Signed credit agreement

endora

~Brock~ wrote: »

This does not however change my view that debt avoidance should not be considered fashionable or in some way acceptable, particularly bearing in mind the number of perfectly adequate official sources of help and advice for those who cannot pay.

It's actually the bank's fault, and they are victims of their own arrogance and incompetence. I used to work in the City so I know how financial institutions work more than the average guy who only sees the facade.

If one of their core business areas is to lend money, it's totally inexcusable that they shouldn't be able to do it properly and lawfully! The reason for that is that they always see themselves above the law and everything else and their aim is to make figures for the current year look good, so they can get their obscene bonuses, which are usually paid as a percentage of the business they bring, be it mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc.

They don't really care what happens in a few years time, by then they will have spent their bonus or invested it in property and possibly moved on. Banks were so interested in attracting new customers they didn't bother with the legalities, they just wanted to show how much new business they were able to bring in.

They are also bent on showing they can make savings on all areas designated as 'support', i.e. the ones that do not bring them any money. Back office, filing, admin, compliance, legal, marketing, IT, HR, etc. fall into that category and they do not hesitate to make cuts in these areas, which may mean sending their old files to a warehouse or archiving files into digital formats that quickly become obsolete or unreadable (such as DVD-RAM, a favourite that corrupted quite easily) to avoid investing in more server space.

Having an insight in the way the financial institutions work always helps put things into perspective.

The 'official' sources only tell you half the story as they are all financed by the financial sector! For example in 40 odd pages of debt guidance for CAB advisors there isn't a single mention of the words 'Statute Barred'!

The whole purpose of online forums is to offer people an alternative, otherwise why not have a site with links to CAB, the national debtline, CCCS and PayPlan? Would be a lot easier, if people are just going to be asked to provide their personal financial details and told to pay up, why bother using a forum? Unless of course the forum offers a different view on things...

endora

~Brock~ wrote: »

The point that sites like that miss completely is that the Consumer credit Act gives rights to both the borrower AND the lender. Unfortunately too little creedence is given to the rights of the lender, which if dismissed as unimportant can create a dangerous imbalance in court.

You're joking, right? The LENDER is a multi-billion corporation who can afford the best lawyers and the most sophisticated systems yet when they make too many mistakes and are in danger of becoming insolvent, they have the full backing of the government.

The BORROWER on the other hand is the little guy on the street who can’t afford legal representation and often hasn’t got enough money to pay essential bills. Many responsible people have fallen into hard times as a result of the recession brought about by the irresponsibility of financial institutions!

If you are so much in favour of the lenders, what are you doing on this CONSUMER forum? You should be working in the financial sector instead, I did my time there!

~Brock~

endora wrote: »

The whole purpose of online forums is to offer people an alternative, otherwise why not have a site with links to CAB, the national debtline, CCCS and PayPlan? Would be a lot easier, if people are just going to be asked to provide their personal financial details and told to pay up, why bother using a forum? Unless of course the forum offers a different view on things...

I actually agree with this...up to a point. The problem is that some forums are populated with individuals that are too far gone in their 'anti lender' stance - to the point of it being an obsession. The result of this is that any advice given can be dangerously biased.

Such advice is also completely unregulated and can be provided by anyone who thinks they have half an ounce of wikipedia sourced knowledge. There is no comeback whatsoever if the wheels fall off in court.

I have said this before and will say it again.....I would be very dubious about taking my financial advice from someone who advertises a list of their own previous financial disasters in their forum signature as if it is some sort of badge of honour!

MSE provides a bit more of a balance. Yes there are sections of the forum where very useful advice is given - including the idea of challenging debts where appropriate - to those in financial difficulties, but there is also a strong contingent of posters who advocate that the the borrower should also behave in a responsible manner when dealing with creditors, without resorting to the tired and pedantic attitude that lenders are always to blame for everything.

In the end, what you or I believe doesnt really matter. What I do know is that certain forums - and I use CAG as an example - will never be given a serious pedestal upon which to have their views aired on a wider scale - the perception being simply of a bunch of angry and militant debtors grumbling to each other about 'nasty' lenders.

On the other hand, Martin Lewis appears to be invited to many a government debate. Read into that what you want.

Wutang_2

ILW wrote: »

Out of interest.
If an agreement is made in good faith between two parties, do you think it is right that one side attempts to void their reponsibilities using a minor technicality which does not affect the spirit of the agreement?

So, what we saying?

We don't directly respond to such evil accusations. Check.

We don't pay it back or do? Auto-man, I need some answers mucker? How am I supposed to join this cult if the rules aren't clear?

We're against the greedy banks because of the PPI and the bonus's and therefore we shouldnt have to pay back our loans as we are the little man? And something about the oscars (I got lost here)?

Please clarify as its a minefield my old mate.

xx

~Brock~

endora wrote: »

You're joking, right? The LENDER is a multi-billion corporation who can afford the best lawyers and the most sophisticated systems yet when they make too many mistakes and are in danger of becoming insolvent, they have the full backing of the government.

The BORROWER on the other hand is the little guy on the street who can’t afford legal representation and often hasn’t got enough money to pay essential bills. Many responsible people have fallen into hard times as a result of the recession brought about by the irresponsibility of financial institutions!

If you are so much in favour of the lenders, what are you doing on this CONSUMER forum? You should be working in the financial sector instead, I did my time there!

You see there you go again.......!

Are you saying that ALL lenders are bailed out banks? Are you saying that ALL lenders are irresponsible? Shall we get rid of them all?

What do you propose as an alternative?

How would you propose to help somebody fund their next new car when Ford Credit (for example) no longer exist because they have been banned as a result of the apparently popular vote advocated by the militant consumer brigade?

Were Ford Credit (for example) to blame for the recession? Really?
Do debt avoidance websites advocate the honouring of a Ford Credit agreement against that of a nasty state owned bank? Of course it doesn't because the mentality is that all lenders are 'bad'.

I am not in favour of lenders, nor in favour of consumers. i am in favour of balance, because without balance there cannot be a healthy market.......which is the only way in which further recessions can be avoided in the future.

~Brock~

Bloody hell there really is a day outing going on today isn't there?

Is the CAG server down or summat?

Apples2

Too many Lunatics looking for a new Asylum??

Hanky_Panky

endora wrote: »

Having an insight in the way the financial institutions work always helps put things into perspective.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

endora

~Brock~ wrote: »

There is no comeback whatsoever if the wheels fall off in court.

We know that, and if you can afford to keep up your payments then by all means do so, however, if you can't, then you need to be aware of all the options open to you. Not all debts are or can be unenforceable, but some ARE.

~Brock~ wrote: »

I have said this before and will say it again.....I would be very dubious about taking my financial advice from someone who advertises a list of their own previous financial disasters in their forum signature as if it is some sort of badge of honour!

Forum posters are NOT financial advisors, nor are they meant to be.
Who advertises a list of previous disasters in their signature?

~Brock~ wrote: »

In the end, what you or I believe doesnt really matter. What I do know is that certain forums - and I use CAG as an example - will never be given a serious pedestal upon which to have their views aired on a wider scale - the perception being simply of a bunch of angry and militant debtors grumbling to each other about 'nasty' lenders.

On the other hand, Martin Lewis appears to be invited to many a government debate. Read into that what you want.

CAG? From what I read on this thread I got the impression you guys were on about another site!

~Brock~

endora wrote: »

CAG? From what I read on this thread I got the impression you guys were on about another site!

It started off about niddys site but the points I have been making are generic to all (in my opinion of course )

I used CAG as an example. I think it is also CAG where you will also see plenty of lists in signatures of debt written off / bank charges claimed etc.