MSE News: Could the debt write-off industry become a write-off?

Former_MSE_Guy

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"Consumers have been told by a claims expert they have little chance of getting debt wiped out by challenging a credit agreement ..."

Read the full story:
Could the debt write-off industry become a write-off?

wullbags

Has anyone had any dealings with karobo claims x

wullbags

Actually, I have browsed through this forum on this particular topic and have seen similar small minded comments posted elsewhere. Of course, you don't have a clue about my individual circumstances and I'm not even going to try and explain, as your use of language clearly indicates your low IQ. However, what I will say is that there are some people out there who do have a genuine grievance over a product that was sold to them in the past and feel strongly enough about it to take action. Indeed, do you class everyone who has successfully claimed their bank charges back as scum too? and don't bother trying to say that this was different because on the face of it, it was just the same. So please, if you don't have any constructive comments to make then I would appreciate it if you crawl back onto the sofa grab the remote and open another packet of crisps!!

noted

One thing I don't understand with some people's apparent moral outrage on this issue is shouldn't the banks have to follow legal regulations too? Don't they have a responsibility to actually follow the law and abide by it, instead of thinking they can get away with anything?

When people get into financial difficulty it is understandable we might consider this option. I fully agree that you should pay debts, but sometimes things happen in your life that you don't expect and life changes forever. What I just don't understand is why there are so many rules and regulations consumers must abide by, and the banks are the first to charge huge fees and late charges and send your accounts to collectors etc so why shouldn't they be held to account and have to abide by the laws too?

They have huge legal teams and know what their responsibilities are, now and in the past. But they just do as they feel like. Why is that okay, and and yet asking them to provide the paperwork they are legally supposed to isn't?

wullbags

Indeed, "noted", I agree with you entirely, the banks should be held to account. Just to add too, on a personal note, I have paid off an unbelievable amount of debt over the years due to some stupidity in my younger years, every penny was paid back without taking the easy option of going bankrupt etc, so I don't consider myself to be in the scum category that the moron in the earlier post refers. I didn't ask for, nor warranted his response, indeed my question was quite simple which I will now repeat! has anyone had any involvement with Kerobo? I have a particular grievance with a lender and am currently weighing up my options, Kerobo seem to talk the talk, however I personally have my doubts.

CHR15

You could search the Forums for Kerobo and read up yourself.

Here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/search.html?searchid=67868073

blind-as-a-bat_2

The consumer credit act 1974 was brought in as a protection for the consumer, not a method for con artists to make a quick buck.

They have done what they did to IVA’s and destroyed what it stood for, to the point where courts now ignore it.

As for anyones elses view on morality, it has nothing to do with it, that is a matter for the individual and them alone, the legislation was clear, if the agreement was not right; the creditor had no recourse in law to enforce payment, That is not the same as saying the money is not owed or should not be paid back, It is up to the individual to decide what, if anything is owed and whether to repay it.

What is morally wrong is courts, or individual magistrates ruling on morality, not legislation, and completly ignoring their peers in the higher courts and even the house of lords, and in doing so overstepping there authouraty.

noted

Yes, agreed. I just wonder why when there are laws in place to protect consumers (who don't have the advantage of massive legal teams and the like) the moral card is played with such vitriol by some. Yet the banks routinely used various laws to their advantage whenever it suits. How often do judges rule on a bank's morality?

Like you said, certain laws have been in place to protect consumers..but banks haven't always followed those laws. So, when a consumer can legitimately show that those laws were not followed, and the banks didn't bother to meet their obligations with the agreements why do people consider the consumer is in the wrong. Surely the banks have a responsibility to follow the laws designed to protect the consumer in the first place?

I'm not sure about the debt write off industry as a whole, but I wonder if more consumer organisations (or even places like this site who are normally fantastic on consumer issues) had been willing to take a stand on consumer rights and protections on this (instead of perhaps allowing themselves to be drawn into apparent one sided 'moral' issues') then if less people might have turned to the industry in question and whether that would have made any difference?

mystic_trev

Thankfully it will stop people like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7716021.stm trying to avoid their debts, and then trying to make more money on the back of their 'success'

samizdat

noted wrote: »

One thing I don't understand with some people's apparent moral outrage on this issue is shouldn't the banks have to follow legal regulations too? Don't they have a responsibility to actually follow the law and abide by it, instead of thinking they can get away with anything?

The point is that you must focus on the issue of detriment. If someody has borrowed money and the terms are not in dispute, the mere fact that a signed loan agreement cannot be found should not, morally, result in a situation where the borrower just gets to keep all the money. What loss has the borrower suffered as a result of the technical failure to provide the appropriate documentation?

People who feel borrowers should repay what they owe do not necessarily argue that banks should not have to comply with their legal obligations. Moreover, borrowers who genuinely cannot pay can resort to bankruptcy - a very civilised institution that does not exist in some jurisdictions, where debtors' prisons and other criminal sanctions still exist.

[Deleted User]

Samizat has hit the nail of the head. The word 'detriment' is key here.

If someone is up to their eyeballs in debt through no fault of their own, or if the bank has acted reprehensibly in pushing them into debt, then of course we have sympathy.

But there are so many people on these forums who ask things like 'they spelt my name wrong - so if my debt enforceable?' or 'they haven't put my address in the right format - can I challenge repayments?', that it starts to get quite tiring.

In these situations, the borrower hasn't lost out AT ALL by the bank's failure to cross a T or dot an I. Yet this is often the basis of any challenge. If someone borrows money, some try to stop repaying on the basis that the bank doesn't have a signed copy of the credit agreement, but the consumer still hasn't suffered detrimentally as a result.

If you borrow money, you pay it back. Simples. If you were pushed into borrowing money then it's a different question.