Statute Barred advice

Generali

mabski wrote: »

pride or morals has nothing to do with it.
wheres pride or morals when the banks kick people out of their homes, use peoples benefits to offset other debts leaving them with no money to feed themselves and quite happily let get you further into debt knowing they will make a fortune from the charges they will apply .
the banks dont give two ####s about its customers so why should we feel any different about them?

Banks enter into a contract with their clients.

If their clients don't hold to their end of the contract the bank has a reasonable right to use the sanction in the contract.

If we are discussing a mortgaged property then the bank has leant money at a lower rate of interest on the basis that they face lower risk. You can't just scrub out the contract because life became hard.

never-in-doubt

Generali wrote: »

'Cos clearly the best outcome is for someone to borrow money and not be bothered to pay it back.

Do you understand that the whole financial crisis was created by people not paying back what they owe?

Stick that up your Harris.

No, you're incorrect.

1. The consumer borrowed money and agreed to a pre-set agreement (herein called a Consumer Credit Agreement - CCA). The bank then amends/alters/sells the agreement and the consumer then doubts the validity, for whatever reason - i.e. loss of job/ppi Claim thus refused; so the consumer legally requests a s.77-s.78 CCA(1974) which the lender must provide otherwise in line with s.127(3) of the same act the debt is lawfully unenforceable.

I assume you never knew that? Well it is in fact the law, if the lender fails to act accordingly then lawfully the debtor need not pay anything back.

2. I fully understand why and how the financial crisis was caused and I can guarantee you that none of it was due to claims for unenforceable debts. Try looking a little closer at the banks if you really want to blame someone, but do not imply it is the consumer because it quite simply is not!

You guys never give up do you? Preach your morals all day long but at least get the facts straight or you'll just get ridiculed and shown up. I can go on all day ripping your silly arguments apart but suffice to say, you'll never learn so it's fruitless. :mad:

never-in-doubt

Generali wrote: »

Banks enter into a contract with their clients.

Agreed. Remember you said this

Generali wrote: »

If their clients don't hold to their end of the contract the bank has a reasonable right to use the sanction in the contract.

Agreed. So the same goes if the client feels they were wronged, they request the agreement (sanction the contract) and if the lender does not comply with a lawful copy (in line with the CCA1974) then the client by right can refuse to pay and effect s.127(3) of the CCA(1974).

In plain English, if the lender doesn't have the original agreement then it cannot be enforced! They should learn to handle their affairs more appropriately!

Generali wrote: »

If we are discussing a mortgaged property then the bank has leant money at a lower rate of interest on the basis that they face lower risk. You can't just scrub out the contract because life became hard.

Not at all. The banks always lend at a higher rate then the BOE Base Rate so they always make money - they definitely do not lend at a 'lower rate'!

The consumer would be 'scrubbing' out of the contract only if the lender cannot provide lawful documentation confirming the debt exists and is indeed enforceable (also containing the Prescribed terms).

I think yet again you've proved you know very little in this subject; therefore it may be best for you to stop trying to act as if you know otherwise

stebiz

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No, you're incorrect.

1. The consumer borrowed money and agreed to a pre-set agreement (herein called a Consumer Credit Agreement - CCA). The bank then amends/alters/sells the agreement and the consumer then doubts the validity, for whatever reason - i.e. loss of job/ppi Claim thus refused; so the consumer legally requests a s.77-s.78 CCA(1974) which the lender must provide otherwise in line with s.127(3) of the same act the debt is lawfully unenforceable.

I assume you never knew that? Well it is in fact the law, if the lender fails to act accordingly then lawfully the debtor need not pay anything back.

2. I fully understand why and how the financial crisis was caused and I can guarantee you that none of it was due to claims for unenforceable debts. Try looking a little closer at the banks if you really want to blame someone, but do not imply it is the consumer because it quite simply is not!

You guys never give up do you? Preach your morals all day long but at least get the facts straight or you'll just get ridiculed and shown up. I can go on all day ripping your silly arguments apart but suffice to say, you'll never learn so it's fruitless. :mad:

And so say all of us!!! :T:T:T:T:T:T:T

never-in-doubt

stebiz wrote: »

And so say all of us!!! :T:T:T:T:T:T:T

Kinda gets tedious repeating myself and the law to these eejits though :mad: :mad: :mad:

stebiz

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Kinda gets tedious repeating myself and the law to these eejits though :mad: :mad: :mad:

They'll get bored first. Must admit after 'writing off' my last card in October, I feel pretty litigation free at the moment. Oh except the private car parking fine I got on Christmas Eve, which is unlawful of course. Just need to argue my case now, after I've played with them for a while!!!;):rotfl:

lifesuckssometimes

The banks for years have been bleeding the customers dry of money, and this is fair punishment. Until a fair banking system is setup let all customers get their sweet revenge.

dfh

I support the OP on this. I hope he tells them to s od off !!

DVardysShadow

Anihilator wrote: »

Sadly it now is. A site where the dregs of society come for advice on how to escape their liabilities and cause as much hassle for everyone else in the process.

This website used to be a money saving site, now its a site since the bank charge battle commenced were the bottom feeders of society come for advice on how to commit borderline fraud often.

365 days a year of Christmas spirit from you. You never disappoint.

I used to think that getting into debt and not being able to pay it off was irresponsible. In some ways I still think it may be irresponsible - but people in the main don't get into debt out of malice, they do it unfortunately because they have not been educated to be financially savvy.

Now, the people here with the problems are the little people. The big people have also created huge debt debt, nearly taking the financial system down with them, to the point that in the UK, most of the banking system has had to be bailed out by the tax payer. The big people did this by putting the little people into debt and creaming off huge profits and bonuses. Even now, the big people are paying themselves bonuses for having run their banks into debts which completely dwarf the debts of all the posters here put together. And they are doing it at the expense of tax payers and the people here with debts - all the time remaining out of debt themselves. Then they employ Debt Collection Agencies to harass people at home and at work.

Now, Anihilator, take your righteousness and sort out the bankers first. I think if you did that, you would stop people here being sold loans they could not afford. It would be a far more positive contribution to the problem.

woody01

Generali wrote: »

'Cos clearly the best outcome is for someone to borrow money and not be bothered to pay it back.

Do you understand that the whole financial crisis was created by people not paying back what they owe?

Stick that up your Harris.

If you cared to engage your brain before your mouth, you would also realise that the OP doesn't owe this DCA anything AT ALL!
He has no contract with them so no need to pay them.

The bank could not be bothered to chase the outstanding balance, so the OP shouldn't have to deal with the DCA.

I am all for people paying their debts, but not to scummy DCA's that have no place in a modern society with their virtually criminal practices.