Unenforceability

rigger_john

I would have thought this whole argument revolves around morality v law, it seems (to me) that those posters who think the banks are justified in applying charges ect are ignoring the law. What the T&C of an account say are irrelevant if those terms are unlawful.

In English law there can be "no penalty without a law" summed up in the adage Nulla poena sine lege, the law of contract allows that a breech can only give rise to a claim for the actual damages sustained by the injured party, so unless the banks can show it cost them £xx to bounce a cheque they are in breach of the law and the courts can take no other view.

As to whether using they law in such a way is moral, well that's a debate for philosophers, the law is and should be detached from such arguments, it is not the job of the courts to enforce what is right rather to enforce the law.


I suppose what I am saying is if you think it is wrong to 'avoid' liability because the law say you can then that is your view and you are entitled to it, but don't try to say that the banks are acting lawfuly just because you think they are right.


As for the judge that said a debt was enforceable without an agreement, do you have a case reference, was it a high court or above, I would like to read the judgment, not that it matters that much because I am pretty sure such a decision will be overruled.


Just my opinion

cyril82

PROLIANT wrote: »

That is a loaded example if I have ever seen one. :rolleyes:

No, it's a typical example of how charges are applied, this guy say's it's stealing, i'm just asking if he'd care to explain how.

i'm guessing he won't take up me up on the offer........

Because he was talking a load of...:silenced:

PROLIANT

cyril82 wrote: »

No, it's a typical example of how charges are applied, this guy say's it's stealing, i'm just asking if he'd care to explain how.

i'm guessing he won't take up me up on the offer........

Because he was talking a load of...:silenced:

You borrow money from a bank and choose not to repay it then it is stealing, if you go overdrawn because you are pap with your money and the banks charges you for it the that is called education - learn from your mistakes.

cyril82

rigger_john wrote: »

I would have thought this whole argument revolves around morality v law, it seems (to me) that those posters who think the banks are justified in applying charges ect are ignoring the law. What the T&C of an account say are irrelevant if those terms are unlawful.

In English law there can be "no penalty without a law" summed up in the adage Nulla poena sine lege, the law of contract allows that a breech can only give rise to a claim for the actual damages sustained by the injured party, so unless the banks can show it cost them £xx to bounce a cheque they are in breach of the law and the courts can take no other view.

As to whether using they law in such a way is moral, well that's a debate for philosophers, the law is and should be detached from such arguments, it is not the job of the courts to enforce what is right rather to enforce the law.


I suppose what I am saying is if you think it is wrong to 'avoid' liability because the law say you can then that is your view and you are entitled to it, but don't try to say that the banks are acting lawfuly just because you think they are right.


As for the judge that said a debt was enforceable without an agreement, do you have a case reference, was it a high court or above, I would like to read the judgment, not that it matters that much because I am pretty sure such a decision will be overruled.


Just my opinion

I agree totally, the law is the law. Banks take full advantage of any law which benefits them, so with regards this threads orgional topic of challenging agreements as unenforceable, well if the law allows, why not?

With regards the sub topic of charges, they are unlawful as they are fines/penalties which the bank has no legal right or authourity to issue.

cyril82

PROLIANT wrote: »

You borrow money from a bank and choose not to repay it then it is stealing, if you go overdrawn because you are pap with your money and the banks charges you for it the that is called education - learn from your mistakes.

Rubbish!!!

PROLIANT

cyril82 wrote: »

Rubbish!!!

No, it is fact.

rigger_john

cyril82 wrote: »

With regards the sub topic of charges, they are unlawful as they are fines/penalties which the bank has no legal right or authourity to issue.

Agreed as I said Nulla poena sine lege, however that doesn't detract from other posters rights to view the charges as 'fair' from a moral point of view, I just wish they wouldn't try to argue they are lawful because they think they are fair.

rigger_john

PROLIANT wrote: »

You borrow money from a bank and choose not to repay it then it is stealing, if you go overdrawn because you are pap with your money and the banks charges you for it the that is called education - learn from your mistakes.

You are right if you 'choose' not to repay it is theft because the intention to deprive is there, but if you can't repay there is no theft. OTOH if a bank applies a charge that is specificly prohibited by law how is that an education?

Craig1

Does anyone have an opinion on the banks ability to enforce a loan when no agreement can be found, in addition to the affordability assessment being completely falsified and the bank having the evidence that this was the case by simply looking at the monthly range of balances?

The bank then slaps a default on you as you cannot afford the full repayment, even though you haven't actually missed any payments.
The argument may be that you have broken the agreement to pay x amount a month, however the agreement has been made with the bank to pay a lesser amount a month. Shouldn't that constitue that you haven't broken an agreement but set up a new one?

PROLIANT

rigger_john wrote: »

You are right if you 'choose' not to repay it is theft because the intention to deprive is there, but if you can't repay there is no theft. OTOH if a bank applies a charge that is specificly prohibited by law how is that an education?

If you break the speed limit in a motor vehicle and get caught you will get fined therefore you try not to do it again to avoid the fine - ergo if you mis-manage your bank account, the bank will fine you.
Simple.