Credit Card Write Off

PROLIANT

chattychappy wrote: »

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.

You are mistaken sir - retail shrinkage costs the consumer heavily in price increases, from my days in retail management this was typically 3% price increase for a anything greater than a 2% quarterly shrinkage figure, anything greater than 2% was investigated by internal auditors and if staff were suspect, covert CCTV was installed and other methods of detection were implemented - without the knowledge of the store manager or any other store staff.
So the moral of the education here is yes, tea leafs who steal from shops are a direct influence on retail price increases inline with inflation, so the analogy applied to that of the dishonest thief’s who steal money from banks in the way of unenforceability are just as bad and despite what the "opposition" states on here this activity will have a direct impact on APR charged to honest, paying customers of the bank.

never-in-doubt

PROLIANT wrote: »

You are mistaken sir - retail shrinkage costs the consumer heavily in price increases, from my days in retail management this was typically 3% price increase for a anything greater than a 2% quarterly shrinkage figure, anything greater than 2% was investigated by internal auditors and if staff were suspect, covert CCTV was installed and other methods of detection were implemented - without the knowledge of the store manager or any other store staff. So the moral of the education here is yes, tea leafs who steal from shops are a direct influence on retail price increases inline with inflation, so the analogy applied to that of the dishonest thief’s who steal money from banks in the way of unenforceability are just as bad and despite what the "opposition" states on here this activity will have a direct impact on APR charged to honest, paying customers of the bank.

No Proliant, he is actually spot-on (ChattyChappy - well pointed out :T).
I don't want to get into an argument but that isn't true and it seems you're trying to wind us up with the same silly remarks so lets agree here and now to quit before it starts and stick to the facts.

Regards to the P&L - this is usually covered within the actual mark-up and although shop thefts affect the store (obviously) it does not affect the pricing structure and is usually covered against tax write off for loss of revenue to theft.

They can't increase the prices, think logically for a minute - all shops charge the same for lets say Mars Bars - so if I keep going to my local newsagent and nick 10 a day do you for one minute think the price of Mars will go up in that store and be outpriced against all the competition?

Regards to covert CCTV (what I specialise in as it happens) - here is the law, in simple terms which was easily accessible on the web: CCTV is governed by the DPA and an employer has the right to covertly film staff so long as they have gained permission to do so and so long as it is for the purposes of fraud or theft. The Data Protection Act 1988 and subordinate legislation establishes how employers can process employee pictures and / or video footage.

The main points are:

The monitoring must be no more than is necessary and proportionate to achieve the business purpose e.g. if an employer believes an employee is stealing money from a till, they should only have CCTV coverage around that area.

An employer must not use personal data collected through CCTV monitoring for purposes other than the prevention or detection of criminal activity.

CCTV footage should be securely locked away. Employers have responsibilities regarding the collection and use of CCTV footage which includes the common law duty of confidence.

An impact assessment must be carried out. If CCTV is used, all staff affected must be told and be made aware of the nature and extent of monitoring (unless of course it would defeat the objective of prevention or detection of crime).

The employer should ensure that there is a clear record of the impact assessment of the CCTV.

Regards to the comments surrounding unenforceability, you really have to quit on this front cos you really have no idea what you are talking about. Of course unenforceability does not impact the APR and even if it did, you just apply for a card with another lender don't you! Its not rocket science....

daily_2

Where is this fairy tale world where bad debt, and Mars bar theft has no impact on anyone else? We are all interlinked, which is why we are all going to have to pick up the tab of this mess with higher taxes, harder borrowing, and higher apr's over the next decade.

never-in-doubt

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

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

You confuse rudeness with passion. When you're clearly incorrect of course i'll comment!

I don't need proof, I know! I think you'll find my previous posts confirm that I do actually know this field somewhat and so 'proving' to you is fruitless as my proof is in my previous posts!

never-in-doubt

daily wrote: »

Where is this fairy tale world where bad debt, and Mars bar theft has no impact on anyone else? We are all interlinked, which is why we are all going to have to pick up the tab of this mess with higher taxes, harder borrowing, and higher apr's over the next decade.

The 'fairy tale world' is here - right under your nose because it is true!

Yes directly due to irresponsible internal practices by the banks executives - don't you read the newspapers?

Consumer (revolving credit) debt is like 1% of the problem - look at the bigger picure! :eek:

PROLIANT

Look NID, you may have great knowledge in the field of security however the fact of the mater is I was there, I was involved I worked for the company as a manager and it really happened, the minimum legal requirement for CCTV to be used as admissible evidence in court is that you must have a sign within clear view of the entrance to the work place that CCTV is in use, you do not have to tell staff that covert CCTV is in use at all. A simple, clear indication in the right location covers the company legally - I have administered evidence in a court of law under these circumstances therefore it was legal and within the requirements of the law otherwise it would have been thrown out instead the little toe-rag was sentenced.

PNPSUKNET

Well I can say is just wait when banks start to charge running costs and card companys start annual charges again. They have to make money back that people have used which didnt belong to them and try to avoid paying back.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

You confuse rudeness with passion. When you're clearly incorrect of course i'll comment!

I don't need proof, I know! I think you'll find my previous posts confirm that I do actually know this field somewhat and so 'proving' to you is fruitless as my proof is in my previous posts!

Goodtimesahead

If the lenders today are going around writting off huge chunks of debts in their hundereds of millions, I wouldn't get emotional about someone that is seeking to see if they can have their debts legally written off too, that's what we have laws and lawyers for to assist if there are grounds to challenge possible unenforceable contracts. Good luck to you if you win.

In any event if the banks are too arsed to collect the debt themselves and sold them to a DCA then I'm all for someone getting away with paying as little as possible back, especially if they have little chance in life of paying the money back. Many of these DCA are evil hounding merciless besterds!

dealer_wins

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

Just dont pay it anymore. Will have exactly the same result as paying a "wiping" company, only it saves the costs and fees. You will still get defaults and debt collectors/bailiffs, and an inability to get credit in future.

But hey, why should I pay back those greedy bankers who nearly brought this fine country to its knees!! I mean its not as if you spent the money in the first place or anything, you know what I mean

never-in-doubt

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

Well I can say is just wait when banks start to charge running costs and card companys start annual charges again. They have to make money back that people have used which didnt belong to them and try to avoid paying back.

I already pay £12.95 a month for my bank account and am more than happy to do so in the knowledge that is the only money they make from me. They provide me with excellent service and for a fee of £100 odd a year it's more than worth it.

I think we should all pay for the privilege of using a facility - that way (no offence intended) the stoozers will cease to exist and the serious borrowers will know at outset what each product costs - so long as less than £15 per month I think it's more than worth it so long as they provide the service to match the fee.

The point does remain that the debt isn't directly passed down to the customer - it is a little more complex than that.....