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

Charco_2

MrsTine wrote: »

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

Not to keep correcting you on this one, but the word is responsibility - do you C the difference there? (I'll not be so churlish as to go down the road of saying who are you talk about it - you can't even spell the word!)

However, you haven't answered my question:
What is it exactly gives you the right to judge other people's morality?
I suspect you didn't answer because you have no justification for it other than your holier than thou indignation and busybody attitude of the moral crusader. I'm glad you're looking after your own finances, now would you ever leave others alone to deal with theirs. Or do we need the Data Protection Act to please get your beak out of other people's affairs!?

If you want a moral crusade, you would be far more in line calling into the questions the morals of the banks... Which leads me onto Lilac Pixie!

Lilac - reclaiming charges and protection racket fees is A-ok! It does not reflect upon you. It is YOU calling into question the "morality" of the banks in their dealings with the public!

never-in-doubt

I've posted a link to this on my unenforceability thread so that people that have been saved by this legal procedure can post their stories and maybe then you'll see why i'm so pro-unenforceability.... the lenders and their scum sharks are all as bad as each other and need a hard slap lol: #108

How many of you actually knew that CCCS et al is funded by the main banks (Charco does lol)? Hmmmm

Toto

MrsTine wrote: »

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?

But surely the banks should have learned a lesson after people got away with it on level 1? If they still don't sort themselves out and people get away with it on level 2 and so on and so on, frankly they deserve to run out of money. They need to learn the consequences of their actions too, surely

MrsTinks

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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:

And to a point I agree And BR isn't a "get out of jail free" card like using loopholes... it DOES have consequences (be they less than they used to...). If nothing else there is the shame/stress of going through it. You have to face up to it to a degree at least

MrsTinks

Toto wrote: »

But surely the banks should have learned a lesson after people got away with it on level 1? If they still don't sort themselves out and people get away with it on level 2 and so on and so on, frankly they deserve to run out of money. They need to learn the consequences of their actions too, surely

I'm not saying they don't but do 2 wrongs make a right?

LilacPixie

Insomniac666 wrote: »

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..

Think you are sort of touching on my point Insomniac.

We, as a board, mostly find it acceptable to claim back charges, mis-sold insurances etc even though these terms are often set out the the T&C's or the actual agreement itself. Yet when it comes to challenging the legality or enforcability of the whole agreement then suddenly everyone gets the collywobles and starts talking about morality and paying back what was agreed.

I really think the line is blurred.

Mrs Tine ( congratulations on the baby BTW) I know what you are saying about the PPI being mis-sold ie the you MUST take this out or no loan type tactics but using the same argument when you take out a loan for example both parties are agreeing to be bound by the Consumer Credit Act. If one party (the lender) uses and agreement that it is fully aware does not meet the required standard of the CCA then the lender has actually failed its responsibilities and only has itself to blame.

Ames

I took out a loan in the middle of a bipolar episode. A few weeks later I realised what I'd done and phoned about it, they told me that I shouldn't have been given the loan because it broke their guidelines (I wasn't working at the time) but wouldn't help at all. A few years later when I couldn't cope anymore I asked CAB to get involved. They said they'd write and try and get the interest taken off so it was just the loan amount. Then they changed their minds and started pushing me to go BR. By going down the CCA route I avoided BR and my other creditors got something (only £1 a month, but by then the debts were nearly all charges anyway). The CCA was non existant, not invalid.

Do I feel bad? No. Especially when this year I got a loan statement saying the amount owing was around £130, when for years I've been chased for £4.5k.

I know that my actions have consequences. But surely a bank breaking their own rules to lend 7k to someone on benefits and then not keeping the paperwork when they know the law, should have consequences too?

never-in-doubt

MrsTine wrote: »

And to a point I agree And BR isn't a "get out of jail free" card like using loopholes... it DOES have consequences (be they less than they used to...). If nothing else there is the shame/stress of going through it. You have to face up to it to a degree at least

Ahhh but we all do come to terms with it, in our own way, albeit some are embarrassed whilst others (like me) wouldn't be......

gilligansyle

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

but circumstances change, and you may be able to afford it at the time, and have every intention of paying it back.

The attitude I really don't like is the one where people make absolutely no attempt to pay anything and blame the banks etc.

DGJsaver

With the banks behaviour helping bring about the worst financial crisis in more than a generation , morals dont really matter much for me , if someone can get away with not paying those corrupt !!!!!!!s , fair play to them , theres another 100 people who could get away with not paying , that dont...so the banks are hardly on the streets with no roof over their heads...

One example of my reasoning for disliking the banks is when times are tough , and those times helped in creation by thier actions..what do they do ? raise interest rates on debts already accrued , its that sort of action that makes me think , if you can screw them , do it