Did anyone see Midlands Today 17/01/08???

skintandsad

Did anyone see the Midlands Today news program this evening?
On the show I briefly caught a story which was about a man (from Rudgley I think?) who managed to get his credit card providers to write off his debt - due to a loophole in the credit agreements. I heard that he studied the Consumer Credit Act for two years, and then, armed with advice from the C.A.B took on the lenders and managed to get all of his credit cancelled.

I didn't catch how he did it - or what his website address was that he has set up.

If you saw the program and caught details of the website, please let me know.

I don't know if posting the website would break any rules - if so - please pm it to me.
Any help greatly appreciated :T

MPH80

Didn't see it - but you can watch the latest program online:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/midlandstoday/latest_stories/index.shtml

msaquib

http://www.creditcardkiller.co.uk/

CopperPlate_2

I've heard of this before but it always seems 'too good to be true'.

Just as an aside, skinandsad, I just realised that your avatar is Madeleine McCann's eye. I might be the only one who thinks it's inappropriate to have part of the face of an allegedly abducted child on a forum like this, but I can't say nothing about it and let it pass, sorry.

benf90

I saw the end of the report on the news but didn't pay too much attention to be honest.

Their website is awful though. It's been designed by an actual company but if I designed that I wouldn't want to admit to it let alone promote myself for it like the company has done (I don't design anything but just looking at that anybody could tell it's a complete mess).

It's poorly written aswell, certainly doesn't instill confidence or make you want to hand over any money to them. I'm reading the 'About Us' section and all of a sudden they seem to be telling me to complain about them to Trading Standards and then in another section they're telling me what liabel is and warning me not to say they're lying as they'd take action.

Maybe they've spent too long having people tell them they're wrong etc but it comes across very defensive on their site.

skintandsad

CopperPlate wrote: »

Just as an aside, skinandsad, I just realised that your avatar is Madeleine McCann's eye. I might be the only one who thinks it's inappropriate to have part of the face of an allegedly abducted child on a forum like this, but I can't say nothing about it and let it pass, sorry.

I'm sorry you feel this way CopperPlate - it wasn't meant to offend anyone - I thought any reminder/poster/publicity was welcomed by all those who hope one day for her safe return. If anyone else feels it inappropriate or offensive, I will of course, change it. Any views - let me know

skintandsad

Thanks all for taking the time to reply. I have now looked at the website, and agree that it doesn't look particularly professional - indeed it seems a bit defensive.

However, does anyone have any knowledge of the legalitites of what they are claiming - or indeed what they are really talking about by ABC xyz etc etc ??? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me???

Mozette

skintandsad wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel this way CopperPlate - it wasn't meant to offend anyone - I thought any reminder/poster/publicity was welcomed by all those who hope one day for her safe return. If anyone else feels it inappropriate or offensive, I will of course, change it. Any views - let me know

CopperPlate feels that it's inappropriate?

skintandsad

Yes, I got that Mozette - I asked if anyone else thought that too?

I am aware that you can't please all the people all the time - I thought I was doing my bit for the campaign to bring publicity - personally I think out of sight out of mind.

However, if the general feeling is that it is inappropriate/offensive to display this image - as previously stated, I shall change it

benf90

skintandsad wrote: »

Thanks all for taking the time to reply. I have now looked at the website, and agree that it doesn't look particularly professional - indeed it seems a bit defensive.

However, does anyone have any knowledge of the legalitites of what they are claiming - or indeed what they are really talking about by ABC xyz etc etc ??? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me???

I think they've just poorly explained it. They've tried to explain things without giving the full details (they obviously don't want you to know the full details otherwise they can't charge you the fee) but in doing this they've made it somewhat confusing and pointless.

I don't know what technicality it was. They'd be better off just saying that their credit agreements weren't produced correctly by the banks according to the relevant laws, and so in effect they were left unenforcable.

From rereading their site a few times it seems like:

1. They took the bank(s) to court arguing that some of their agreements weren't enforcable because of some particular reason. The bank(s) won because the agreement didn't contain a certain 'thing'.

2. When they looked at other agreements (which they claim makes up 75% of all agreements) they noticed that they did contain that certain 'thing'.

3. They went back to court and because the banks had won based on the fact that a certain thing wasn't in an agreement they no longer had an argument now that it was there.

That's just my interpretation. It's so poorly written that I could easily be completely wrong though. I can't see how they can claim that 75% figure either.

Their site says they only look into credit card agreements taken out before March 2006 so this may be some sort of indication of how they did it. The bank(s) must have made some sort of change from this date onwards, or maybe that's just when they won their case so they're presuming the banks have changed the agreements.

benf90

skintandsad wrote: »

Yes, I got that Mozette - I asked if anyone else thought that too?

I am aware that you can't please all the people all the time - I thought I was doing my bit for the campaign to bring publicity - personally I think out of sight out of mind.

However, if the general feeling is that it is inappropriate/offensive to display this image - as previously stated, I shall change it

It's not offensive to me. When the person saw that image they obviously recognised who it was and it made them think of her - to me that's done what you wanted, kept her in the minds of people.