Unenforceability

cyril82

cyril82 wrote: »

Rubbish!!!

proliant, let me elaborate on this for you, i'm not just having ago at you for having an opinion, and i would never brand someone else's opinion rubbish merely because it differs from my own. I just see a few glaringly obvious flaws in the points you try to make.

The biggest flaw being that you can not jump to the defence of the banks in the debate about charges, with the argument that if the contract allows the application of charges the consumer has no cause for complaint, Basically you're saying "if you signed the contract don’t complain"
Yet you're very critical of consumers who exploit the terms and provisions of the consumer credit act to render agreements unenforceable, the problem i see with this argument is that the terms and provisions of the consumer credit act form part of the terms and conditions of a loan agreement between a bank and the consumer, therefore criticising a consumer who uses those terms/provisions to challenge an agreement surely contradicts you’re first point?
After all, it's the terms in the contract that the consumer is using to challenge the agreement.

So you see, from where i'am standing you appear to be contradicting yourself which discredits your argument, in my opinion.

petermb_2

simon_templar wrote: »

But clients are taking money without asking also known as THEFT or STEALING.

So there you go. A slanted view if I ever saw one. It is ok for the lenders to steal over and over again but anything the borrower does other than repay like a good little minion is unacceptable, in your eyes.

Mark_Davis

petermb wrote: »

So there you go. A slanted view if I ever saw one. It is ok for the lenders to steal over and over again but anything the borrower does other than repay like a good little minion is unacceptable, in your eyes.

Good to see the fire is still burning!!!

simon_templar_2

Oh dear Peter someone has a different view and you start blubbing

petermb_2

PROLIANT wrote: »

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.

But that is where the rub is. The Office of Fair Trading, you must of heard of them, they have been named in the papers many times, some body that fools around masquerading as the people that control the likes of loan companies and banks, say that banks cannot fine their customers. They do not have the right to do so. Therefore the banks are taking money unlawfully. Where is the ambiguity?

The problem is that they have been doing it for so long it is taking a long time for the message to sink in. Taking money when you do not have the right is theft.

Just like selling insurance policies that have 80-90% chance of not paying out is also theft.

On the other hand

If you lend money and dont make sure your agreements are legal or you conduct your business contrary to the laws that govern the trade you ply is plain stupidity or simply arrogance or both .

Now tell us all it is simply the borrower's fault........

cyril82

cyril82 wrote: »

Here's an example, mr x has a bank account with zero balance. a direct debit goes through the account, bank refuse to pay, costs them nothing to do that, they charge mr x £35.

Would you like to explain, based on the above, (which is a typical example of how charges are applied) how you conclude that mr x stole from his bank?

i'm really interested to hear this...:rolleyes:

Mr Templer, now that you're back, would you care to answer this question.....you see, i've tried to be objective, but i just can't make it add upto theft :think:

rigger_john

PROLIANT wrote: »

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.

That is absolute twaddle, there is an Act of Parlaiment which states that a driver exceeding the speed limit is subject to a fine The Road Traffic Act, there is no act as far as I'm aware that gives the banks the legal power to inpose fines, however i am aware that there are laws which prohibit them from doing so. Care to correct me?

petermb_2

simon_templar wrote: »

Oh dear Peter someone has a different view and you start blubbing

LOL ! Blubbing?
I think my answers are far more balanced than little jibes and personal digs.

I expect folks to have a contrary view to mine. It is what makes the world go round.
But when people are totally blinkered and appear only to post when they have the chance to have a pop then I respond accordingly

simon_templar_2

As stated earlier your question is slanted to fit your line of argument. Please try this question instead -

A customer has £10 in their bank account. They have a direct debit to SKY for £45 due out the next day. They have no agreed overdraft with the bank. The direct debit goes out and they are £35 overdrawn. They did not ask to borrow that £35 they simply STOLE it.

petermb_2

simon_templar wrote: »

As stated earlier your question is slanted to fit your line of argument. Please try this question instead -

A customer has £10 in their bank account. They have a direct debit to SKY for £45 due out the next day. They have no agreed overdraft with the bank. The direct debit goes out and they are £35 overdrawn. They did not ask to borrow that £35 they simply STOLE it.

I think in this instance, even the bank would treat the money as "Borrowed". That is what banks do, lend money and make a hansome profit on it.

Taking money for a product that does not work or is not fit for the purpose, now that is Stealing.

A balanced view is always best in all things.