advice on writing off credit cards pre-2007

oscar52

never-in-doubt wrote: »

It would only be an outstanding balance if the lender could provide a CCA though, so who is to say that there is anything owed at all?

I know, lets say I suddenly ring you and say - ILW, please send me a cheque for the debt you owe me for £805.97. You'd immediately ask me to prove that you owed me - right?

I rest my case

Maybe you could also "re-create" a credit agreement, devoid of any signatures, and state this as your proof:rotfl: (not that this ever happens of course:rolleyes:)

*those who read my posts know the context in which this is written

cos_2

ILW wrote: »

I believe sending a cheque for the oustanding balance usually works.

This site is to assist people to exact Consumer Revenge, remember. It is Martin's ethical stance.

never-in-doubt

cos wrote: »

This site is to assist people to exact Consumer Revenge, remember. It is Martin's ethical stance.

Heyup matey

Nooo, remember the regulars dispute this and seem to think this is about money saving and not consumer revenge! I think the mixed message in the sites own name says it all....

But to stick to the point, they must advocate it somewhat because our posts remain and I have even got PM's from site team thanking me for my input (some of the threads i'd started) so I guess the 'regulars' are mistaken and Martin and the team do indeed promote what is right, not what is morally right. Wasn't he at the forefront of the unenforceability fiasco anyway...?

sharpy2010

never-in-doubt wrote: »

It would only be an outstanding balance if the lender could provide a CCA though, so who is to say that there is anything owed at all?

I know, lets say I suddenly ring you and say - ILW, please send me a cheque for the debt you owe me for £805.97. You'd immediately ask me to prove that you owed me - right?

I rest my case

Isn't your example slightly different N-I-D? In the "Not paying the bank back" scenario, the money actually is owed, but in your example where you suddenly ring someone and say "You owe me money, pay it back please", the money isn't really owed to begin with!?

I'm not trying to be picky here, maybe I got the wrong end of what you mean, it just seems the two examples given are not *quite* the same?

Cheers!

FTB77

sharpy2010 wrote: »

Isn't your example slightly different N-I-D? In the "Not paying the bank back" scenario, the money actually is owed, but in your example where you suddenly ring someone and say "You owe me money, pay it back please", the money isn't really owed to begin with!?

I'm not trying to be picky here, maybe I got the wrong end of what you mean, it just seems the two examples given are not *quite* the same?

Cheers!

You can't say anything bad about NID, i thought that was the rule around here.

simon_templar_2

I thought the site was to offer tips on saving money in terms of vouchers, deals in shop, 2 for 1 offer etc. I thought the site was about making money with savings accounts and investments or saving money on insurance and such like. I thought it was a site to share knowledge on getting good deals and rates not about shirking debts or borrowing with no intent to pay back.

MaxTheDog_2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I know, lets say I suddenly ring you and say - ILW, please send me a cheque for the debt you owe me for £805.97. You'd immediately ask me to prove that you owed me - right?

I rest my case

Surely any person with any morals would just pay the money straight back if they borrowed it from you rather than asking for proof of the debt and trying to scam their way out of it?

simon_templar_2

There would be proof a lender paid the borrower the money in terms of BACS or cheque payment etc. An audit trail proves they had the money.

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Martin and the team do indeed promote what is right, not what is morally right. Wasn't he at the forefront of the unenforceability fiasco anyway...?

I think that is stretching the facts a bit far. Martin has been, if anything, remarkably silent on this subject, and with good reason because he no doubt understands what a contentious issue this is and just how far removed it is from the original purpose of the site.

On the question of his stance over the moral side of it, his communication here http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/write-off-your-debts is hardly indicative of the fact that he is perfectly comfortable with it.

The OFT is currently working on an informational announcement which should hopefully blow away some of the myths surrounding s77/78 of the CCA and provide a reference point in the face of some of the innacurate advice being posted on forums such as this.

Claims Management Companies are already no doubt looking for the next 'big thing' anyway as the earnings potential from this type of claim is hardly proving to be as lucrative as first thought, and April 2007 disappears into history that little bit more every day.

simon_templar_2

Martin has probably been quiet on it seeing as it is not his area of expertise. He could however tell us about journalism what with him having a degree in it and not in finance!