Talk mobile ruins my credit rating

sargeantsalt

antrobus wrote: »

Pseudo-legal gobbledygook.:)

Unless of course, you can cite a specific act of parliament, regulation, or case, to support your claim.

If I understand correctly, is it your view that a person who owns property such as money does not have any legal right to decide what he does with it? (e.g. pay or not pay)

What is the basis and evidence to support this point of view?

If you do not have a right over your own money, anyone would be allowed to take your money away and use it for their own purposes and you would have no right to stop them.

NCC-1707

sargeantsalt wrote: »

I will deal with one point at a time.

We all have something called a "proprietary interest" in our "property" such as money in our bank accounts.

In law, that gives each of us exclusive "rights" as to what we do with it. We have exclusive power to pay or not pay another person. So, the right to withold payment is indeed a right.

You'll have no problem linking to this 'law' then?

sargeantsalt

NCC-1707 wrote: »

You'll have no problem linking to this 'law' then?

What type of law do you expect me to link to?

Surely it's common sense. The very definition of ownership is that the owner of something decides what can be done with that thing.

Hypothetically, what would your position be if you got home to find some of your posessions had been taken away without your consent? If you have no rights, it would mean those things did not belong to you in the first place.

I suspect that this is just a wind up. Surely, if people on this board cannot acknowledge the concept of ownership, how can we discuss more complex issues?

JimmyTheWig

sargeantsalt wrote: »

In fact, even though the OP owed money, the penalty inflicted was unjust because it was without an independent hearing of all the facts and was disproportionate to his offence (£7 owed).

The credit file will show the amount owed as being £7. So I'd say that is completely proportionate.

[If another lender sees that owed £7 and makes a mountain out of it then they are being disproportionate. But they are also damaging their own business by doing so, so it should be self-correcting.]

antrobus

sargeantsalt wrote: »

If I understand correctly, is it your view that a person who owns property such as money does not have any legal right to decide what he does with it? (e.g. pay or not pay)

What is the basis and evidence to support this point of view?

If you do not have a right over your own money, anyone would be allowed to take your money away and use it for their own purposes and you would have no right to stop them.

You posted a load of pseudo-legal gobbledygook, rather than (for example) say 'it's my money and I can do what I like with it'.

You can, of course, choose not to pay anybody for sny reason, but you also have to accept the consequences.

P.S. The OP did not decide not to pay TalkTalk.They did not know that TalkTalk wanted another £7.So quite why you're faffing around with this irrelevancy I do not know.:)

antrobus

sargeantsalt wrote: »

What type of law do you expect me to link to?

Surely it's common sense. The very definition of ownership is that the owner of something decides what can be done with that thing.

Hypothetically, what would your position be if you got home to find some of your posessions had been taken away without your consent? If you have no rights, it would mean those things did not belong to you in the first place.

I suspect that this is just a wind up. Surely, if people on this board cannot acknowledge the concept of ownership, how can we discuss more complex issues?

How can we possibly discuss more complex issues with someone who doesn't understand the difference between the law and common sense? Based on your contributions to this thread, I'd suggest most strongly that you have no idea of what the law is.And as to the possession of common sense.....:)

antrobus

sargeantsalt wrote: »

What type of law do you expect me to link to?...

The type of law you can find here;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

:rotfl:

antrobus

Oh yes, and since this is the OP's thread, my advice to them would be to pay TalkTalk the money, and then complain about the lack of notification of the debt, and take it to Ofgem if necessary.

sargeantsalt

I was the person who pointed out that owning money gives a person the general "right" to decide what they do with it. I did not expect someone to pedantically say there is no such "right" over money.

Then I get every troll on this forum pointlessly joining in. If you really don't think you have rights over your own money then it might be better to have someone else look after it for you.

If anyone wants to correct me, the burden of evidence is for you to provide a link to disprove my opinion.

So, far no one has been able to present an intelligent explanation as to why there is supposedly no "right" to pay or not pay your own money.

There will not be a piece of legislation that creates the general proprietary interest in money because it is based on the common law that has been established for hundreds of years.

If you want to really find out more, use your preferred search engine or go to a library.

Back on topic, I agree the OP should pay the £7 and complain. If the company have not followed the correct procedures, there is a chance of getting them to remove the late payments from the credit file.

(Any minute now I expect a chorus of disagreement such as: "they won't remove it", "he can't pay £7", "he has no "right" to complain", "it was all his fault", "there's no such thing as a black list", "the ICO does not exist", "he deserves it", "tin foil", "he should have been clever like me", etc)

PixelPound

The OP does have the right to do what they want with their money, but then talktalk have the right to report the default every month.

Also the Common Law has been superseded in the UK on the whole by UK law. So relying on the outdated common law isn't recommended.