384k Debt Pardon

deemy2004

Thank you M'lad

Lucky or what !

Okay the interest was extortionate i.e. £6k to £384k is extortion, but they should at the least have to repay the original debt of £6k

I think this sends out the wrong message, it may make people in debt think if they leave sortign out their debt for a decade or so, it will get written off ! Wrong message !

kevtrader

On the ITV Evening News the report said that the couple had already paid 25k. I wonder if that had anything to do with the verdict?

Kev

Freddie_Snowbits

Good, no more mortgage payments ever. Sending letter to Building Society Tonight

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Edited becus Fred canna no spill wirds!

Robert_Sterling_3

Okay the interest was extortionate i.e. £6k to £384k is extortion, but they should at the least have to repay the original debt of £6k

I think this sends out the wrong message

I think it is intended to send out a message to some lenders.

It may coincidently send out a message to borrowers to not borrow more than is prudent.

deemy2004

On the ITV Evening News the report said that the couple had already paid 25k. I wonder if that had anything to do with the verdict?

Kev

I stand corrected, they did pay their dues.
more so

They certainly need to pass a law to impose an upper ceiling on interest & penalty charges.

Say a limit of base rates X 3 APR = (14.25%) and charges / fees cannot exceed more than 50% of the original loan

Debt_Free_Chick

Say a limit of base rates X 3 APR = (14.25%) and charges / fees cannot exceed more than 50% of the original loan

They took the loan out in 1989 when base rates hit about 15% IIRC. So their loan was well within this suggestion.

They paid nothing for the first 18 months of the loan - not a single repayment.

There's more to this than the media are reporting and I would be interested in reading the court transcript for this case. In particular, it's not clear what the judge ruled.

The case was heard in the Countly Court so it does not set a legal precedent. And the Judge gave leave to appeal to the lenders ... so we shall have to see if they appeal. I hope they do as I expect that would be a more interesting court case

King_David_2

One of the rare occasions where I am on the side of the lender.

Make them sell their house, Your Honour!

chowster

I think thats a kinda contentious viewpoint. Given whats already been said paying 25k for a 6k loan seems enough without having to make them sell the house..or were you joking??

One of the rare occasions where I am on the side of the lender.

Make them sell their house, Your Honour!

Jen_Jen_5

There's more to this than the media are reporting and I would be interested in reading the court transcript for this case. In particular, it's not clear what the judge ruled.

I agree with Debt Free Chick there is more to this, however I am pretty sure it was High Court sitting in Liverpool and so it is a precedent - hence all the media coverage but as useual our journalists are too lazy to report all the fact clearly.

Martinslovechild

I'm off to apply for a loan of £384,000 which I don't intend on repaying.

See you in court ;D

Debt_Free_Chick

There's more to this than the media are reporting and I would be interested in reading the court transcript for this case. In particular, it's not clear what the judge ruled.

I agree with Debt Free Chick there is more to this, however I am pretty sure it was High Court sitting in Liverpool and so it is a precedent - hence all the media coverage but as useual our journalists are too lazy to report all the fact clearly.

Have to admit that I thought it was the County Court and not binding ... but I'm relying on the media, for whom I have a healthy disregard

The Meadows' barrister was on BBC Moneybox on Saturday. IIRC, he said that the case was won as the loan agreement was incorrectly worded.

The secured loan was conditional on the Meadows having no mortgage arrears. They were in arrears so borrowed a further £2,000 (added to the secured loan) to pay that off.

The Meadows' barrister argued that the £2,000 was a "charge" for the secured loan, rather than an increase in the amount borrowed. But (and perhaps not surprisingly) the lender added the £2k to the amount borrowed.

The Court agreed with the Meadows' barrister, on the basis that the £2k lent to cover the mortgage arrears was not a loan, but a charge necessary to make the loan possible (with me so far )

So ... it seems like a technicality ... t'would be dangerous to rely on this as any kind of precedent.

The recording from Moneybox is here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/3966033.stm

My memory may have let me down, so do listen to the barrister, rather than my garbled recollection of the interview.

HTH