Do I have to Pay this debt, what should I Do?

LittleMissGiggles123

OP, you seem to be avoiding the one question that a lot of people have asked. We're all clear that you want a piece of paper with a signature but the question people have asked you is, did you spend money on the credit card that they are chasing money for?

If you spent money on it then you had knowledge of the credit card, so do you really think it's moral to now say that as they have no signature you do not want to pay. Yes banks have been very stupid in the past & it is frustrating that tax payers have bailed out the banks who are still paying hefty bonuses, BUT most borrowers knew exactly what they were doing when they took these loans, credit cards etc etc, so we must take some responsibility.

Alternatively, if you genuinely have no knowledge of this credit card & have never purchased any goods or spent any money on this card, then you should be contacting the police & also consulting the fraud team at whichever bank this is. If this is the case, I wish you good luck.

Hax

How did you come to receive the credit card? Did you not fill in an application form?

danothy

JohnUKB wrote: »

Hi, can anyone help? I was told if I Disagree with a demand for a credit card debt that the credit card company has to give me a copy of my wet signature to prove to me that the debt is owed.

Is this true, what should I do?

JohnUKB wrote: »

A signature was never applied, I don't claim or offer any remedy, it is my understanding that if they beleive that a debt is owed, then t hey MUST produce PROOF to uphold their cliam.

Is this true?

Partly, to pursue you for the debt they must be sure you are liable for it and be able to prove your liability, however the presence of a signature (wet or otherwise) isn't required any more (at least not for consumer credit agreements taken out since April 6th 2007).

Broadly speaking, if they've sent you details of your application and acceptance information, documentation of what you've used or other documentation showing you incurred the debt then this is considered proof and you have to pay it and they can take you to court to enforce that.

By all means ask for proof, but be aware that you won't get out of it on the technicality of not having signed a form, the use of the credit sufficiently constitutes agreement and if they can show that you used it then that is acceptable proof.

JohnUKB

The Fact that Credit card companies are lending money with no value in a fractional reserve Economy (Ponsi scheme) is another matter but what I am saying is I want the Proof they actually loaned me something of value, then on production of my signature on a contract I am willing to repay if the debt is real.

One small question: If the country has £947 BILLION repayable by the people, and the people also bailed out the banks with more debt, then how can the banks say you owe them money when its pretty obvious they owe YOU MONEY So who has all the money? not t he US as they have over $8 Trillion debt can anyone see a problem here??

geoffken

For gods sake spend a little time getting a part time job to PAY WHAT YOU OWE rather than spending time on here trying to get out of YOUR responsibilities.
I assume YOU had the benefit of the items bought on the card rather than giving them to charity

JohnUKB

brokeinlondon wrote: »

You borrowed the money, you pay it back. Simples. Take some responsibility and do the honourable thing.

danothy wrote: »

Partly, to pursue you for the debt they must be sure you are liable for it and be able to prove your liability, however the presence of a signature (wet or otherwise) isn't required any more (at least not for consumer credit agreements taken out since April 6th 2007).

Broadly speaking, if they've sent you details of your application and acceptance information, documentation of what you've used or other documentation showing you incurred the debt then this is considered proof and you have to pay it and they can take you to court to enforce that.

By all means ask for proof, but be aware that you won't get out of it on the technicality of not having signed a form, the use of the credit sufficiently constitutes agreement and if they can show that you used it then that is acceptable proof.

Sorry but this is mis-information, The onus is on the Company to Prove the debt, so how are they going to do that if you simply notice the company and accept their claim IF they produce the PROOF/EVIDENCE or whatever they want to call it, Are you saying out Judicial system has completely changed without even notifying the people about it, surely that in itself is TREASON.

What happened to Magna Carta ?, neither government nor Royals can change it yet it seems to have been taken from the people by stealth and now we have NO rights anymore

What is your qualifications by the way?

JohnUKB

geoffken wrote: »

For gods sake spend a little time getting a part time job to PAY WHAT YOU OWE rather than spending time on here trying to get out of YOUR responsibilities.
I assume YOU had the benefit of the items bought on the card rather than giving them to charity

AGAIN, insults, what sort of site is this? need I ask as that has become obvious from the get go, its being paid to pass on dis-information to a un-informed public.

Martin pretends to be the peoples champion, does he know you act like this on his BUSINESS website? does he know that you are keeping the people enslaved in ignorance because that's what your last post was, not even open for any discussion WHY because you are either Narrow minded, Ignorant or willing and purposely trying to miss-inform.

I am stating ,y understanding from what I have researched, I can supply documents links to show its not just hearsay yet you are not interested in this, just presuming I OWE anything, I have Said over and over again, ALL I WANT IS THE PROOF.

JohnUKB

Hax wrote: »

How did you come to receive the credit card? Did you not fill in an application form?

I have never said I have had a credit card, like I say when is it up to me to PROVE my innocence? I believe we are innocent until proven guilty is this not the case?

Hax

JohnUKB wrote: »

I have never said I have had a credit card, like I say when is it up to me to PROVE my innocence? I believe we are innocent until proven guilty is this not the case?

Apologies for that then - but in your opening post, you were referencing a demand for a credit card debt.

Now you're saying that you have not received a credit card. In this case, it is simply a matter of fraud and something for the police and the credit card's fraud team to deal with.

danothy

JohnUKB wrote: »

The Fact that Credit card companies are lending money with no value in a fractional reserve Economy (Ponsi scheme) is another matter but what I am saying is I want the Proof they actually loaned me something of value, then on production of my signature on a contract I am willing to repay if the debt is real.

One small question: If the country has £947 BILLION repayable by the people, and the people also bailed out the banks with more debt, then how can the banks say you owe them money when its pretty obvious they owe YOU MONEY So who has all the money? not t he US as they have over $8 Trillion debt can anyone see a problem here??

If they have evidence they loaned you money (from a fractional reserve system or otherwise) then they have evidence that they loaned you something of value, as the money can be spent for material goods or services, which is typically what an individual such as yourself might do with it, thus separating you from any fractional reserve value liability issues you may perceive.

Additionally, the banks owe the collective tax payer money rather than individuals. The bail out money was taken from a pool of money that UK tax payers have already parted with. The bail out money is an additional burden on the existing tax pot rather than an additional tax burden on the tax payer (theoretically anyway).

I would speculate that the missing money you speak of has been fed into material investments (for example, housing) which have reduced in value thus leaving a gap between money owed and material owned (as a simplistic analogy).

JohnUKB wrote: »

Sorry but this is mis-information, The onus is on the Company to Prove the debt, so how are they going to do that if you simply notice the company and accept their claim IF they produce the PROOF/EVIDENCE or whatever they want to call it

I'm not really sure I understand this part of your response, but you are right that they need to prove the debt. As I said before, if they have documentation that shows you applied for it and they delivered it then that is the proof. As I understand it application and subsequent use after acceptance can be interpreted as explicit agreement. If you reject this proof then they are entitled to begin legal proceedings to test this proof and potentially get the claim enforced.

JohnUKB wrote: »

Are you saying out Judicial system has completely changed without even notifying the people about it, surely that in itself is TREASON.

What happened to Magna Carta ?, neither government nor Royals can change it yet it seems to have been taken from the people by stealth and now we have NO rights anymore

There has been a change in the requirements for a debt to be enforced in that since April 2007 certain technicalities (such as having to provide the original signed documents) have been no longer required. Other than that I don't know of any other major changes.

JohnUKB wrote: »

What is your qualifications by the way?

My highest current qualification is a master's degree and I am working towards a PhD. I presume you ask as you feel this has some bearing on my credibility.

JohnUKB wrote: »

I have never said I have had a credit card, like I say when is it up to me to PROVE my innocence? I believe we are innocent until proven guilty is this not the case?

Innocent until proven guilty is the case, but you appear to be suggesting that a higher burden of proof than the law ordinarily requires is needed in this case. What would you consider to be appropriate proof that the debt is owed and owed by you?

I'm not suggesting that you owe the money, they could be chasing you for someone else's debt, or it could be fraudulently taken out. In both of these cases you should seek to inform the creditor of the error (particularly in the case of fraud) and you are not obliged to pay the debt. However if you have applied for and received the money and they can show this to the extent the law requires then you will have to pay it. Additionally, if you have taken it out then you should pay it back morally speaking.

In order to clear the issue up, can you tell us precisely what they have presented as proof so far? I'm certain someone on these boards who has been through the process of testing a debts enforceability in the courts can give an opinion on whether it does or does not constitute proof in the eyes of the law.