What Makes A Loan Unenforceable?

cyril82

uktyler wrote: »

So where is the money going to come from to pay back all these unenforceable loans?.

Banks allow for unrecoverable lending in their annual accounts, they have for years even before the unenforceability issue arose. It gets offset against tax and that's it. Banks can't expect customers to take an increase in APR on lending every time a loan can not be recovered, if they did i'd hate to think what kind of Apr's we would be paying now.

And the tax payer does not give banks money every time a loan goes bad either, banks are businesses, they are responsible for their own loses.

uktyler wrote: »

Because the banks have cost the UK taxpayer £3000 you would feel justified in not paying a £3000 loan back
that just means other people have to pay it back for you, bringing everyone's total up.,.

Yes i would, i wasn't asked if i wanted to give £3,000 to the banks and frankly i don't want to, not untill bankers take pay cuts, forgoe their million pound bonuses and that scrounger who ran RBS into the ground and left us underwriting £600Billion of debt for that one bank and the investments he made, gives back that huge multi million pound pension and takes what he deserves, a state pension at best.

If the bankers who got us into this mess took paycuts and didn't get bonuses then i would be happy to chip in, but we are paying while they continue to get massive salary and bonuses.

Craig1

Cyril I commend you for your accurate responses and sticking to the topic. For all you that are debating the moral aspect I do respect your opinions, whether or not I agree with them is a different issue.

I understand that I agreed to borrow the money I never gave any false information in regards to my income, I was told by the bank offivial at the time that certain aspects of my outgoings were not applicable to the affordabilty assessment and that some aspects of my outgoings could be halved due to them being joint liabilities.

I then joined the banks employment and took tests to get a personal lending licence. I then found out what the right way of doing an affordability assessment. This made me question some peoples actions.

My loan application was referred to the personal lending dept. with whom I did not speak to, they could clearly see my income vs outgoings by looking at mandated payments and standing orders/dd's. They gave the go ahead.

I was naive to the situation at the time, if I knew then what I do now then I would never have agreed to the loan, thankfully I didn't take out the extortionate PPI. I have vowed that I will never take out a personal loan again and I intend to stick to that.

I also intend to repay my debts in their entirety, not by shurking on responsibilites, all I wanted to know was if there is anyway of putting the ball in my court rather than the banks.

Today I been given a considerable pay rise so this should only go to strenghten my position even further, in fact if anybody has any information on loan over-repayment calculators it would be appreciated.

cyril82

uktyler wrote: »

or from a tax offset, which means the company pay less tax, which means each taxpayer has a higher tax burden.

.

I really dont think that's how tax works. I am self employed, i have my own business, if my profits are down this year on last year then someone else has to pay the equivalent in tax so that the tax man gets what he got last year?? that is what you are saying there.

naijapower

I have read the entire thread and i have to say i am convinced on balance of probability that OP must take a huge part of the blame. He was never forced into the loan and was fully aware of his own circumstance. Moreover, the court or ombudsman would class him as an experienced customer rather than a vulnerable novice due to his banking job (alleged). Hence he cannot claim lack of understanding or being mis-sold a loan. in summary, he was a party to the alleged fraud or wrong doing. Infact, the law may class this as a conspiracy to obtain a loan by deception.
This is not a personal attack but my honest opinion.

cyril82

naijapower wrote: »

I have read the entire thread and i have to say i am convinced on balance of probability that OP must take a huge part of the blame. He was never forced into the loan and was fully aware of his own circumstance. Moreover, the court or ombudsman would class him as an experienced customer rather than a vulnerable novice due to his banking job (alleged). Hence he cannot claim lack of understanding or being mis-sold a loan. in summary, he was a party to the alleged fraud or wrong doing. Infact, the law may class this as a conspiracy to obtain a loan by deception.
This is not a personal attack but my honest opinion.

Having read the whole thread you will have read that the OP claims he was sold the loan before he worked for a bank and that it was his training with the bank that made him think he had not been sold the loan according to correct procedure.

If the op decides to challenge this agreement it will come down to whether or not the agreement complies with the consumer credit act. All this talk of fraud and finger pointing won't come into it, the bank are hardly going to bring it up when one of their staff were party to it and i doubt the OP will be shouting about it on reflection. To be honest it is something that happens all the time on loan apps, people overstate earnings and understate outgoings.

My advice is forget about it and concentrate on whether or not the agreement was drawn up properly as a whole.

petermb_2

uktyler wrote: »

It may get offset against tax, but the money still has to come from somewhere. It can only come from customers, who will face higher APR's in future, or from a tax offset, which means the company pay less tax, which means each taxpayer has a higher tax burden.

We DO pay for those that can't afford to pay, which is fair. I don't think we should pay for those that don't want to pay, which we will all end up doing.

Most companies have contingency funds to cover such claims. It was in the press recently that Alliance and Leicester had put away £38million for PPI claims. Personally I think they may have underestimated the problem but they have allowed for this in their accounts.

Compensation for stuff like this does not necessarily have to come from the customers and nor should it.

Not so long ago banks were submitting annual accounts with profits around £7billion per annum. Where do you think all that profit was coming from if it was not Single premium PPI and overcharging and arrears fees etc.

Come on guys wake up. You will allow yourselves to be sucked into the propaganda that lenders and their minions peddle and suddenly you find yourself speeling on about the morals of it all.

Where were the lender's morals. Everyone is up in arms because MPs took more expenses than they should. People are calling for them to be put inside for fraud and yet you defend lenders directly ripping off the poor man in the street and yes committing fraud and bribery while they were at it.

It all adds up to selective morals and selective memories.

cyril82

petermb wrote: »

Most companies have contingency funds to cover such claims. It was in the press recently that Alliance and Leicester had put away £38million for PPI claims. Personally I think they may have underestimated the problem but they have allowed for this in their accounts.

Compensation for stuff like this does not necessarily have to come from the customers and nor should it.

Not so long ago banks were submitting annual accounts with profits around £7billion per annum. Where do you think all that profit was coming from if it was not Single premium PPI and overcharging and arrears fees etc.

Come on guys wake up. You will allow yourselves to be sucked into the propaganda that lenders and their minions peddle and suddenly you find yourself speeling on about the morals of it all.

Where were the lender's morals. Everyone is up in arms because MPs took more expenses than they should. People are calling for them to be put inside for fraud and yet you defend lenders directly ripping off the poor man in the street and yes committing fraud and bribery while they were at it.

It all adds up to selective morals and selective memories.

Absolutely spot on!

Also regarding propaganda, Banks "leak" stories to the press that "suggest" they are "considering" charging for services that used to be free due to bank charge reclaiming, ppi reclaiming and unenforceability claims and certain people get suckered into this cleverly constructed, subtle blackmail and start to get on their moral high horses about how it is going to cost us all if we keep on claiming, the reality is it most likely won't happen.

If you look at the exposure that banks have to foreign "toxic" debt it dwarfs their exposure to reclaiming and enforceability claims here in the UK and banks are far more likely to increase APR's to help cover this Exposure,(at least those that are not getting tax payers money to cover it) however i'm sure they would still tell their PR department to "leak" another document appearing to show that the increases were due to claims here in the UK.

Sometimes you just need to realise when you're being played!