laugh.

theoilyone

Ok so I fail to pay the Nat West 9500gbp, they sell the debt or try to recover it through capquest, but they are then paid for their loss of my bad debt by the government, so we are all according to your remarks now paying debts back twice, once as a tax payer and again as a debtor.

As for agreements what agreement has written into it in the case of this bad debt becoming a scenario where you bankrupt the bank by not repaying your debt to us we withhold the right to be paid for that loss by the Goverment and still declare your debt as a loss. Consequently we may still pursue you for the outstanding sum even though it is not outstanding.

LOL

You must be the joker and obviously a lawyer who know everything about dilly dally.

theoilyone

Basically I think the Bank has had the money so I am not paying it to them again! I did not have an agreement with a reckless stupid Government that bails out sinking ships with my hard earned taxes, therefore say what you like I am not paying any money for any debts incurred by me which the bank has declared as a bad debt and been compensated for by HMG.

theoilyone

At the end of the day bankruptcy is my leverage.

michael1983l

The bank has not recovered its losses from the government, you are forgetting one important factor. The cash was loaned to the bank from the government in return for shares in the bank. Therefore the bank will be paying the government back. This is a definate no go.

~Brock~

Good luck with the legal aid - you're gonna need it

theartfullodger

Have I understood this right: You owe RBS - now us lot, "The people" and don't want to pay us the money you owe us.

legally & morally you should pay. I for one look forward to receiving my share of the money (very small, I grant..)

Cheers & Best Wishes to all, including those who disagree with me!

Lodger