advice on writing off credit cards pre-2007

ILW

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

Hello
If you asked me for £800 and I knew you had lent it to me, yes I would send you the cheque.
The OP is not disputing that he borrowed the money, he is just looking for a way of getting out of repaying it.

chattychappy

ILW wrote: »

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

No. The OP asked about having the balance written off:

dave_curtis wrote: »

...but they do say i can get the balances written off.

can anyone give me advice on this or point me in the right direction so i can tackle it myself?

If he sent them a cheque for the outstanding balance then there would be nothing to write off.

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

Hello
If you asked me for £800 and I knew you had lent it to me, yes I would send you the cheque.
The OP is not disputing that he borrowed the money, he is just looking for a way of getting out of repaying it.

See I agree with that, morally or otherwise - that you should pay back your mates or whatever, if done in good faith. Now, with the banks, and regulated agreements and lack of proof of agreement, I am different with because they did 'force' money and credit on people - for instance look how tight they are now, why weren't they always like this? It just shows they have learned from this fiasco as well - thank god!

Remember in the not too far past a leaflet from say Barclaycard or Cap1 with a thing saying sign here for your card, that was it! You signed and a week later a card came through with a silly limit sometimes more than your salary! That's the point where I think the banks are 100% to blame.

:beer:

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

See I agree with that, morally or otherwise - that you should pay back your mates or whatever, if done in good faith. Now, with the banks, and regulated agreements and lack of proof of agreement, I am different with because they did 'force' money and credit on people - for instance look how tight they are now, why weren't they always like this? It just shows they have learned from this fiasco as well - thank god!

Remember in the not too far past a leaflet from say Barclaycard or Cap1 with a thing saying sign here for your card, that was it! You signed and a week later a card came through with a silly limit sometimes more than your salary! That's the point where I think the banks are 100% to blame.

:beer:

Nah.....you are being too matter-of-fact by applying a blanket assumption that banks are 100% to blame because of the implication that 'all' credit was forced on people. Too convenient.

Are you saying that I should not pay my credit back because, although it was not forced on me (because I wanted it at the time and qualified for it), credit was forced on the bloke next door?

People should be responsible for what they sign for. Unfortunately what the banks have learned is that there exists an increasing section of society filled with people that can't be trusted to lift a soup spoon to their mouth without scalding their ears, never mind handle credit properly.

I wonder how big the public outcry would be if every credit application had to be endorsed by the applicant's phychiatrist !!

If you are saying that the British public should not be trusted to decide for themselves then I hope you are not advocating taking away yet more freedom of choice from us. Somthing this Nanny-knows-best government has been very adept at doing for the last 12 years.

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

Nah.....you are being too matter-of-fact by applying a blanket assumption that banks are 100% to blame because of the implication that 'all' credit was forced on people. Too convenient.

Are you saying that I should not pay my credit back because, although it was not forced on me (because I wanted it at the time and qualified for it), credit was forced on the bloke next door?

People should be responsible for what they sign for. Unfortunately what the banks have learned is that there exists an increasing section of society filled with people that can't be trusted to lift a soup spoon to their mouth without scalding their ears, never mind handle credit properly.

I wonder how big the public outcry would be if every credit application had to be endorsed by the applicant's phychiatrist !!

I'm not using 'blanket' anything, i'm going on the facts here. Bottom line is that the banks are to blame, they are the ones in trouble not us. Oh, lets not forget the bonuses these muppets get - I mean, lets just not go there eh!

I reiterate, there is only a debt if there is an agreement and without the agreement the debt cannot be pursued. This my friend is law. No matter what we think, it is and will remain the law. As such, the increasing section of society filled with people that can't be trusted to lift a soup spoon to their mouth without scalding their ears, never mind handle credit properly are simply utilising their rights, as the banks do when they recall debt.

~Brock~ wrote: »

If you are saying that the British public should not be trusted to decide for themselves then I hope you are not advocating taking away yet more freedom of choice from us. Somthing this Nanny-knows-best government has been very adept at doing for the last 12 years.

Where did I say that

If you read anything I write then you'll see I am totally against the government taking away our freedom of choice. However the banks do need tighter regulation, but without gvt help. This also applies to gvt assistance, i.e. if they are failing then let them fail - why bail out greed?

Its like you, you're saying people should not borrow what they cannot afford. The banks done this. You hate people that do not repay debts. The banks done this.

Basically the banks are not only 100% to blame for the recession but also the downturn in peoples lives and credit and the scars will last for many years.

Banks should be allowed to go bust when they mess-up, pure and simple.

mabski

i would love to see how all of you with such high morals ,would deal with your debt after losing your jobs because of the bankers greed.
if after a while you were unable to get a job paying anywhere near what you used to earn and you'd received endless threatograms demanding payment of your debts i'd bet you would start looking for ways to write off your balances as well.

never-in-doubt

mabski wrote: »

i would love to see how all of you with such high morals ,would deal with your debt after losing your jobs because of the bankers greed.
if after a while you were unable to get a job paying anywhere near what you used to earn and you'd received endless threatograms demanding payment of your debts i'd bet you would start looking for ways to write off your balances as well.

That's what I keep trying to instil but they just don't grasp it! Bottom line is that things change, !!!!!! happens and sometimes, just sometimes we have to resort to underhand tactics to make life easier.

However, just point out that unenforceability is a right, it isn't wiping the balance because the debt remains and if they can find the CCA at a later date they can then enforce it again (only to a maximum of 6yrs - limitations act would then supercede the CCA)......

oscar52

mabski wrote: »

i would love to see how all of you with such high morals ,would deal with your debt after losing your jobs because of the bankers greed.
if after a while you were unable to get a job paying anywhere near what you used to earn and you'd received endless threatograms demanding payment of your debts i'd bet you would start looking for ways to write off your balances as well.

Read their posts - they would never allow it to happen, they take out PPI policies, they plan for unforseen eventualities (Mystic Meg eat your heart out) or quite simnply, they were either born with a silver spoon or never buy anything unless they can affird it out right (assuming none of these have a mortgage to buy a house then)

never-in-doubt

oscar52 wrote: »

Read their posts - they would never allow it to happen, they take out PPI policies, they plan for unforseen eventualities (Mystic Meg eat your heart out) or quite simnply, they were either born with a silver spoon or never buy anything unless they can affird it out right (assuming none of these have a mortgage to buy a house then)

Mate that must be the most sarcastic post of the week - well done :T :T

oscar52

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Mate that must be the most sarcastic post of the week - well done :T :T

Sarcastic? Me? Pah! :D