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

redpete

endora wrote: »

So now the law is wrong!

I do think that some laws are wrong and that the (sometimes unforeseen) consequences of some laws are wrong. I also think that some judge's interpretation or extrapolation of laws is sometimes wrong (if they were always right then there would be fewer cases of judgements being overturned on appeal).

Do you think that the law is right in all cases?

jon1965

The law may be an !!! but on this I agree with Endora. I notice no one has commented on my post about parking tickets etc

molerat

Parking tickets are irrelevant. In the case of cards surely only the charges and fees can be disputed. The law is an !!! and these thieves are taking advantage of its stupidity. I believe the fees and charges should be made void but the capital amount, which cannot be disputed, should be repaid. Niddy et al are no better than the get away driver on a bank job.

Gordon_Hose

You can't even compare parking tickets lol

endora

molerat wrote: »

Parking tickets are irrelevant. In the case of cards surely only the charges and fees can be disputed. The law is an !!! and these thieves are taking advantage of its stupidity. I believe the fees and charges should be made void but the capital amount, which cannot be disputed, should be repaid. Niddy et al are no better than the get away driver on a bank job.

Niddy et all are acting within the law, unlike the getaway drivers and thieves you mention. If you so strongly disagree with a law that helps consumers what are you doing on a CONSUMER HELP forum?

A JUDGE ruled in favour of the defendant in COURT with the help of a SOLICITOR. A solicitor that happens to contribute to Niddy's site. Which proves not only that they act within the law but also that they must know what they are talking about. The proof is that the arguments used on the site actually held up in court. It doesn't get any more solid than that, does it?

The claimant in this case didn't even bother to appeal! Do you want more proof?

Gordon_Hose

molerat clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

Getaway drivers indeed!

molerat

endora wrote: »

Niddy et all are acting within the law, unlike the getaway drivers and thieves you mention. If you so strongly disagree with a law that helps consumers what are you doing on a CONSUMER HELP forum?

A JUDGE ruled in favour of the defendant in COURT with the help of a SOLICITOR. A solicitor that happens to contribute to Niddy's site. Which proves not only that they act within the law but also that they must know what they are talking about. The proof is that the arguments used on the site actually held up in court. It doesn't get any more solid than that, does it?

The claimant in this case didn't even bother to appeal! Do you want more proof?

I believe in consumers getting justice not getting one over on the banks due to a technicality, avoiding their debts and putting the cost onto the rest of us. I said that I agreed the banks were wrong and that all charges and interest should be voided but the capital amount, the amount they actually spent which cannot really be disputed, should be repaid. Justice not oneupmanship.

Gordon_Hose

Rubbish!!

The judge declared that the defendant didn't have to pay. Tough ti**ies for the banks in my eyes.

If they'd had their paperwork in order then this wouldn't have happened.

jon1965

[QUOTE=Gordon Hose;5
2549759]You can't even compare parking tickets lol[/QUOTE]

Well let's just think about that shall we. There are whole threads on here and cag saying this and that can not be enforced because the wording doesn't comply with the law. Well isn't that exactly the same principle. People who go to AAD haven't made a decision to take the money with a plan to then refuse to pay it back. Ok there may have been a very few people in the past who have done it but to say that was everyone's plan is as inaccurate and insulting as saying all Muslims are terrorists.

Gordon_Hose

Well a parking ticket from a PPC doesn't need to go to court to be deemed unenforceable. There is no contract. This debt had an agreement/contract, the judge deemed it unenforceable. TBH if a judge tells me I don't have to pay a debt back because it has a defective agreement, I'm not going to pay a penny.

The posters in this post were suggesting the defendant got the card and spent the money with no intention of paying it back. Which is wholly inaccurate.

Not sure what Muslims or Terrorists have to do with this though.