Removing the interest off my credit card repayment

albmoney

Tixy wrote: »

If you don't pay and let it intentionally fall into arrears then they might then let you agree a repayment plan and possibly might freeze interest - if they are genuinely convinced you cannot meet the current repayments - they'd want to see an income & expenditure before they'd agree to it and would also expect you to be paying any other creditors at a reduced rate as well so they are not unfairly penalised.

Or they might take you to court and obtain a CCJ against you. Which will obviously then be on your file for a further 6years. And judges don't look to kindly on those that won't pay rather than those that can't pay, so the judge would be more likely to enter a judgement in full rather than granting you time to pay in installments. Plus there will be court fees etc added on.

By the way, the defaults you mentioned eariler - they only stay on for 6years from the date of default not the date they were settled.

Thank you very much. I think I'm just going to give them my pound of flesh. It seems too risky to do much else right now.

ILW: I am guilty as charged, I accept that, but you have a lot to learn about economics... it is no accident that we have as country, the largest consumer debt ever and government borrowing is also at ridiculous levels. It is also no co-incidence that this has happened under the labour government of the last 12 yrs. Think about it...

Fiddlestick

albmoney wrote: »

it is no accident that we have as country, the largest consumer debt ever and government borrowing is also at ridiculous levels. It is also no co-incidence that this has happened under the labour government of the last 12 yrs. Think about it...

What complete and utter tosh!

What the previous Government borrowed is THEIR responsibility, what you borrowed is YOURS!

The Labour Party didn't march anyone down to the bank and hold a gun against their head until they signed a credit agreement - everyone choose to take on debt of their own free will.

albmoney

Fiddlestick wrote: »

What complete and utter tosh!

What the previous Government borrowed is THEIR responsibility, what you borrowed is YOURS!

The Labour Party didn't march anyone down to the bank and hold a gun against their head until they signed a credit agreement - everyone choose to take on debt of their own free will.

Mate. You really do have a lot to learn about fiscal policy and economics in general.
Not all contracts made by individuals are fair. That's why the government has to legislate to
make sure citzens are not iduced in to contracts where they are not fully aware of the consequences.
In your view the endowment products of the early 90's were completely fair and above aboard!
(Thank God the government doesn't think so).
In your view it's not dubious for the banks to charge ridiculous fees for being overdrawn since you
signed the contract.. Thankfully not everyone is as gullable as you.

There is a reason why banks and mortgage lenders have to follow the banking code nowadays. It's to protect
consumers from insititutions preying on their insecurities. It really is not as simple as you saying, "you signed
it, your to blame".

This government, in 2002, rather than deal with the implications of a recession after 9/11 decided to lower interest rates
to unheard of levels. Low interest rates mean cheap money. This along with de-regulation of the financial sector allowing
less scrupulous lending practises allowed for more loans in the system. This has the effect of increasing how much money
is in the economoy. Obviously, just like energy, money never dissapears, it goes somewhere. In our case it went into
housing because it's the easiest way to make money. This combined with a lack of investment in other industries meant
that all our new cheap money was stuck in property. Property became the piggy bank.

As you can imagine, we all need a place to live. So being frugal and not buying a few cd's may save you a few quid but it's not
going to change the fact that your mortgage / rent has gone from 300 quid to 900 quid but your salary is still 26k.
So people have being BORROWING ON CREDIT CARDS to make up for the shortfall between their salary and their living expenses!

The so called "posperity" that Gordon says we hav enjoyed has been based on debt because in real terms the salary of 99% of the
population has stayed the same for 10yrs!
Thats why our lending has gone up, and thats why all these cuts are necessary because as you know, you cant keep spending
what you dont have..

So in short, goverment policy has DELIBERATELY led to a debt culture in this country which you will not find in
other european countries like France and Germany who never let their property market go nuts like ours.

Join the dots.. it's not hard to work out why we have record debt. Obviously someone has to sign for their debt,
but governments have a way of being very persuasive by creating environments that practically force you to go
in their direction. It's calles SOCIAL ENGINEERING.. read up about i

chattychappy

Ironic really... the OP's capitalist beef is with the good 'ole socialist sounding "co-operative" bank!

Fiddlestick

albmoney wrote: »

Mate. You really do have a lot to learn about fiscal policy and economics in general.
Not all contracts made by individuals are fair. That's why the government has to legislate to
make sure citzens are not iduced in to contracts where they are not fully aware of the consequences.
In your view the endowment products of the early 90's were completely fair and above aboard!

I never mentioned endowment products.

In your view it's not dubious for the banks to charge ridiculous fees for being overdrawn since you
signed the contract.. Thankfully not everyone is as gullable as you.

I never mentioned banking charges.

This government, in 2002, rather than deal with the implications of a recession after 9/11 decided to lower interest rates
to unheard of levels. Low interest rates mean cheap money. This along with de-regulation of the financial sector allowing
less scrupulous lending practises allowed for more loans in the system.

I never mentioned 9/11 or the economic boom of the last decade.

This has the effect of increasing how much money
is in the economoy. Obviously, just like energy, money never dissapears, it goes somewhere. In our case it went into
housing because it's the easiest way to make money. This combined with a lack of investment in other industries meant
that all our new cheap money was stuck in property. Property became the piggy bank.

As I said, the Labour Party did not force a single person to take out a mortgage.

Nobody was forced down to the bank or building society to sign at gunpoint.

As you can imagine, we all need a place to live. So being frugal and not buying a few cd's may save you a few quid but it's not
going to change the fact that your mortgage / rent has gone from 300 quid to 900 quid but your salary is still 26k.

I seriously doubt anyone's mortgage payment has tripled without them taking on existing debt secured on the property.

So people have being BORROWING ON CREDIT CARDS to make up for the shortfall between their salary and their living expenses!

Again, the Labour Party did not force anyone to live outside their means or to borrow to fund their unsustainable lifestyle.

The so called "posperity" that Gordon says we hav enjoyed has been based on debt because in real terms the salary of 99% of the
population has stayed the same for 10yrs!
Thats why our lending has gone up, and thats why all these cuts are necessary because as you know, you cant keep spending
what you dont have..

Indeed, but once again can you show me where the Labour Party forced anyone to take on a single penny of debt against their will?

Join the dots.. it's not hard to work out why we have record debt. Obviously someone has to sign for their debt,
but governments have a way of being very persuasive by creating environments that practically force you to go
in their direction. It's calles SOCIAL ENGINEERING.. read up about i

I work in the IT security industry and I can assure you that I am quite familiar with social engineering.

However, nobody can blame their own personal borrowing on the previous Government as it was not the Government that signed the CCAs - it was the borrower!

There was a good economy and people were sold the dream that property was somehow aspirational, but the ultimate responsibility for taking on the debt was the BORROWER.

ILW

albmoney wrote: »

Mate. You really do have a lot to learn about fiscal policy and economics in general.
Not all contracts made by individuals are fair. That's why the government has to legislate to
make sure citzens are not iduced in to contracts where they are not fully aware of the consequences.
In your view the endowment products of the early 90's were completely fair and above aboard!
(Thank God the government doesn't think so).
In your view it's not dubious for the banks to charge ridiculous fees for being overdrawn since you
signed the contract.. Thankfully not everyone is as gullable as you.

There is a reason why banks and mortgage lenders have to follow the banking code nowadays. It's to protect
consumers from insititutions preying on their insecurities. It really is not as simple as you saying, "you signed
it, your to blame".

This government, in 2002, rather than deal with the implications of a recession after 9/11 decided to lower interest rates
to unheard of levels. Low interest rates mean cheap money. This along with de-regulation of the financial sector allowing
less scrupulous lending practises allowed for more loans in the system. This has the effect of increasing how much money
is in the economoy. Obviously, just like energy, money never dissapears, it goes somewhere. In our case it went into
housing because it's the easiest way to make money. This combined with a lack of investment in other industries meant
that all our new cheap money was stuck in property. Property became the piggy bank.

As you can imagine, we all need a place to live. So being frugal and not buying a few cd's may save you a few quid but it's not
going to change the fact that your mortgage / rent has gone from 300 quid to 900 quid but your salary is still 26k.
So people have being BORROWING ON CREDIT CARDS to make up for the shortfall between their salary and their living expenses!

The so called "posperity" that Gordon says we hav enjoyed has been based on debt because in real terms the salary of 99% of the
population has stayed the same for 10yrs!
Thats why our lending has gone up, and thats why all these cuts are necessary because as you know, you cant keep spending
what you dont have..

So in short, goverment policy has DELIBERATELY led to a debt culture in this country which you will not find in
other european countries like France and Germany who never let their property market go nuts like ours.

Join the dots.. it's not hard to work out why we have record debt. Obviously someone has to sign for their debt,
but governments have a way of being very persuasive by creating environments that practically force you to go
in their direction. It's calles SOCIAL ENGINEERING.. read up about i

Cobblers.
You borrowed, you spent, nobody forced you. Thats it.

albmoney

Fiddlestick wrote: »

I never mentioned endowment products.



I never mentioned banking charges.





I never mentioned 9/11 or the economic boom of the last decade.



As I said, the Labour Party did not force a single person to take out a mortgage.

Nobody was forced down to the bank or building society to sign at gunpoint.



I seriously doubt anyone's mortgage payment has tripled without them taking on existing debt secured on the property.



Again, the Labour Party did not force anyone to live outside their means or to borrow to fund their unsustainable lifestyle.




Indeed, but once again can you show me where the Labour Party forced anyone to take on a single penny of debt against their will?





I work in the IT security industry and I can assure you that I am quite familiar with social engineering.

However, nobody can blame their own personal borrowing on the previous Government as it was not the Government that signed the CCAs - it was the borrower!

There was a good economy and people were sold the dream that property was somehow aspirational, but the ultimate responsibility for taking on the debt was the BORROWER.

Why do you keep saying the same thing? It's not about whether you sign for something or not, it's about whether it's fair to offer someone a contract without them fully understanding the consequences. Do you not understand that concept?

If you do then lets move on to point 2:

2: in real terms the mortgage for the equivalent property has doubled/tripled for some areas in 10 yrs. For example, A 1 bedroom flat in 2000 in SE22 costs 90k. Now the same property costs 200k. The average salary in 2000 compared to 2010 is about the same (maybe 26-30k). So, a persons salary has roughly stayed the same but the same property they could have bought 10 yrs earlier cost 110k more. That means the mortgage per month has gone from 500 to 1100 and the deposit has doubled from 9K to 20k. Add general retail price inflation of 2 per cent and it's pretty obvious that to enjoy a similar standard of living to someone 10yrs earlier, you must find an extra 600-700 minimum doing the same job! Do you understand that point?

If so move on to point 3:

3: The "difference" can be accounted to increased borrowing on credit cards. That's why we have a debt problem in this country. Yeah, some people made loads of money in the pyramid scheme.. sorry property industry. But that was down to timing (i.e. they were born at the right time rather than any skill, creative endeavour etc..). Anyone born later is well and truly stuffed. Anyone who didn't get on the ladder is stuffed as well, as living costs rise according to property prices (i.e. landlords put up rent to current BTL levels, even though some of them have already paid off the mortgage). It's not a fair situation at all.


Yes, individually we are responsible for our own actions but it doesn't help when governments are deliberately following economic policies that have "coerced" many into this negative situation.

wyebird

Have you asked them to convert the balance to a loan at a lower rate?

Smile, part of CO-OP, are happy to do this with their CC debt, provided you can prove that you can afford the monthly payments, and if you have been paying for so long I would assume that this is not a problem. Then you can clear the balance quicker without further adverse affect on your credit rating.

albmoney

wyebird wrote: »

Have you asked them to convert the balance to a loan at a lower rate?

Smile, part of CO-OP, are happy to do this with their CC debt, provided you can prove that you can afford the monthly payments, and if you have been paying for so long I would assume that this is not a problem. Then you can clear the balance quicker without further adverse affect on your credit rating.

I just paid them the full arrears and this months payment so I shouldn't get any more phone calls. I'm going to call them tomorrow and suggest what you said though, it sounds interesting. I suppose what gets me is that I am being penalised by paying a higher rate of interest for the debt had I not let the debt go into recovery. It is in their interest to have me spend as long as possible paying the debt because they make more money. If they really wanted me to pay off their debt as quickly as possible then they would lower the interest and they would get their money back faster.

But that is the "hustle" with credit cards. Far from wanting you to pay them back, they HATE people paying back promptly. It's a massive psychological con! And they use the credit rating fear to make everyone play ball. I wish people could see it for what it really is..

chattychappy

albmoney wrote: »

Far from wanting you to pay them back, they HATE people paying back promptly. It's a massive psychological con! And they use the credit rating fear to make everyone play ball. I wish people could see it for what it really is..

It's a business. Do you now see it for what it really is?