HBOS Credit Card - Very Old! No Record with Credit Agencies.

never-in-doubt

eschaton wrote: »

Another loser hits MSE..

I know, when will you learn to stop bugging us? I am impressed at your honesty, I mean calling yourself a loser is quite 'manly' in all fairness :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

fabforty wrote: »

On what grounds are you thinking of challenging the credit agreement? You were working for BoS when you took out this credit card - which suggests that you knew exactly what you were doing. Why don't you just pay what you owe, instead of trying to worm your way out of repaying a legitimate debt? Unfair bank charges I can understand, but everytime somebody does what you are thinking of doing, i.e. spend a wad of cash and then avoid paying it back, it's the other customers that ultimately pay for it.

Incorrect - on all counts!

1. They could have worked in banking thus no knowledge of the CC regs

2. They won't 'owe' anything if the lender cannot provide a lawful agreement

3. The debt is not legitimate - not without sight of a lawful agreement

4. 'Worm your way out' doesn't come into the same context when we're talking about unenforceability, it is an act - in particular s.127 of the CCA1974.

5. Its not avoiding anything, its the law! Why pay for something that you're not legally responsible for? Pointless really.

6. It comes out of the banks profits, other customers do not pay for anything.

When will you preachers learn the facts before spouting rubbish? It's becoming tiresome. If you've nothing constructive to say, then walk on by - do not bother wating your time or ours by posting junk irrelevant rubbish?

marksoton

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Now Now - leave the OP alone! Unenforceability is a right and occurs when the lender does not issue a compliant agreement. Feelings aside, the OP isn't worming out of anything, merely utilising their rights!

Let it go - self richeous do-gooders!

OP, read here for how to deal with this or post here and i'll help you out

Unenforceability & Template Letters II

I guess we'll be agreeing to disagree on this one mate. ;):)

never-in-doubt

marksoton wrote: »

I guess we'll be agreeing to disagree on this one mate. ;):)

Mate i'm not arguing with you - I didn't quote your post for that reason (I like you haha)

I understand your POV and we both know we don't agree on this subject, thus I respect your position. Thing is though, I am right in what i'm saying - it is the law at the end of the day - morals mean nothing in front of a judge :eek:

marksoton

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Mate i'm not arguing with you - I didn't quote your post for that reason (I like you haha)

I understand your POV and we both know we don't agree on this subject, thus I respect your position. Thing is though, I am right in what i'm saying - it is the law at the end of the day - morals mean nothing in front of a judge :eek:

Fair enough.

withnell

never-in-doubt wrote: »

6. It comes out of the banks profits, other customers do not pay for anything.

But where do those profits come from? The cost of agreements being wiped out IS passed on to existing customers in the form of higher interest rates and removal of cashback offers (how many of them are left?)

never-in-doubt

withnell wrote: »

But where do those profits come from? The cost of agreements being wiped out IS passed on to existing customers in the form of higher interest rates and removal of cashback offers (how many of them are left?)

Really? You actually believe this do you? Ok, so forget the fact the top brass get £millions a year in bonus'!! LOL, come on - be sensible please!

PNPSUKNET

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Really? You actually believe this do you? Ok, so forget the fact the top brass get £millions a year in bonus'!! LOL, come on - be sensible please!

Just hope you never have someone owe you money, on a tech. You all are happy to take but not give back what isnt yours. Isnt that a form of stealing?

never-in-doubt

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

Just hope you never have someone owe you money, on a tech. You all are happy to take but not give back what isnt yours. Isnt that a form of stealing?

If I lent money then i'd ensure I had the proper level of protection and a watertight agreement though.

Its not a question of taking and not giving back though is it? It's a question of the banks issuing proper and lawful agreements. If they do not do this then the law is clear, it does not need to be paid back.

Why do you struggle to grasp such an easy concept?

For the record, stealing is way off board and doesn't even warrant a reply. :mad:

Wicked_Lester

marksoton wrote: »

Pretty much the same thing aren't they ?

Does the fact you had only just turned 18 make a difference then ? Maybe they should let you off because you were only a young lad.:rolleyes:

Even if you could prove it was unenforceable your credit report would more than likely get trashed.

The best advice for you is to pay up. At least you have a low rate for the life.

Sigh. It's amazing how people assume the worst. OK, don't see why but here's my personal circumstances which tbh have no bearing on the wording of my original question. I may not be able to work for a while due to my partner's terminal illness. I will be spending my time looking after her.

Now, I have my family to think about and I know life will have to go on so I need to minimise the impact. I have never so much as missed a payment in my life on anything. However, if I find an agreement is unenforceable then the company is less likely to come down on me like a ton of bricks if I have to negotiate an interest freeze or payment plan for the foreseeable. If I can avoid 'trashing' my credit rating then it will make it easier to sell and move on as obviously it will be hard staying in the same house.

Hopefully that clears it up for you, and thanks for your 'best advice'.

never-in-doubt

Wicked_Lester wrote: »

Sigh. It's amazing how people assume the worst. .

Me thinks it's time you stopped arguing with these guys and just pop over to the Unenforceability thread - you'll get a better response there