Using loopholes in the law to avoid paying your debts - discuss ;)

MrsTinks

Actually I think it's called taking responcibility for your actions

never-in-doubt

MrsTine wrote: »

OK as we seem to be clashign heads on this increasingly on threads I thought in order to avoid hijacking other peoples threads too much maybe we should have a thread where we could debate the moral and legal areas of this?

If you'll excuse me - I need to go fetch my flack jacket and bomb proof helmet! :rotfl:

The legal issue is that if the prescribed terms are not intact then the debt is unenforceable. As for morals, they mean little in a court of law so I prefer to stick to facts on this one.

You guys that 'preach' are morally speaking, I stick to facts therefore adhering to law with no personal feeling added.

Safer and better that way thanks.

So your post is actually void already cos you're asking people to mix feeling with fact which just doesn't work. For instance people that just spend with no intention of paying back are scum - I agree. But when the banks cannot authenticate their claim to the debt by way of legal agreement then I think they are at fault.

Its best to therefore stick to facts and not confuse feeling with fact

never-in-doubt

Charco wrote: »

FOR THE MOST PART, People dont go out of their way to take out loans and credit that will be unaffordable for them. No-one goes out to accrue massively unmanagable debt.
True people should try to live more within their means and the use of credit in everyday life is far to prevalent BUT the reality is debt solutions are available for when debts get out of control, not as a picnic for irresponsible borrowers.

I dont know if any of the sanctimonious first-stone-throwers among you have much debt but if you do i hope you never find yourself so far out of your depth for reasons that were beyond your control!

What is it exactly gives you the right to judge other people's morality?
By the time debts get to DCA, things have gone very wrong, you're probably drowning in debt, in these circumstances i say do what you gotta do and look after you and your family first!

Spot on - well detailed and soooo true as well :T :T

MrsTinks

My thread - my topic Your thread... your topic

never-in-doubt

MrsTine wrote: »

I think there is a destinct difference between a DCA who's bought a debt and those who use small irregularities in the agreements to get out of paying the banks and CCs back what they borrowed. I think it's paramount to theft to refuse to pay anything back, to demand that credit files are wiped clean and no penalty at all is imposed on the borrower. .

Its not a small irregularity - its the bloomin law for crying out loud! If they issue an illegal (the word used is unlawful) document then it will not stand up in court therefore it is not a small irregularity but an unlawful document as much good as a paper fire!

Regards to theft, you really need to look in the dictionary for the definition! Also, in this context you are protected by CCA procedure which allows the cessation of payments whilst in dispute..... Not theft is it?

never-in-doubt

a_j_mair wrote: »

how is it nonsense, you shouldnt borrow the money if you cant afford to pay it back

Its called being responsibile with your money

For the 5th time now - at the time you got the loan/card etc you could afford it then you get made redundant and guess what? You're left with whatever you have and a choice between feeding the kids or paying your bank? Go on then Mr Morally High, tell me what you'd do?

That's why you cannot mix morals with law or fact!

MrsTinks

never-in-doubt wrote: »

For the 5th time now - at the time you got the loan/card etc you could afford it then you get made redundant and guess what? You're left with whatever you have and a choice between feeding the kids or paying your bank? Go on then Mr Morally High, tell me what you'd do?

That's why you cannot mix morals with law or fact!

You'd go on a DMP - that way you can still feed your family. In extreem cases you can wipe the slate clean with going bankrupt.

MrsTinks

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Its not a small irregularity - its the bloomin law for crying out loud! If they issue an illegal (the word used is unlawful) document then it will not stand up in court therefore it is not a small irregularity but an unlawful document as much good as a paper fire!

Regards to theft, you really need to look in the dictionary for the definition! Also, in this context you are protected by CCA procedure which allows the cessation of payments whilst in dispute..... Not theft is it?

Morally yes it is In my eyes it's also one of the reasons the country is in the trouble it's in. We repeatedly teach and encourage people to pass the buck/blame. "Oh I shouldn't repay what I borrowed because they made a boo boo - after all THEY should have made sure their paperwork was in order. So instead of me repaying what I when I signed knew was fair and I knowingly agreed to then I get away scotfree to do it again and again and again..."
How are these people going to learn their lessons?

I'm learning my lesson penny by penny and when my debts are paid back I will never ever ever have another debt other than my mortgage! I will have a CC for the benefits but like my Amex now it'll be paid off every month (actually as soon as the charge shows up - I use it for the cashback and for the protection that CCs offer)

You ccan argue till the cows come home that it's "lawful" - but lawful doesn't mean it's "right" now does it? :cool:

LilacPixie

This is a tough one. I can see both sides. For me I want to pay back every penny of what I borrowed however I have claimed back bank charges and complained about mis-sold PPI with a clear consience so I really cannot see how people not paying back anything because the bank/lender drew up the agreement incorrectly is any different. It is just something I have chosen not to look at.

never-in-doubt

MrsTine wrote: »

You'd go on a DMP - that way you can still feed your family. In extreem cases you can wipe the slate clean with going bankrupt.

No you wouldn't go on a DMP - you'd be left paying for something for years - sometimes 100+ years which as we both know is not viable so no, I totally disagree and would take the stance that bankruptcy or CCA would be the best route - why pay something for years - I mean we all make mistakes and i'd sooner have a default for 6 years then start again as opposed to paying for something in 2009 that I bought in 1985! :rotfl:

Sorry to sound like i'm having a go at you - i'm not - i'm just passionate about these lenders that think they are above the law