Signed credit agreement

oscar52

Apples2 wrote: »

Ppi was optional (i managed to say no thankyou)

Your post is seems to indicate that all those posters, on this AND other forums that state "They told me I couldnt have the loan UNLESS I ook the PPI aswell" are incorrect.

Are you suggesting that ALL these posters are lying, that the above was not said, and that they knew full well that the insurance was optional???

ejc81

Apples2 wrote: »

Ppi was optional (i managed to say no thankyou)

Lucky you, I was told no PPI, NO LOAN! Yes you could argue that I could have opted out of the loan, but at the same time, when you have an appointment at the bank to see 'a financial advisor' then you would expect them to give you advice!

Apples2 wrote: »

Charges were only applied when you stopped bothering to repay.

or if you speak to some ill informed idiot in India that tells you one thing then the bank goes and does something entirely different, even though you have done as you were told by said idiot :mad:

Apples2 wrote: »

If you think you are in the right (but accept you did actually borrow money) then maybe donating the remainder of the repayments to charity would be a good thing to do.

I quite like this idea :beer:

I mean repaying the lender makes no difference anyway because they've ensured a system that means your credit files are entirely screwed for the next 6 years anyway. Those of us that have had problems due to life circumstances and have struggled to pay all our debts, end up in exactly the same situation with regards to future borrowing as those who say 'sod it' and don't pay!

In the future if I got into a situation like I've previously struggled through I would most definately now go down the 'sod it' route. Thats called learning from experience

ejc81

ILW wrote: »

I have taken out loans from banks in the past.
They lend me a set amount and I agree to pay back a certain sum each month for an agreed term. Pretty simple really. Why do you see that as a problem?

Example: Customer, unemployed, household income 16k.

Loan from bank £12,000

Credit Cards £19,000

Responsible lending :rotfl::rotfl:

Oh wait its ok the taxpayer can afford to bail us out when customers like this realise they can't possibly pay, and we can all still earn over a million pa....shame there dropping the bonus to under 1 million this year though

Peelerfart

Apples2 wrote: »

Too many Lunatics looking for a new Asylum??

I am told,that due to cutbacks,many villages have been forced to lay off their idiots.

This may explain certain recent activity on this board

endora

ejc81 wrote: »

I mean repaying the lender makes no difference anyway because they've ensured a system that means your credit files are entirely screwed for the next 6 years anyway. Those of us that have had problems due to life circumstances and have struggled to pay all our debts, end up in exactly the same situation with regards to future borrowing as those who say 'sod it' and don't pay!

Yes, defaults stay on your file regardless of whether you repay or not, very rarely do they get removed before the 6 years.

In fact, paying something can be worse than not paying anything, as your debt never gets Statute Barred even after the defaults drop off your CRA file. If the repayments you can afford are not high enough (in most cases they are not) the debt never gets cleared and they can basically chase you for the rest of your life as a DMP or arrangement is not legally binding. Issuing court papers on very old (but not SBd) debts is not unheard of either.

I know of people who are still battling with debts defaulted in the 90s, not a whiff of them on CRAs but because they've been paying a little, they're not SBd. On the other hand, if you pay nothing for 6 years, the debt becomes SBd as well as dropping off your file. Right or wrong , that is THE LAW! Statute Law is the basis of unenforceability too, it's not the work of some loonie out to get the banks as some here seem to think! :rotfl:

spudding_2

ILW wrote: »

So why do you think attempting to get out of repaying (on what is purely a technicality) is the right thing to do?

This is a fascinating discussion. This is my take. Pre-1997 courts ruled that lots of agreements were unenforceable because the creditor had not taken reasonable care and performed their duties correctly.

These were big judgments at the time, and led to huge changes in the care creditors took in putting together their paperwork.

I don't see what has changed. Technicality or not, it is the law we are talking about. If creditors cannot abide by statute law, then surely the consumer has the right to penalise them for this. If this means paying less (or nothing), so be it.

In just the same way, for those trying to take the moral high ground, if you were charged excessive interest, I am sure you would, quite correctly, point out to the bank their interest charges were unlawful. This would result in you paying less.

If they have not complied with legislation, why should they not be penalised for their carelessness? If I don't comply with legislation I take the risk of being penalised. One cannot have one rule for one and one for another. Simple as!

endora

~Brock~ wrote: »

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?

Quite a few ARE bailed out banks and have been highly irresponsible, such as RBS and Northern Rock in the UK as well as MBNA (owned by bailed-out Bank of America), Citi (got many bi££ion$ from the US taxpayer) and many more.

Bailed out or not, all of them should have known better, as they are financial specialists! Majority of consumers are not!

Yes, some debtors have been irresponsible and, being an anonymous forum, don't hesitate to say so, others borrowed the money or took out the cards when they had the ability to repay, jobs that paid well and businesses that made profits. All of a sudden there's a financial crisis (caused by the banks, this is a fact!) and you lose your job or your business goes bust. Is that irresponsible?

People just had no way of knowing this would happen, if they had psychic powers to predict the recession then not only would they not have been in debt, they could have won the lottery!

Banks, on the other hand, are the ones that handle the world's finances and are in control of the economy, and they were even more irresponsible. Some posters admit to a gambling addiction, bankers have an even bigger gambling problem! They gambled the entire world economy and lost it for all of us!

They've made a lot of mistakes from the mega-big ones (like RBS buying ABN Amro) to the little ones (like not having proper CCAs). They got bailed out for the big ones. Then in 2007 the law also changed in their favour, when S127 was repealed, thus even improperly executed agreements are enforceable, as long as they were drawn up after April 2007.

Everything is in favour of the banks, the only recourse the consumer has is either the official channels like CAB, PayPlan, etc. (which are also often biased towards the banks due to their funding structure) OR free consumer forums where they *should* get unbiased help.

If forums like this one are also going to go in favour of the banks and against the consumer, where will the consumer turn?

auto-man

~Brock~ wrote: »

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

Does that make anything the guy says true? Accurate? Factual? Not at all. Unlike Martin, I understand Niddy goes to DCA Focus Groups and fights for the consumer that way, in fact I know he is headed to the biggest one in March on personal invite from the head of 1st Credit.

read into that whatever you like...

Re martin. Its because he plasters his face all over the shop and was in the right place at the right time and filled a hole in the market. Shame we can't fill the hole that makes such an awful racket each time we hear it eh? :rotfl:

ILW

I suppose all this arguing over minor technicalities keeps lawyers rich. So they at least should be happy.

endora

ILW wrote: »

I suppose all this arguing over minor technicalities keeps lawyers rich. So they at least should be happy.

Minor technicalities?

You mean whether a creditor can obtain a CCJ and possibly a CO against you for £20k or not depending on whether an agreement is enforceable or whether they can produce one in the first place?

Unenforceability works, where applicable, as it's based on Statute Law. However, it's not a magic wand, it won't make your debt go away (not for 6 years anyway) and it doesn't apply to every debt.

It is, however, something to look at before making a decision such as entering into a repayment or going for an IVA/DRO/BR. So if you are in financial difficulties you would:

1. Look at UE - where it applies, pursue this route, where it doesn't apply then
2. Look at a repayment plan/DMP - if this won't work
3. Look at an official solution

Simples! :j


Where do lawyers come in???