Signed credit agreement

ILW

auto-man wrote: »

right you're starting at the court stage. Back-peddle.

We're talking the average person, gets in debt and then goes BR - who foots the cost? Us, the taxpayer.

or

The average person, gets into debt and then stops paying and considers utilising UE - who foots the cost? Them, the bank.

Ok, so now we have two examples you seem to think (based on previous posts) that it is acceptable for customer "A" above to go BR, because it is an option within refinancing. Agreed?

What about "how" he spent the cash? What I never told you is this....

Customer A had a gambling habit and liked to be flash so borrowed thousands to fund this lavish lifestyle and then when the bubble burst, he simply went BR walking away from all his responsibilites.

Customer "B" on the other hand, bless. Poor soul, he has 5 kids and worked at the huge steel-mill down the road, has done so for over 30 years and suddenly he got hit by a drink driver. Its ok, he had PPI.
Ooops, the bank rejected his claim due to a technicality within the policy, many moons ago when he was 10 he had a minor operation (Grommits) and this was undeclared so they refused his claim.
Poor example "B" now has a huge loan, he's off sick and then as a result of the stress he's had to be retired due to ill health.

That, now changes everything.

So get off your high horse, smell the coffee and stop being such idiots and bullies to the debtors that exist. You are no better and I really hope one of you get made redundant this year then see you come greeting about it - I will take great pleasure in laughing in your face.

Bunch of self centered bullies that don't actually appear to have a scrap of brain to rub together! :mad:

Or another option.

Person has a few hundred thousand in the bank, is pulling in a good salary and run up 20 or 30k on the cards.

He has exactly the same rights to avoid his debts to UE as your injured steel worker. Does that seem right to you?

UE has nothing to do with ability to pay.

Not sure what you mean about the taxpayer footing the bill if someone goes bankrupt. The lender still loses their money.

auto-man

ILW wrote: »

Or another option.

Person has a few hundred thousand in the bank, is pulling in a good salary and run up 20 or 30k on the cards.

Shows what you know then! I think you'll find Niddy is one of the first to tell the debt dodger to get lost.

He doesn't entertain such instances of abuse. Maybe before you jump in with all the insults you'll learn what it is you're actually talking about first in future.

Not one of the 1000+ members there is a debt dodger. Not one. :rotfl:

ILW

auto-man wrote: »

Shows what you know then! I think you'll find Niddy is one of the first to tell the debt dodger to get lost.

He doesn't entertain such instances of abuse. Maybe before you jump in with all the insults you'll learn what it is you're actually talking about first in future.

Not one of the 1000+ members there is a debt dodger. Not one. :rotfl:

In that case he has changed greatly over the last year or so. He used to be a great one for "consumer revenge" whatever that is.

Are you now saying that UE should only be an option for those that truly cannot afford to repay?

oscar52

ILW wrote: »

In that case he has changed greatly over the last year or so. He used to be a great one for "consumer revenge" whatever that is.

I seem to remember those words being on this site first

Are you now saying that UE should only be an option for those that truly cannot afford to repay?

Thats prettty much what we have been saying all along.

endora

ILW wrote: »

There is a world of difference between consumer help and looking for loopholes to avoid repaying debt. The majority of those that tried the uneforceability route were not unable to repay, but were just looking at the possibility of getting out of paying. Lucklly thr vast majority failed.

Could you please post the link to the site where you found the stats for the above, i.e. how many tried the UE route in the past few years, how many were able to repay and how many failed? It would be very interesting to look at this data, so far I've never found it anywhere but would love to see the stats!

You're probably thinking about people like the Rankines (who, incidentally, also started out being unable to meet their obligations) assuming the role of claimants to have their agreements ruled UE, which is not something anyone round here would suggest!

endora

ILW wrote: »

Bankruptcy etc are valid procedures to help those who cannot repay debts. Trying to get a debt written off due to a full stop being omitted on an agreement is another matter.

This is where you are really really wrong! UE DOESN'T write off the debt, it just means the creditor cannot use the courts to make you pay. BR/DROs/IVAs DO write off some or all of the debt.
So you think having £100k written off by going BR is OK but having £10k worth of UE debt is not? :eek:

And it's not just a full stop that's been omitted, how about when the whole agreement has been omitted (i.e. there isn't one)? :rotfl:

endora

BoGoF wrote: »

No thanks, if I wanted diddy's advice I'd pop over to la-la land :j

The funniest thing about this whole thread is that you guys seem to think some guy called 'Niddy' is responsible for unenforceability!!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

In fact, it's the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the banks that didn't follow it who are responsible for it!

LovelyLeeds

auto-man wrote: »

now who feels the prat when the spelling of UNENFORCEABLE was correct!! Does your ever-so-small brain think it's spelt Unenforcable? :rotfl: :rotfl:

Glasshouse or thickhouse - you decide!

Oh you silly silly person. Would you like to re-read my post?
Endora patronisingly admonished a poster for spelling unenforceable incorrectly, and then herself spelled/spelt (I can never decide which is right - ho hum...) allocate incorrectly.

I don't feel a prat - do you?

auto-man

endora wrote: »

The funniest thing about this whole thread is that you guys seem to think some guy called 'Niddy' is responsible for unenforceability!!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

rather slow aren't they :T

auto-man

LovelyLeeds wrote: »

Oh you silly silly person. Would you like to re-read my post?

Silly? :rotfl:

I hardly think so. I don't need to prove that, you however need to as you've just been caught out.

"Its a bit grim oop norf" "fick norveners" :rotfl: