Is MBNA within its rights to ask me to do this ?

never-in-doubt

No it isn't reasonable, at the end of the day if they get snotty you turn round and tell them straight that you'll default if they dont take what you offer. They soon jump to take your offer when they realise they will get sod all.

TBH you fools that think you should have no life when in debt need a long hard slap - how dare a lender tell a customer to get rid of sky or anything else for that matter?

Its a joke - if they done that to me i'd laugh and tell them to go forth and multiply and as a result of their cheek, i'm now buying setanta and !!!!!! to go with my package!

Cheeky sods - its unreal you muppets think the banks can do this - hello!

NickX

never-in-doubt wrote: »

TBH you fools that think you should have no life when in debt need a long hard slap - how dare a lender tell a customer to get rid of sky or anything else for that matter?

Its a joke - if they done that to me i'd laugh and tell them to go forth and multiply and as a result of their cheek, i'm now buying setanta and !!!!!! to go with my package!

Cheeky sods - its unreal you muppets think the banks can do this - hello!

Completely agree. MBNA have abolutely no right to influence how you live your life. They are talking down to you in an attempt to get you to pay them back more quickly.

I would also tell them where to go, and it would be tempting to tell the particular CSA that said this that you intend to reduce their payment to £1 per month and spend the remaining £68 that you were going to pay them down the pub and eating in expensive restaurants. Tell him to put that in his pipe and smoke it

never-in-doubt

NickX wrote: »

Completely agree. MBNA have abolutely no right to influence how you live your life. They are talking down to you in an attempt to get you to pay them back more quickly.

I would also tell them where to go, and it would be tempting to tell the particular CSA that said this that you intend to reduce their payment to £1 per month and spend the remaining £68 that you were going to pay them down the pub and eating in expensive restaurants. Tell him to put that in his pipe and smoke it

LOL, that would be funny to see. thing is these csa's have no idea, most are like fresh from school and couldn't manage a pish-up in a brewery correctly let alone organise someones debt for them and work our repayment plans - it makes me larf!

ILW

What a load of rubbish is being spoken here.
If someone thinks that staring at 24hr sport and movies on the telly is more important than paying back the money they owe to others then thier priorities are skewed. But then again, that is probably the reason they are in the mess they are.
Looking on the positive side though, it keeps Jeremy Kyle with a regular supply of "guests".

Ansu

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No it isn't reasonable, at the end of the day if they get snotty you turn round and tell them straight that you'll default if they dont take what you offer. They soon jump to take your offer when they realise they will get sod all.

TBH you fools that think you should have no life when in debt need a long hard slap - how dare a lender tell a customer to get rid of sky or anything else for that matter?

Its a joke - if they done that to me i'd laugh and tell them to go forth and multiply and as a result of their cheek, i'm now buying setanta and !!!!!! to go with my package!

Cheeky sods - its unreal you muppets think the banks can do this - hello!

Not really called for, but regardless, the difference he is paying in Sky TV could be the reason he is in 'financial difficulty'.

Having worked with people in this situation, a lot of the time it is just bad money management rather than having an actual deficit. It's not an unreasonable request at all.

I'd be fairly annoyed if I were owed money, and the person who owed this claimed they were unable to pay me back at the agreed amount, yet were spending just as much on other things.

Degenerate

never-in-doubt wrote: »

TBH you fools that think you should have no life when in debt need a long hard slap - how dare a lender tell a customer to get rid of sky or anything else for that matter?

How dare the lender!?!?! How dare the borrower borrow money and then fail to pay it back under the originally agreed terms. It's quite simple: if you meet the obligations you took on when you borrowed, then you owe the lender no explanations for anything. If you fail to meet these obligations, then they are within reason taking an interest in your finances to determine that you are at least paying as much as you reasonably can.

Its a joke - if they done that to me i'd laugh and tell them to go forth and multiply and as a result of their cheek, i'm now buying setanta and !!!!!! to go with my package!

Cheeky sods - its unreal you muppets think the banks can do this - hello!

Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

What a load of rubbish is being spoken here.
If someone thinks that staring at 24hr sport and movies on the telly is more important than paying back the money they owe to others then thier priorities are skewed. But then again, that is probably the reason they are in the mess they are.
Looking on the positive side though, it keeps Jeremy Kyle with a regular supply of "guests".

Not at all, it was decided at the time that bankruptcy rules changed that being in debt should not be a punishment nor should it be a prison sentence. therefore sorry - totally disagree - you still have to have a life (obviously having sky and staying in all week is sacrifice enough!).

Lenders don't care if you pay £10 or £100 per month - to them it is a token payment and that is why a court will always refuse action if any reasonable token payment is made/offered to a lender.

We have the relevant authorities in place to allow us to live, whilst in debt!

NickX

ILW wrote: »

If someone thinks that staring at 24hr sport and movies on the telly is more important than paying back the money they owe to others then thier priorities are skewed.

Well this is a moral judgement that it is for the debtor to make. It may be that they feel that they would be more comfortable to make payments to their creditors than to their Sky subscription.

However, that is a judgement for them to make, NOT for a CSA from MBNA to make on their behalf.

never-in-doubt

Can I please remind people that opinions, whether rightly or wrongly, are not what the OP asked for.

They asked a genuine question and the legalities surrounding the question was answered in that NO, the creditor cannot lawfully ask you to cancel a subscription tv package in order to get more of your money. This would not stand up in court.

never-in-doubt

NickX wrote: »

Well this is a moral judgement that it is for the debtor to make.

However, that is a judgement for them to make, NOT for a CSA from MBNA to make on their behalf.

Nor is it for other MSE posters to make for him!