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

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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!

I believe that after bankruptsy there is no way the official receiver would allow £65.00 per month for a premium TV package.
I would consider you should pay your debts and then have a life.

Edinburghlass_2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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

Nor is it acceptable to be rude

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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.

The creditor has a right to file for a bankruptsy order if they believe the debtor is not making a serious effort to repay the debt.

never-in-doubt

Edinburghlass wrote: »

Nor is it acceptable to be rude

Do as I say not as I do

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

The creditor has a right to file for a bankruptsy order if they believe the debtor is not making a serious effort to repay the debt.

LOL, trust me this would not happen for small debt!

Degenerate

NickX wrote: »

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.

If I borrowed money from you then declined to pay it back because my personal moral judgement says a couple of weeks in Disneyworld is more important, how would you feel about it?

How about if I stole your car, would you accept that it is up to my personal moral judgement to do such a thing?

People can make whatever moral judgements they want about things that are exclusively their own affair, but when it affects obligations to others it becomes more than a matter of personal morals. Those that don't understand this don't deserve the protections of a free society.

NickX

This is quite amusing, I haven't been on this forum for a few months now and I notice the moralising and judgemental attitude haven't changed.

The OP is asking whether MBNA have a right to demand they cancel their Sky subscription because they are on a DMP ?

The answer is NO, they have no legal right whatsoever. End of answer.

However, as with people who ask whether their pre-2007 CCA is enforceable, on this forum you get a host of people moralising and demanding that debts are repaid in full and as a priority over anything else. Who are these people to make such demands ?

It is very much my opinion that there is very much an attitude on this forum that tends to err on the side of the corporation rather than the side of the consumer. I have noticed this since I first joined and surprises me considering one of the forum trademark sayings is "Consumer Revenge". Interesting

Degenerate

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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.

And you're completely wrong. The creditor can lawfully ask you to give up anything. They cannot compel you to without a bankruptcy order. They can refuse to accept an arrangement to pay, and take the matter to court, if they feel you are not being reasonable.

NickX

Degenerate wrote: »

If I borrowed money from you then declined to pay it back because my personal moral judgement says a couple of weeks in Disneyworld is more important, how would you feel about it?

How about if I stole your car, would you accept that it is up to my personal moral judgement to do such a thing?

People can make whatever moral judgements they want about things that are exclusively their own affair, but when it affects obligations to others it becomes more than a matter of personal morals. Those that don't understand this don't deserve the protections of a free society.

Well if I lent money to a "friend" and they decided on Disneyworld rather than pay me back then I have made an error of judgement. Morals have nothing to do with it.

If you stole my car, again forget morals, you have broken the law and committed theft and I will go to the police.

If MBNA wants to force the OP to pay them rather then Sky, then they issue court proceedings and get a CCJ.

The situation is simple and morals have nothing to do with any of it.

ILW

NickX wrote: »

It is very much my opinion that there is very much an attitude on this forum that tends to err on the side of the corporation rather than the side of the consumer. I have noticed this since I first joined and surprises me considering one of the forum trademark sayings is "Consumer Revenge". Interesting

I think Sky is a corporation. Do you consider they have a greater right to the OPs money than the people that he is already indebted to?