write off credit card debt

never-in-doubt

michael1983l wrote: »

I set my own benchmarks in life as to what is right and what is wrong. I try not to do anything that is going to have a negative affect on another person. All I know is I am a very lucky person I have almost everything I could ever want and I see no reason as to why I should want to try and rip other people off and ruin the life I enjoy.

Fair point but I am not helping people to rip anyone off, if you look back at my first post I stated the actual years. I don;t agree with ripping anyone (banks included) off but you jumped down my throat because you don't understand.

I follow law, law wins - morals do not. The law is clear in that a lender must issue a valid agreement, if they do not then the debt becomes unenforceable. That is black and white and not up for discussion.

jamesey07

good for you mick, but the banks have been ripping people off for some time, and making some people who believe the nonsense they sprout, have you not heard of people comitting suicide because of the hassle banks cause them, well what people like me r doing is giving the banks a taste of there own med and let them see that not everyone will be scared of them at all

never-in-doubt

jamesey07 wrote: »

good for you mick, but the banks have been ripping people off for some time, and making some people who believe the nonsense they sprout, have you not heard of people comitting suicide because of the hassle banks cause them, well what people like me r doing is giving the banks a taste of there own med and let them see that not everyone will be scared of them at all

To be fair though James you have been trying to wind people up with some comments. Before you jump down my neck, bear in mind I am 100% pro-unenforceability but no need to rub peoples noses in it - this will invariably cause irritation.

Think this thread has died a slow death in fairness.......

Unsubscribing...... :wave:

michael1983l

Finally I agree with both of you in part, however where we disagree is the fact that although you have the right to take them for this law in reality the cost will eventually be passed back onto the consumer as it always is. I look at it as in I spent the money on things, I knew I had to pay it back and if I exercise this law it is only going to make the banking situation worse for myself and other consumers.

Banks always have been rip off merchants however that doesn't make it right for myself to follow the same trend. I look at the bigger picture and that is if I claim I am only going to make life more difficult for other people or at least contribute to the banks doing that for me.

Its your own choice wether you want to sue them or not but I just don't agree with it, doesn't make it wrong though.

never-in-doubt

aron wrote: »

Yes but what you fail to tell people is that by following your advice thier credit file will be trashed for years because technically the debt is not 'written off', it remains on file as unsettled and with an unsettled debt on your credit file future lenders are not going to touch you with a bargepole, and let's hope they never need a mortgage one day.

No, in all my posts I always tell people they may get a default which affects them for a period of 6 years.... You are mistaken (again).

aron wrote: »

You also fail to tell people that even if they do get a debt classed unenforcable it does not mean the lender cannot hound them for years on end and pass the debt between themselves playing further havoc with thier credit file. And where will you be when it all falls apart on them? Will you be picking up the pieces for them when they can't get a loan or credit again?

Not true, you refer specifically to McGuffick v RBS and as I always say that was special circumstances. Once unenforceable a lender cannot pursue collection. The test case judgment due next month will clarify this element of the act once and for all.

aron wrote: »

Rather than constantly banging on about how wonderful it is to screw the banks over maybe you should spend a bit of time explaining the future consequences to the people you are leading up the garden path because it is thier future credit that gets ruined.

I do - you're mistaken (again).....

For the neutral, this guy follows me round the boards. His last visit in November resulted in one post - slagging me off. That is all he does - sad, sad, sad :eek:

michael1983l

If that is true aron then that is the Karma I am talking about. These people that do it might not forsee needing credit now but when they do they will be sorry they written off a few grand which will seem small fry when it comes to not getting a mortgage and failing tennency credit checks. There is always ramifications to these easy ways out. Nothing in life is worth having if it is easy.

never-in-doubt

michael1983l wrote: »

If that is true aron

It is not true. He is a troll (my nemesis)......

Check my posts and you'll see I always tell people of the risks involved - here is one of many examples: #37

michael1983l

Even if it is only 6 years it is still along time, once that 6 years is up you will then have to rebuild your credit again before you are eligable for a mortgage so in reality it is longer than 6. Not having credit available can be a problem in todays society, be it to rent a house get a mortgage, get a car loan, get utilities, TV packages, Insurance. You name it they all need credit checks.

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

4. Yes, you're right the banks do not pass the cost of unenforceable claims to the customer, it comes from their actual P&L - FACT!

That may be technically correct in pure acccounting terms, but you would be very naive to think that any company that suffers losses in certain areas just passes these losses onto shareholders.
The shortfalls are genarally made up by trying to increase margins, so indirectly the ongoing customer will generally pay more.

hax_2

michael1983l wrote: »

Even if it is only 6 years it is still along time, once that 6 years is up you will then have to rebuild your credit again before you are eligable for a mortgage so in reality it is longer than 6. Not having credit available can be a problem in todays society, be it to rent a house get a mortgage, get a car loan, get utilities, TV packages, Insurance. You name it they all need credit checks.

You don't need to wait till the 6 years are up to start to rebuild credit. You can do it during the 6 year period. That's what sub-prime lenders are there for. They lend to people with a poor credit rating (e.g. for credit cards, the sub-prime lenders are Vanquis, Capital one, Aqua and Barclaycard Initial). They accept defaults and some of them even accept CCJs.