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

a_j_mair

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!

probably cancel sky

never-in-doubt

MrsTine wrote: »

Morally yes it is In my eyes it's also one of the reasons the country is in the trouble it's in.

Do you need me to explain yet again why we're in the trouble we're in and trust me it has 0% to do with unenforceable or written off debt (this is deducted from the banks profits and does not affect the average consumer one iota - it affects their bonuses!)

MrsTine wrote: »

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

Actually lawful does mean it is right - right in the court of law! i.e. an invalid (unlawful) agreement cannot be pursued through court!

never-in-doubt

a_j_mair wrote: »

probably cancel sky

LOL - that was actually quite witty - fair play :rotfl:

Insomniac666

I think loopholes to clear unfair charges is fair game, but we do need to repay that which we borrow as set out in our t&c's, I know when it's done the sense of achievment I'll feel will be much better... not to say in the past deperate times i've had to make shortcuts..

Insomniac666

a_j_mair wrote: »

probably cancel sky

NEVER!!! SKY TILL I DIE

...lol.

a_j_mair

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?

I totally agree with what you are saying with regadrs the law.

My opinion still stands for the origonal post though

Toto

If I posted a thread on here saying that some random stranger has approached me on the street and asked me to lend them £1000 and I handed over the money without getting proper paperwork drawn up, I'd be told I was an idiot. If that random stranger didn't pay me back and I couldn't take them to court to get my money back I'd be told 'tough, you are a prat for not getting a lawyer to draw up a proper watertight contract'.

There is no difference with a bank doing the same thing, apart from the fact that this is their business and they should know better.

The issue is with these unlawful contracts that banks have used them to their advantage. They have made charges they shouldn't have done because the terms weren't set out on paper at the time of signing, they hike interest rates left right and centre and often force people into default by being unflexible and by adding sometimes hundreds of pounds a month to the debt because of a late payment.

As I've said before, I do think people should pay back their debts but I have no sympathy what so ever for the banks and money lenders who didn't get their paperwork in order to begin with and who have used that as a nice little earner in the past.

never-in-doubt

a_j_mair wrote: »

I totally agree with what you are saying with regadrs the law.

My opinion still stands for the origonal post though

I know what you're all saying, but what i'm trying to put across is that you get no thanks for doing the right thing, I mean if they can issue unlawful agreements cos they were so keen to lend to us then surely they knew it'd come back and bite them one day?

I just think that it makes sense to wipe the slate clean and start again within 6 years as opposed to paying for something for many many years.... :beer:

MrsTinks

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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

Same as I am passionate about people taking responcibility - be it for debt, for their children, for accidents they cause, for damage they do and a few other things
There are no consequences anymore for people in most cases. And I don't call an £80 fine a consequence, I call it a joke
In the case where you can't pay things because you're redundant then you don't usually end up repaying for 100s of years - because surely you're out looking for a new job? And yes it might be harder to find a job than it was a couple of years ago but I've been redundant twice and at only 29 (just) I've been unemployed where it wasn't my choice for less than 2 weeks. I found work - it wasn't always great work but it was work! If things came to a push then I'd look at becoming a childminder or nanny a single child alongside my own (assuming you can do that - have to admit I haven't looked into that ) or I'd do something else. Just like I have in the past

Why pay for something for years? Well because most loans are over a number of years in any case At least on a DMP most creditors freeze interest and when you get a new job then you can up your payments to them and reduce the length of your DMP.

PPI and charges - I agree this is a grey area Oddly I think these are "ok" to reclaim... yeah yeah go figure
And no I have no charges to reclaim (more's the pity LOL) and no PPI either... dang it! PPI is simple - 99% of the time it's mis-sold - ie sold under false pretense: "You can't get the loan unless you agree to PPI" or simply applied to the loan without being told (My DH actually had a card where he specifically didn't want PPI on - they still charged him for that and because he's a delicious dimwit at times he just kept paying his DD never checking his statements... for about 5 years... I kid you not! He reclaimed his PPI and I feel rightly so - the CC in question could offer no explanation as to why he'd had it applied as when they sent the application it was very obvious there was no tick in the "PPI" box...

Unfair charges... OK so you sign up for the potential charges when you take out a new account be it bank or CC or loan - but until very recently you had no choice - all providers were equally unfair in the cost of these charges if you ask me. I think that yes you should be charged for the letters/calls/etc but only what is fair. If it costs 50p to send an automated letter then charging 50p or 75p is fair, but charging you £15 or £50 for going over your OD as well as charging you interest... THAT is unfair. As is charging you for the "fine" when the fine takes you back over your limit again but you wouldn't otherwise have gone over your limit again...

I'm not saying there is a simple solution BTW Just that surely people should repay what they borrow - even if they don't pay the interest back - only the actual loan amount?

MrsTinks

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Do you need me to explain yet again why we're in the trouble we're in and trust me it has 0% to do with unenforceable or written off debt (this is deducted from the banks profits and does not affect the average consumer one iota - it affects their bonuses!)

SO you don't think it's anything to do with failing to teach people that actions have consequences? Same over all issue really... We teach people there are no consequences on level 1 - so they try it on level 2 and on and on... and whoooops... bank runs out of money... but it's ok because "I can't be held responcible so the government will bail the comany out and I'll get a generous redundancy bonus... Now... what to do next? should I enter politics?"
Isn't the underlying problem the same?