Credit Card Balance Transfer Discussion Area 3

smartsaver

And can we now put this to bed?

I thought it already had been. The words a life, one and get come to mind.... ::)

peterbaker

Well johnllew, I for one do not think this should be put to bed. I am the one whose words you quoted at the beginning of your last post.

I think that amateur legal advice beyond perhaps a reminder of The Ten Commandments is very unhelpful here especially when it implies that some moneysavers contributing to this forum have very likely done something illegal. And THAT is not an opinion which the forum should be reinforcing unless it has extremely strong grounds to do so.

How are you qualified to give Queen's Counsel style opinion on these matters? Are you aware of the mistakes you may have made in your analysis and summing up?

Galstonian

I am not a lawyer nor am I financial advisor. The post of moderator is voluntary and unpaid. My views on this are based on my own experiences, please bear this in mind when taking any actions based on information posted here.

To try and clear the issue up, I do not know if lying to credit card companies or breaking terms and conditions of offers is or ever could be illegal.
To suggest it is really missing the point, it is highly unlikely that anyone would ever have criminal or civil charges brought against them for this BUT it could easily result in a negative reaction from the credit card issuer, I assume this would mean withdrawing credit facilities.

Why anyone would ever choose to take the chance of this happening when there are perfectly feasible alternatives is also beyond me but that is up to the individual. I would merely like to point out (as usual) that you should read and understand the terms and conditions of any agreement you are signing. If the terms of that agreement state that balance transfers are only available to pay off existing debts then I think that should be accepted, however, there are many that do not specifically or explicitly state what a balance transfer from another card is for and you could easily take that to mean whatever suits your purpose.

If Martin Lewis want to step and post the views of this site from the horses mouth I am sure he will but in the meantime I can offer a pretty good guess what they will be: this site does not condone dishonesty in any way and certainly does not suggest that you lie to card issuers.

If you have an issue with this I suggest you take it up directly with Martin Lewis.

peterbaker

Sorry G but I do not think anyone is condoning lies of any kind.

It is the continuing suggestion that to execute a "balance transfer" which creates a credit in another account requires a lie that is so wrong.

It NEVER does so why on Earth did anyone ever suggest it did?

Now then all, have I misunderstood what has been rattling around in here under the general premise that "Some Ts&Cs do not allow you to use a balance transfer to cause a credit balance on an account with another issuer"? Or are some of you bent on further mischief-making which plays straight into the hands of card issuers collectively who might soon need new reasons to withdraw large credit lines to suit their political alliances?

MSE_Martin

OK

I've scanned through the posts above. Let me first agree with Gal - this site does not condone lying or fraud in any way. Loopholes are wonderful, screw them for every penny. Never break the law, it's not what it's about.

Lying to a card company about having a balance can be deemed as fraud. To be honest it is unlikely you will get caught doing it. However if you do - having spoken to card companies - the minimum is you will have the special offer interest rate withdrawn, the maximum is prosecution.

martin

peterbaker

:-X ::) :-X :-X ;D

Tharweb

Got a flyer through the door today for Abbey card.

Current cards elsewhere will soon be coming to an end.
Read it through and found the "You may be charged a fee for transferring a balance".    

Gave them a call, to clarify exactly what "may" actually means.    Woman went to check with supervisor - you are only charged if your other cards are within the MBNA group, as MBNA charge for the administration process.   As I'm with Egg, Halifax and First Direct, I will not be charged

I queried the "may" too this afternoon but didn't get a straight answer. So does this mean if I don't intend to transfer the balance to an MBNA card but choose to SBT into my current account from my MBNA card, I don't get charged?

biffwilcox

I'm afraid I will have to put my moderator hat on and say that if there is any kind of official stance to be taken by this site it is that the terms and conditions are to be adhered to and cannot be dismissed simply because you don't like them or don't feel like abiding by them.

I hope everyone's glad I started this one  ;)

I guess we have our answer, safest thing is to create the debt first.  Thanks everyone for your comments (excepting possibly the irrelevant shoplifting insinuations).

As far as I am concerned that is good enough for me and I will stick to a debt creation strategy in the future.

I must admit to still being curious though.  Breaching a company's Ts and Cs and risk having them pull a deal on you is one thing, breaking criminal law and risking jail is obviously radically different.  (Presumably with civil action for rescission being somewhere in-between).

It is only actually the criminal issue that I was interested in and it seems to be that the following points are pertinent :

1)  A companies Ts and Cs are not part of the UK statute book.
2)  A misrepresentation (that may be a misused legal term, if so apologies) is taking place, but I am not sure that it is material.  To elaborate, if I miss out my middle name on the form, that's OK; I tell a potential lender that I have £20,000 more cash than I really do, that's really definitely not OK; I tell a potential lender that I have £20,000 less cash than I really do (as is the case here)... and they still lend to me... hardly deseption of the century is it ?

Anyway's, if anyone knows the legal position you might save me a few days interest in the future.  If not I shall be sensible from now on.

As an aside, if anyone reading hasn't tried this before, the operational position of the companies is that they will transfer a "non existent balance" without a second thought.

Quite enjoyed this lot though, and it might even have changed some dangerous behaviour in some of us.

biffwilcox

OK

I've scanned through the posts above.  Let me first agree with Gal - this site does not condone lying or fraud in any way.   Loopholes are wonderful, screw them for every penny.  Never break the law, it's not what it's about.

Lying to a card company about having a balance can be deemed as fraud.   To be honest it is unlikely you will get caught doing it.  However if you do - having spoken to card companies - the minimum is you will have the special offer interest rate withdrawn, the maximum is prosecution.

martin

Whoops.

Hadn't read this before I started composing my monologue.

Looks like that's deffinative then.

Thanks Everybody.

peterbaker

OK. As you can see I have slept on this with lips sealed and some smiles, but with the greatest respect, there is something not good about the conclusion because it suggests that at the end of the day the moneylender is detective, judge and jury. That is not good for moneysavers.

Let's be nice to each other moneysavers. We don't need to be nice to moneylenders.

You and I don't lie intentionally, do we? No we don't. So let's stop warning each other so often in public as if there is some natural tendency to lie in us which is a known problem to moneylenders which they need some help with.

Let them help themselves if they can. They do it in other ways all the time ;D

Lying to a card company about having a balance can be deemed as fraud.   To be honest it is unlikely you will get caught doing it.  However if you do - having spoken to card companies - the minimum is you will have the special offer interest rate withdrawn, the maximum is prosecution.

To put my comments in perspective, I studied principles of insurance contracts in great depth years ago. So what? Why am I suddenly contrasting insurance with moneylending?

Well insurance is contractual agreement to transfer of risk at an agreed rate. Insurance underwriters clearly have the right to charge heavier rates for heavier risks. If the customer deliberately understates the risk then the underwriter is obviously conned into charging too little, IF THE UNDERWRITER HAS NO WAY OF SPOTTING THE UNDERSTATEMENT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS.

If the customer's misrepresentation does not adversely affect the risk, then it is accepted that no harm is done.

Moneylending also involves assessment of certain risks, but it is not insurance i.e. it is not contractual "transfer of risk". The contractual part is not about what the underwriter's risks are, it is solely about the agreed loan limit, the lending rate and the way the money with any interest will be paid back. Goodness knows how they decide their rates but since time began, that's been their business - take it or leave it. For credit card lending there is no agreed security so there is nothing else of significance in the contract. What you do with the borrowed money does not affect the risk. It is unsecured lending.

As I said earlier, I told MBNA that I had used a 0% SBT as a temporary mortgage offset. MBNA volunteered in virtually the next breath to me that they could not control what customers did with the money as it is unsecured lending. "In order to make you pay us back Mr Baker, we could not force you to sell your house" they said. "That is why as a responsible lender, we seek to set credit limits in line with income." Yeah right.

If the lender wants detailed information about the customer's existing borrowing then they press a button labelled "Experian" or similar and check it. In the same way as if an insurance underwriter wants to quote you a rate on your Ford Mondeo, he doesn't ask you how fast it is from 0 to 60, he already knows. If they don't check then that's their look out and in the case of moneylenders, if they do not check then they actually have got themselves into a position with their technology where I say they have even less protection under UK law than insurance underwriters.

What's the difference between money already in my wallet and money I get from an balance transfer enabled SBT tomorrow? Nothing. It could all be in Islamabad converted into US dollars by next Tuesday lunchtime and the original lender DOES NOT CARE much and the SBT lender cares even less.

Years ago, building societies were restricted, by rules governing their legal status, from lending for purposes other than bricks and mortar. Those rules were dismantled by successive bits of Financial Services legislation long ago. That's how we eventually ended up with Alliance & Leicester and Abbey credit cards run by MBNA for example where the A in MBNA stands for America I believe.

But many of us have been left with a lingering expectation of questions from an earlier age like "You are applying for a loan - what is the purpose of the loan?" as if it makes any difference to the lender. IT DOESN'T except in the lenders choice of whether he will rate it as a purchase, a cash withdrawal or a "balance transfer"! The lender otherwise doesn't give a monkey's uncle what you do with the money. RBS has even introduced the term "money transfer" to make it clear that money is money it isn't "balance".

Despite what they tell us in guarded conversations, the UK Credit Card industry has been guilty of hugely irresponsible lending for years. They have ruined tens of thousands of lives in the pursuit of profit and they have created a hugely open system exploited not just by stoozers but more alarmingly for international moneylaunderers. I say they are not fit to be detectives judges and juries on petty misrepresentations or anything else of importance.

Moneysavers, I say let us not give the industry the benefit of such an elevated position from which to commence their political manoeuvres right now in reeling in all that crazy credit. If we do, we shall lose money unnecessarily and that is not a moneysaving thing to do.