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

MrsTinks

It IS hypothetical And that's why I've started a seperate thread for it So that no person starts to feel it's them that we're arguing about. It's not.

It's not even an argument as such - but a debate exchanging our views of a topic

(and I'll choose to ignore the selfrightious comment from those dishonest beggers JOKE!!!!)

never-in-doubt

gilligansyle

If he put them into his B/R then only half would be wiped and if you write to the lender and ask them to reconsider or they get £0 - they may well let you pay just your half, after all, his half is now legally unrecoverable (unless he omitted from the deed which seems to be the case)....

Point is, you're being hypocritcal by saying you'll use s.88 to suit your needs but otherwise don't agree with it... lol, whatever!

never-in-doubt

MrsTine wrote: »

It IS hypothetical And that's why I've started a seperate thread for it So that no person starts to feel it's them that we're arguing about. It's not.

No, I am fully aware this was because of my comments made in the sky thread - therefore it may be hypothetical but it was brought up as a result of my responses to you earlier lol

Come on, i'm not totally daft (just half) :rotfl: :rotfl:

MrsTinks

Toto wrote: »

I don't think it's that he forgot, joint debts become the responsibility of the other person if one of the debtors goes bankrupt. So, sadly for you his half of the debt transfers to you as he is bankrupt.

Correct
That's the point of it being joint - people often think it means they are responcible for half the debt if it's a joint loan etc - when infact it means "If one can't pay we have extra security and will go after the other person for the debt - ALL of the debt!"

Actually you've touched on a subject that also interests me... wouldn't it be better to do away with joint accounts and loans based on this? Or should it come under mis-selling? If it isn't made clear that you're responcible for the WHOLE debt not just half (my argument would be that you should read the T&Cs!) would that be mis-selling?
I can see from the banks point of view that joint is better - after all it's twice the security in re-couping their money. But from a consumer point of view does it have ANY benefits?

MrsTinks

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No, I am fully aware this was because of my comments made in the sky thread - therefore it may be hypothetical but it was brought up as a result of my responses to you earlier lol

Come on, i'm not totally daft (just half) :rotfl: :rotfl:

Actually it was as a result of my own post on there,,, i haven't read your reply on that tread (or been bacl since i posted ) sorry to disappoint

never-in-doubt

MrsTine wrote: »

Actually it was as a result of my own post on there,,, i haven't read your reply on that tread (or been bacl since i posted ) sorry to disappoint

LOL, take a peak :rolleyes:

never-in-doubt

MrsTine wrote: »

But from a consumer point of view does it have ANY benefits?

Yes, you can usually borrow higher or whereby a rejection could turn into accpetance due to the extra data (i.e. the partner) :beer:

nekosuki

gilligansyle wrote: »

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

Agreed :T (Greed being the emphasis methinks).

The banks should know better and get their paperwork in order, the media should stop coercing us to borrow & spend beyond our means and as for the people who "ignore" their debts for 6 years so that they're statue barred.... :mad:

never-in-doubt

nekosuki wrote: »

Agreed :T (Greed being the emphasis methinks).

The banks should know better and get their paperwork in order, the media should stop coercing us to borrow & spend beyond our means and as for the people who "ignore" their debts for 6 years so that they're statue barred.... :mad:

What - yet another law you don't like? Limitations Act - learn it! Been around a long time now so we're all used to it..... :rolleyes:

People who say things and don't have a clue what they are on about = :mad: :mad: :mad:

nekosuki

never-in-doubt wrote: »

What - yet another law you don't like? Limitations Act - learn it! Been around a long time now so we're all used to it..... :rolleyes:

People who say things and don't have a clue what they are on about = :mad: :mad: :mad:

What makes you think I don't have a clue? I have an opinion, surely that's what's being expressed here, not my intellectual fortitude?

And no, I don't like that law.