Loans Written Off on Terms and Conditions

never-in-doubt

bert&ernie wrote: »

I've got no problem with refusing delivery, telephone calls or any other type of contact. However, saying that you are not known at your address would be a clear attempt to deceive - hence my suggestion that this may be seen as fraud.

Refusing delivery could also turn out to be somewhat impractical. You would need to either refuse all postal deliveries or ensure that you could inspect each packet before you accept it. Even then, you wont always be able to tell where the correspondence has come from.

Surely the key is making sure that you don't acknowledge the debt?

I kinda understand and half agree with you but we will have to agree to disagree because your last paragraph leaves only one option - in order to avoid acknowledging the debt you'd have to refuse the mail - i.e. inspect it at the door with the postie and when you see the usual return address on the back, you tell the postie you refuse to accept that and can they return it.

The postie will write 'refused by addressee' on the envelope and return to sender.

never-in-doubt

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

This is why credit card rates are so high for those of us who actually want to pay their debts and not try and wriggle out.

Now I personally think that credit card companies are to blame for tempting those who cant pay for them to take more credit, but its people wriggling out instead of actually facing up to what they have done that the problem.

Also the morality of such companies that offer this service is severely in question.

No, you're so far from the truth you could have come from Mars! The impact that unenforceability plays in real life (not your vivid imagination) is less than 3% of the actual debt. I am not going to explain it all again but suffice to say, the sub-prime lending market caused the problem - NOT revolving credit based lending such as overdrafts, unsecured loans (less than £25k) or credit cards.

If the banks had spend a few quid sorting out their paperwork then they wouldn't be in this mess would they? At the end of the day, losses from credit card and loan debts is deductible from operating profits against taxation - bearing in mind we already fund the banks with tax, what's a few quid more?

Also it's not wriggling out of anything, it is simply denying liability for an alleged debt that cannot be proved. Therefore what is wriggly about that exactly? That's why we win if it goes to court and they have no agreement - because the law says it becomes unenforceable! Therefore my opinion matters zilch, as does yours because the facts are the facts.

cardinalbiggles

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No, you're so far from the truth you could have come from Mars! The impact that unenforceability plays in real life (not your vivid imagination) is less than 3% of the actual debt. I am not going to explain it all again but suffice to say, the sub-prime lending market caused the problem - NOT revolving credit based lending such as overdrafts, unsecured loans (less than £25k) or credit cards.

If the banks had spend a few quid sorting out their paperwork then they wouldn't be in this mess would they? At the end of the day, losses from credit card and loan debts is deductible from operating profits against taxation - bearing in mind we already fund the banks with tax, what's a few quid more?

Also it's not wriggling out of anything, it is simply denying liability for an alleged debt that cannot be proved. Therefore what is wriggly about that exactly? That's why we win if it goes to court and they have no agreement - because the law says it becomes unenforceable! Therefore my opinion matters zilch, as does yours because the facts are the facts.

The bottom line is if you took the loan you should pay it back. If you try and get off on a technicality your are wriggling out on paying your debts.

While this may be the best method for someone who financially cant cope those who do this, on the back of the technicality are in my view trying to get something for nothing. My statement about driving up costs for the rest of us is also to some degree true and not just taking into consideration the current financial climate.

Whats a few quid more? Well perhaps my morals are just a little different from yours...

never-in-doubt

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

The bottom line is if you took the loan you should pay it back. If you try and get off on a technicality your are wriggling out on paying your debts.

While this may be the best method for someone who financially cant cope those who do this, on the back of the technicality are in my view trying to get something for nothing. My statement about driving up costs for the rest of us is also to some degree true and not just taking into consideration the current financial climate.

Whats a few quid more? Well perhaps my morals are just a little different from yours...

Fair point, you're entitled to an opinion all i'm saying is that the law is the law and morals count for nothing in court.

Bottom line is it is not wriggling out of anything, it is the law! The law says tht without a lawful agreement the debt becomes unenforceable and be honest, if you knew you could save paying your debts and be 10x better off a month that you'd refuse it and offer money when you didn't have to? If so, sorry I just don't accept that.

It'd be like throwing it onto a fire - wasted and no-one actually throws money away....

iolanthe07

Not at all, what is immoral to you may not be to me. Ok, to me it is moral to club women over the head and drag them into my cave. Does that make it right?

I think that has answered you appropriately. Nuff said.

What bo££ox. It hasn't answered me appropriately at all. You answer is a complete non sequitur. The moral thing to do is to pay back what you owe. If you've fallen on hard times, then you negotiate; but to lie about your address to avoid your obligations is absolutely immoral from any standpoint.

jkdt0077

Sorry to butt-in.. but why does this only apply to loans taken before 2007?

~Brock~

jkdt0077 wrote: »

Sorry to butt-in.. but why does this only apply to loans taken before 2007?

.......because changes made by the Consumer credit Act 2006 (introduced in April 2007) abolished the rule that gave a court no power to enforce an agreement that had certain prescribed terms missing or incorrect.

The reality is that there were nothing like the number of defective credit agreements out there prior to this time as the claims management spin would have you believe - this is simply designed to raise your hopes enough to get you to part with your cash.

These firms will gradually die out as April 2007 disappears further into the rear view mirror, pickings will get slimmer and slimmer. I wonder how many will disappear along with their clients up front fee cash?

bert&ernie

~Brock~ wrote: »

...
The reality is that there were nothing like the number of defective credit agreements out there prior to this time as the claims management spin would have you believe...

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

~Brock~

bert&ernie wrote: »

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

My own experience of this would probably be dismissed as one-sided, but there are the various statements and warnings (such as this one) issued this year by the MoJ / OFT / SRA which clearly indicate their view that statements such as '80% of credit agreements are unenforceable' are completely misleading.

Where did lines like that come from in the first place? I suspect one imaginative claims marketeer dreamt it up and, as they tend to do, the rest of them jumped onto the same bandwagon, and all of as sudden it is being promoted as a fact.

I caught a Radio 4 interview this afternoon with some bod from the MoJ - it would appear that they are finally coming to terms with the fact that the claims industry is rife with the types of shady characters that just hop from one get rich quick scheme to the next ....e,g, timeshares, accident management, personal injury claims etc, leaving a continual trail of destruction in their wake. That is the bit that I have a problem with..........that fact that these firms are blowing up the chances of success out of all proportion for nothing more than personal gain.

bert&ernie

~Brock~ wrote: »

My own experience of this would probably be dismissed as one-sided, but there are the various statements and warnings (such as this one) issued this year by the MoJ / OFT / SRA which clearly indicate their view that statements such as '80% of credit agreements are unenforceable' are completely misleading.

Where did lines like that come from in the first place? I suspect one imaginative claims marketeer dreamt it up and, as they tend to do, the rest of them jumped onto the same bandwagon, and all of as sudden it is being promoted as a fact.

I caught a Radio 4 interview this afternoon with some bod from the MoJ - it would appear that they are finally coming to terms with the fact that the claims industry is rife with the types of shady characters that just hop from one get rich quick scheme to the next ....e,g, timeshares, accident management, personal injury claims etc, leaving a continual trail of destruction in their wake. That is the bit that I have a problem with..........that fact that these firms are blowing up the chances of success out of all proportion for nothing more than personal gain.

The claims are deemed misleading if they cannot be justified. By this definition, you own claim that "The reality is that there were nothing like the number of defective credit agreements out there prior to this time as the claims management spin would have you believe" is just as misleading because you don't know what the "reality" is.

Here lies the issue - nobody really knows how many credit agreements are unenforceable. The lenders themselves may well have carried out audits to assess their liability, but they have no incentive to publish the results. They seem to be using the same playbook as they first did for bank charges - pretending that the issue doesn't exist.

Claims companies seem to thrive in this vacuum of facts and are all to happy to fill it with their own unsubstantiated assertions.