local "tick" card - is the debt enforceable?

radoslaff

This is all a big bulls...t. So they are offering you an interest free credit which you clearly don't want to pay back and you are trying to make up excuses for your theft. That is really very very nice. Whether they are regulated or not is totally irrelevant to you because they are not charging you interest so they don't make any profit directly from lending you this money. And comparing them to the loan sharks that charge +300% interest a year is simply pathetic. When you decided to use their money for a month did you tell them that you would only if they spoke very nicely and politely? I doubt it. It's very simple. You have a financial agreement and you keep it. Whether it's written or oral is irrelevant. You feel they were rude, you return their card and never use their services again after you pay your debt. Everything else is a simple theft. Full stop.

MrWB

The first thing that needs to be established is if they are actually offering you credit... Or are they offering you invoice terms. Two very different things.

From the way you've described the scheme, you use a csrd which tracks your purchases, and the costs of items when being invoiced either varies or there is a surcharge.

It's illegal for surcharges to be added when you make a payment (eg by credit card, debit card, payment processor (eg PayPal, etc) and mobile phone-based payments)... However, I don't believe it's illegal for surcharges with regards to billing method.

If you have invoice terms, then it means that no credit agreement is needed. You have agreed (formed a contract) to pay by using the scheme, and you have taken the goods. If you don't pay, then you could have recovery actions taken against you, and ultimately could end up with a CCJ and attachment of earnings.

You've obvioulsy provided your details too, and have use of an online system --- there may have been electronic signatures taken when registering for that online system with more detailed information about the terms of use of the scheme.

You have been asked to pay by cash. That doesn't prove any illegal activity at all, and the fact an online system is normally used means that HMRC are just likely to take it as it almost certainly is -- that is a shopkeepr sinks or swims on cashflow, and needs to be paid on the invoice, especially after offering invoice terms. He's asked for cash this time, because he knows you may never return to the shop and if you do constant promises of doing it later/on this date/when you get home may not materialise.

Likewise, if he becomes known for "letting people off", then others may do the same thing and take advantage of him, running his business into the ground.

You're not wanting to pay because he was rude to you. I'm not defending him being rude, but everyone has bad days, and you don't know his financial circumstances either. The law and your responsibilty does not change because someone talks to you in a way you don't like.

Although common decency seems to become further and further removed from society, legally and technically none of us have the right to not be offended - and this is what this boils down to. You feel offended and you are using that to justify you effectively stealing from the shopkeeper.

That's not right. Pay up what you owe. You say you're a person of principle - if you were, you would pay up. If you don't, and you stick to your guns as he goes through recovery proceedings then you could end up with a CCJ and it would be for what you owe now, plus interest (which can be charged on late invoices), plus recovery costs.

If you want to stick to principles because he was rude to you, fair enough - never shop there again.

Of course, I realise that there may be other circumstances at play - like if you're in a position where you can't afford to pay it all now.If this is the case, rather than letting the situation get worse, go and speak to him and explain the situation and offer to pay in installments and see if he'll be willing to help you. If he agrees, great. If he doesn't and it gets to court at least you can show that you tried to resolve the situation.

societys_child

Brigidir wrote: »

if i spoke to them like that i wouldnt blame them. so yes i would write it off. i live on principal and they shouldnt be giving credit to people on a whim and then treat them like dirt

Nah, sounds more like you live on other peoples money . . .

Brigidir

MrWB wrote: »

The first thing that needs to be established is if they are actually offering you credit... Or are they offering you invoice terms. Two very different things.

From the way you've described the scheme, you use a csrd which tracks your purchases, and the costs of items when being invoiced either varies or there is a surcharge.

It's illegal for surcharges to be added when you make a payment (eg by credit card, debit card, payment processor (eg PayPal, etc) and mobile phone-based payments)... However, I don't believe it's illegal for surcharges with regards to billing method.

If you have invoice terms, then it means that no credit agreement is needed. You have agreed (formed a contract) to pay by using the scheme, and you have taken the goods. If you don't pay, then you could have recovery actions taken against you, and ultimately could end up with a CCJ and attachment of earnings.

You've obvioulsy provided your details too, and have use of an online system --- there may have been electronic signatures taken when registering for that online system with more detailed information about the terms of use of the scheme.

You have been asked to pay by cash. That doesn't prove any illegal activity at all, and the fact an online system is normally used means that HMRC are just likely to take it as it almost certainly is -- that is a shopkeepr sinks or swims on cashflow, and needs to be paid on the invoice, especially after offering invoice terms. He's asked for cash this time, because he knows you may never return to the shop and if you do constant promises of doing it later/on this date/when you get home may not materialise.

Likewise, if he becomes known for "letting people off", then others may do the same thing and take advantage of him, running his business into the ground.

You're not wanting to pay because he was rude to you. I'm not defending him being rude, but everyone has bad days, and you don't know his financial circumstances either. The law and your responsibilty does not change because someone talks to you in a way you don't like.

Although common decency seems to become further and further removed from society, legally and technically none of us have the right to not be offended - and this is what this boils down to. You feel offended and you are using that to justify you effectively stealing from the shopkeeper.

That's not right. Pay up what you owe. You say you're a person of principle - if you were, you would pay up. If you don't, and you stick to your guns as he goes through recovery proceedings then you could end up with a CCJ and it would be for what you owe now, plus interest (which can be charged on late invoices), plus recovery costs.

If you want to stick to principles because he was rude to you, fair enough - never shop there again.

Of course, I realise that there may be other circumstances at play - like if you're in a position where you can't afford to pay it all now.If this is the case, rather than letting the situation get worse, go and speak to him and explain the situation and offer to pay in installments and see if he'll be willing to help you. If he agrees, great. If he doesn't and it gets to court at least you can show that you tried to resolve the situation.

after seeing your post -- ive gone and paid it in full this morning and handed the card back to the keeper

its funny that all the so-called STAR established members of the forum have done nothing but try an score points against me here and thanking each others posts like the three musketeers. you provided good facts but edged your opinion in respectfully. fair play to you. keep doing what your doing. we might end up with a member with 5 stars who actually represents what they mean to possesses

jimbo26

Most sensible decison

bertiewhite

Off license - booze - tick.

It conjures all sorts of images up in my head.

T-G-C

I think we have all got a bit over excited here. The OP seems to have a strange agreement with their local convenience store, one which I have never come across before.

You can complain, but it doesn't sound like a tax evasion scheme to me. If the invoice was left unpaid, the issuer has the right to request payment in whichever fashion, provided it is legal tender. Exchanging in cash doesn't automatically mean laundering; evasion or other illegitimate practice.

I am pleased to learn that the debt has been paid in full, however this should have been done in the first place. You cannot blame others for the hostility, as this sort of thing doesn't go well with people here, this is a money saving forum, not a haven for writing off debt or avoiding commitments.

[Deleted User]

Brigidir wrote: »

keep doing what your doing.

You can count on it.

Though it should have been 'you're'.

No charge for that advice. Not even on 'tick'.
-