Credit Card Write Off

Mrsbibbs

Hi, Hope someone can help
I am writing this post on behalf of a friend.

She has credits that have been taken out prior to 2007 and has seen the recent television campaign regarding getting the debt written off due to the contract being written up incorrectly.

The credit cards are with Capital one, Hsbc, vanquis, mint and barclay card x 2

How do we find out if these are incorrect and get the debt written off.

apologies if this is the wrong place to post, have never done a forum post before and forgetten my old log ins.


Thank you for any advice.

Fran and Simmi :A

PNPSUKNET

Sorry they dont work, she will have todo like most of us do and pay them. This is the reason peoples apr is been hicked by the wont payers.

_Andy_

Please use the search facility, search '2007' in the credit card and loan forums, there are countless threads already about this.

hippey

A collegue of mine has done this very thing.

For £450 (upfront) he was promised that his loan for £15k with HSBC would be written off as there is an error with the APR it is actually calculated to low!

That was almost 12 months ago, I heard him on the phone yesterday still chasing what was happening with it.........

Take of that what you want but in my book it's £450 for nothing! If you owe the debt then pay it you spent it!

never-in-doubt

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

Sorry they dont work, she will have todo like most of us do and pay them. This is the reason peoples apr is been hicked by the wont payers.

Nooooo - you couldn't be further from the truth! There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the small proportion of non payers (less than 10% of the market) contribute to any hike in APR and as we always say, if you don't like the APR quoted then decline the account! Simple.

Sorry mate but this is totally unfounded with no evidence because it is simply not true - its hearsay - nothing more nothing less. You know, even Sir Fred's pension wouldn't affect the APR rate's issued by RBS - its small fry in comparison.....

Regards to unenforceability, it does work and if the agreement is unlawful then she doesn't have to do anything - actually!

Please don't dissuade people from the factual truths just because you may not agree or believe in what the question is. For instance, as you're evidently against unenforceability just don't post anything cos you have no idea what you're talking about so save your fingers and just move to a topic you may know about.

Sorry but this is one of my passions and incorrect info is what causes all these questions in the first place! I agree paying is silly cos no need to, we're here that will help people do it for free

Tammer

Don't pay =

Possible legal action against you and repossession of some of your possessions.
Possible refusal on future loans or credit cards.
Doubtful that you'll get a mortgage in future.

So it's worth noting the pros and cons.

PNPSUKNET

You really are quite rude, where is you evidence to say its not true? I will add that a forum is peoples oppinions.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Nooooo - you couldn't be further from the truth! There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the small proportion of non payers (less than 10% of the market) contribute to any hike in APR and as we always say, if you don't like the APR quoted then decline the account! Simple.

Sorry mate but this is totally unfounded with no evidence because it is simply not true - its hearsay - nothing more nothing less. You know, even Sir Fred's pension wouldn't affect the APR rate's issued by RBS - its small fry in comparison.....

Regards to unenforceability, it does work and if the agreement is unlawful then she doesn't have to do anything - actually!

Please don't dissuade people from the factual truths just because you may not agree or believe in what the question is. For instance, as you're evidently against unenforceability just don't post anything cos you have no idea what you're talking about so save your fingers and just move to a topic you may know about.

Sorry but this is one of my passions and incorrect info is what causes all these questions in the first place! I agree paying is silly cos no need to, we're here that will help people do it for free

sharpy2010

Mrsbibbs wrote: »

Hi, Hope someone can help
I am writing this post on behalf of a friend.
She has credits that have been taken out prior to 2007 and has seen the recent television campaign regarding getting the debt written off due to the contract being written up incorrectly.
The credit cards are with Capital one, Hsbc, vanquis, mint and barclay card x 2
How do we find out if these are incorrect and get the debt written off.
apologies if this is the wrong place to post, have never done a forum post before and forgetten my old log ins.
Thank you for any advice.
Fran and Simmi :A

Do you realise how ridiculous the question that you are asking is? What you are basically saying is "We think we've found a way to not pay debts that we racked up, so, could you please tell us exactly how we do it. Oh yes, and in the process, you'll probably be charged a higher APR on your own cards, due to people like us. Thanks!".

Can you understand why we'd be less than willing to help?

chattychappy

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

You really are quite rude, where is you evidence to say its not true?

You made the original assertion, so it's for you to produce the evidence rather than never-in-doubt to the contrary. In your original post, the second sentence doesn't follow from the second sentence.

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

Sorry they dont work, she will have todo like most of us do and pay them. This is the reason peoples apr is been hicked by the wont payers.

PNPSUKNET

Simple example, goto the supermarket people steal say a toaster, now to the supermarket its a loss which must be made back somewhere else so what happens? prices go up.

chattychappy

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

Simple example, goto the supermarket people steal say a toaster, now to the supermarket its a loss which must be made back somewhere else so what happens? prices go up.

No. They don't have to make the loss back if someone steals a toaster. The loss has happened - less dividend for the shareholders, less corporation tax to HMRC.

The fact of one particular person exploiting a loophole now doesn't affect the risk of somebody else exploiting the same loophole in the future - particularly as it's been long known about.