please could someone check this agreement!!

Wutang_2

oscar52 wrote: »

There are many people on here that need to understand that circumstances change - such as loss of employment and therefore a reduction in income

You're not helping yourself here rosco:

If ones circumstances change, what are you implying? Have the right insurances in place? NO. Come to an agreement? NO. Look for the wrong font on the original agreement which could lead to the debt becoming unenforcable (god I hate that word)?...me think you is saying that.

oscar52

Wutang wrote: »

Look for the wrong font on the original agreement which could lead to the debt becoming unenforcable (god I hate that word)?...me think you is saying that.

You are entitled to infer my words as you wish.

oscar52

Wutang wrote: »

Have the right insurances in place? NO. Come to an agreement? NO.

Such as PPI? Well, if that was all it was cracked up to be, people wouldnt be able to reclaim it as an unsuitable missold product.

Reginald_aka

ILW wrote: »

Cobblers, many posters do have debt, but feel they should be trying to pay back the money they borrowed rather than trying to wriggle out of it.

Well said that man!!

It's about time someone told this shower of deluded oafs how the real world works!!

When I bought my house, it was after 30 years of grafting and sacrifice down the mill - none of this new fangled 'credit card' gibberish!

PC_Gabriel_Kent

Well said Reg!

BLT_2

oscar52 wrote: »

People come here for help and advice, not criticism.

Why do some people think they are better than others? Perhaps these would feel different when they have lost their jobs and income (and I am actually starting to hope it happens to a few).

Perhaps these people have the same views of those people in IVA (or bankruptcy), afterall, they wontbe paying EVERYTHING that they owe.

Having read the various posts I think there are two issues here. I do not think anyone has issues with people attempting to claim back PPI or other insurances that they have been missold. However I do take issue with people who are trying to evade their debts on the basis that a signature may not be in the correct box.

If they have borrowed the money and spend it, and agreed to make payments then they should adhere to the agreement. There are a number of threads on MSE with people complaining that they are unable to get loans, is it any wonder given that so many people seem to be trying to find ways to get out of their financial obligations

hullight

oscar52 wrote: »

There are many people on here that need to understand that circumstances change - such as loss of employment and therefore a reduction in income, and lets face it, the credit industry does very little to help such customers.

Why should they - they aren't a charity.

oscar52

hullight wrote: »

Why should they - they aren't a charity.

Maybe they (the banks) should remember that same quote next time they go cap in hand to the Government for help when they realise they havent managed their finances properly.

hullight

oscar52 wrote: »

Maybe they (the banks) should remember that same quote next time they go cap in hand to the Government for help when they realise they havent managed their finances properly.

The difference is the banks will actually repay their loans (banking levy etc.).

oscar52

hullight wrote: »

The difference is the banks will actually repay their loans (banking levy etc.).

And you can guarantee the likes of RBS will remain solvent long enough for this to be achieved?

You are also missing the point. What would have happened if the Government had said no?

And in the same light, what happens when the banks refuse to help customers - in many cases they end up defaulting and being unable to repay their loans.