What can you do with a joint loan when partners split?

aliasojo

HaSBeenConsolidated wrote: »

I'm simply standing up for the 'little guy' against the power of the mighty big banks and their bludgeoning power to make money for themselves at other people's cost.

I wonder why so many of the posts on this site appear to be so supportive of the banks. Are these 'posters' employed by the banks to present their stance on various matters and thus to deter the 'little man' from making any real fight back?

Don't be ridiculous. Some of us can just view situations in a balanced way.

It's not always a David and Goliath situation you know. Yes the banks can have unfair practices but very often 'the little guy' just wants to offload the blame for his troubles onto someone else without accepting responsibility for any of it.

And for the record, I have been in shedloads of debt and even now I'm still dealing with some of it so I can easily empathise with those who have debt troubles. I just can't be faffed with those who seek to say 'it's someone else's fault' or 'they should help' etc etc.

Unless you need babied for any reason, you know what you're doing when you get involved with financial transactions therefore the buck stops with you. And if you don't, then it's your own damned fault for not educating yourself before taking on such commitments as far as I'm concerned.

Note: that's not to say I don't have sympathy for people in debt, I do. Just don't start the 'poor me it's all the bank's fault' routine. As that's crap. Imo.

John1993_2

HaSBeenConsolidated wrote: »

If they don't then you have to ask: Why Not? - Answer because it wouldn't be in the best interests of the bank to do so.

You think that it's in the bank's interest to lend money to people who can't pay it back?

Sorry, but you seem to be living in a fantasy world here, where evil banks are preying on poor innocent borrowers, by lending them money when they ask for it, and then having the temerity to ask for it back, as was originally agreed.

John1993_2

HaSBeenConsolidated wrote: »

I'm simply standing up for the 'little guy' against the power of the mighty big banks and their bludgeoning power to make money for themselves at other people's cost.

I wonder why so many of the posts on this site appear to be so supportive of the banks. Are these 'posters' employed by the banks to present their stance on various matters and thus to deter the 'little man' from making any real fight back?

Ah, conspiracy theory time now. If people don't agree with you then they muct be being paid for their views.

The banks make money at other people's "cost" by selling them financial products that they ask for. This is exactly the same model as Tesco have, where they sell products for a bit more than it costs them to buy. It's how businesses, in general, work.

Your gripe seems to be with business, as a whole, not with the bank's model of providing loans to customers.

May I ask, do you stand up for the "little guy" when they get to the checkout and complain that they have to pay for all of the ni ce things in their trolley? If not, why not? Why do you believe it to be different?

[Deleted User]

HaSBeenConsolidated wrote: »

Secondly the system needs changing so that Banks are no longer willing or able to enter such agreements that are not demonstrably in the best interest of each of the parties. Possibly a 'Disclaimer' could be entered into if both the parties still wished to continue.

Good Luck.

What tosh!

It sickens me that nowadays no-one can seemingly take responsibility for their own actions. As has been stated before the OP's daughter and then partner applied for a product TOGETHER, and TOGETHER they could afford the loan. The bank looked at this and then contractually offered them the money with terms, they accepted and they got the money. That loan WAS in their interests as a couple, she agreed to it and probably long term thinking made it in her best interests, just because her circumstances changed and it then wasn't in her best interests doesn't cancel the contract.

By your logic, if i had a small kid and tried to buy a super car, a garage should say no because in my best interests that may not be suitable (In thir opinion).

It's attitudes like yours wrt banks that cause more problems then the solve, a product was requested, the product was offered with T&C's that were, given the circumstances (two incomes) acceptable. Offer accepted, and all hunky dory. Circumstances changed and instead of those who legally agreed to those T&C's being responsible, you expect the banks (who's position has not changed) to be responsible for something they have no influence over.

DCFC79

HaSBeenConsolidated wrote: »

I wonder why so many of the posts on this site appear to be so supportive of the banks. Are these 'posters' employed by the banks to present their stance on various matters and thus to deter the 'little man' from making any real fight back?

That reply was very late in making an appearence.

Everyone is honest, its not our fault you cant see it.

arbroath_lass

newbieboy wrote: »

By your logic, if i had a small kid and tried to buy a super car, a garage should say no because in my best interests that may not be suitable (In thir opinion).

Actually by the OP's opinion even though you had no children when you tried to buy the supercar the garage should refuse in case you did in the future.

OP I'm sorry your daughter has been left in this position but she seems far more clued up than you. Perhaps you should stick to practical help?

27col

John1993 wrote: »

You think that it's in the bank's interest to lend money to people who can't pay it back?

Sorry, but you seem to be living in a fantasy world here, where evil banks are preying on poor innocent borrowers, by lending them money when they ask for it, and then having the temerity to ask for it back, as was originally agreed.

I think that it absolutely outrageous that the bank should expect the borrower to pay back their loan.