on bbc: Some store card debtors may be let off with upgraded cards

redpete

CremeBrulee wrote: »

From what i read above this was a judgment in court where the judge ruled for the defendant. Are you arguing against a judge's decision? Do you think UK consumers should not have any rights against lenders? The court didn't seem to agree with you on this!

Of course I wasn't arguing with the judge's decision based on his interpretation of the law. It should have been obvious that I was saying I think the law is wrong when it leads to judgements that allow people who knew exactly what they were doing (spending someone else's money) get away with not paying it back.

Of course I think UK consumers should have rights against lenders, but I don't think they should have the right to not pay back money they borrowed knowing exactly what they were doing.

Whether or not the judge agrees with me, he had to make a judgement based on his interpretation of the law. In this case I think it is a bad law, or at least a law that has bad consequences.

Anyhow - still enjoying AAD fanboys getting on their high horse (high horses?) about CAG.

oscar52

mgarl10024 wrote: »

If she didn't understand the terms and conditions (because she didn't have them), that should have prevented her from using the card?
Who in their right mind would accept a loan without understanding the implications of taking it?

I assume then, as you understand Terms and Conditions, you have not claimed back any Bank Charges or Credit charges, probably because you are not in debt - which begs the question, what are you doing here?

redpete wrote: »

Why can't the law be more simple?

It is. What could be more simle than complying with an Act of Legislation.

Lets face it, with all the might (the banks), you would think at least ONE of their "legal advisers" would have said "Actually, your agreements dont comply with the relative legislation and you run the risk of being made a fool"

jon1965

redpete wrote: »

Of course I wasn't arguing with the judge's decision based on his interpretation of the law. (/QUOTE]

Maybe you should have read the judgement, the judge was a woman:money::money::money:

redpete

oscar52 wrote: »

I assume then, as you understand Terms and Conditions, you have not claimed back any Bank Charges or Credit charges, probably because you are not in debt - which begs the question, what are you doing here?

Well, for me, because I'm interested in saving money.

What could be more simle than complying with an Act of Legislation.

Paying back money you borrowed.

redpete

jon1965 wrote: »

redpete wrote: »

Of course I wasn't arguing with the judge's decision based on his interpretation of the law.

Maybe you should have read the judgement, the judge was a woman

Sorry - read the name as Henry Manners and assumed she was a he.

redpete

custodis wrote: »

And a reporters site best achieves this goal, yes? Maybe some more time on Google and/or proper financial sites might help you along the way...

If it was only the slightly irritating reporter who contributed to the site then no, as there are plenty of contributors and resources that have saved me money then yes.

why? If a copper stopped you for speeding at 50 but you were sure your speedo only read 40, would you just say ok and sign and take the fine/points or would you seek professional advice?

I would take professional advice, but if I was actually travelling at 50 then I wouldn't try to find a loophole that allowed me to get away with it.

Nuff said.

Not really ;-)

jon1965

I always think it's funny. Give someone a parking ticket or a fine for jumping a red light most people want to find a reason not to pay. The banks fail to stick to the law and we are abused for causing the global financial meltdown. What a bunch of two faced people. Long live Niddy and AAD. By the way there is so much more to that site as well. Not just UE. Has done more for me than i can say. Thank you to Niddy and AAD

Gordon_Hose

redpete wrote: »

Of course I wasn't arguing with the judge's decision based on his interpretation of the law. It should have been obvious that I was saying I think the law is wrong when it leads to judgements that allow people who knew exactly what they were doing (spending someone else's money) get away with not paying it back.

Of course I think UK consumers should have rights against lenders, but I don't think they should have the right to not pay back money they borrowed knowing exactly what they were doing.

Whether or not the judge agrees with me, he had to make a judgement based on his interpretation of the law. In this case I think it is a bad law, or at least a law that has bad consequences.

Anyhow - still enjoying AAD fanboys getting on their high horse (high horses?) about CAG.

You need to read the judgement properly.

The defendant was paying back the money she owed, albeit at a reduced rate due to financial difficulties. The claimant started proceedings after defaulting the defendant, and the judge ruled in her favour.

The claimant brought this on themselves.

CremeBrulee

jon1965 wrote: »

As for CAG don't get me started, they are full of bull. They give advice that is wrong, they try to defend cases without using tested law, or even law come to that.
They ban everyone who argues with them, who mentioned AAd or Niddy
They ban people for mentioning here
One quote I had was "Iknow what I am on about because I have posted 7000 times", yes the same wrong thing for 5000 of those.

I will put my hands up and say I was plucked to AAD at a point where nothing and I do mean nothing had been ruled out. B/R was probably top of my list but there was something else that was a close 2nd

Me too, I was looking for answers and i found them on Niddy's site. Out of curiosity I had a look at that CAG site and it doesn't look half as good! You would think they won the case themselves the way they've used it in their favour but I know it was won on the all about debt site because i have read the defendant's thread and the solicitor who won it is also there! so that sounds like the place to be if you need help, even though I'm still a newbie.

custodis wrote: »

Yer thanks Niddy

I also thank him, although I've not known him long i think he is doing a very good job of enlightening and helping the consumer! Keep it up!

endora

redpete wrote: »

Of course I wasn't arguing with the judge's decision based on his interpretation of the law. It should have been obvious that I was saying I think the law is wrong when it leads to judgements that allow people who knew exactly what they were doing (spending someone else's money) get away with not paying it back.

Of course I think UK consumers should have rights against lenders, but I don't think they should have the right to not pay back money they borrowed knowing exactly what they were doing.

Whether or not the judge agrees with me, he had to make a judgement based on his interpretation of the law. In this case I think it is a bad law, or at least a law that has bad consequences.

Anyhow - still enjoying AAD fanboys getting on their high horse (high horses?) about CAG.

So now the law is wrong! Financial institutions have vast resources at their disposal. They have in-house legal teams and compliance departments as well as using the services of management consultancies and magic circle law firms. They employ thousands of people and have terabytes of server space. I spent over 10 years in the financial sector so I know all about what goes on behind glass and steel facades. Their core business IS financial services and lending money is a large part of that business. Yet they can't draft compliant agreements or keep proper records. Many were not even better money managers than the defendant in this case, as they would have been unable to meet their obligations without our tax money.

It's not a question of 'fanboys' vs CAG, just a matter of credit where credit is due. If the defendant had been supported by CAG throughout her ordeal and the solicitor was still a regular contributor there then they would deserve to boast about it, however, the defendant was supported by Niddy and his team and the case was won by a solicitor who regularly gives up his time for free to contribute to all about debt.