Cap1 & CCA return

[tamadus]

Wow Busy day

 

Ok going to throw my two pennyworth in now although some of it has already been said by others. I apologise now for the length of this post.

 

NOBODY is trying to avoid repaying legitimate debts except the banks who have been making up to 3 BILLION a year from charging us unlawful penalties. This is not limited to charges on banks accounts but has spread to credit cards, mortgages and every form of loan on the market. When they are finally caught in their unlawful activities they deny it despite legal judgments going back over 100 years and push the blame firmly back on the consumer. They then make those of us who stand up for our legal rights the scapegoat by saying interest rates etc will rise to cover the cost of repaying the charges. If we dont persist in our legal and lawful rights they ignore our claims.

 

The banks are now running around trying to find ways of propping up their unlawful profits at OUR expense yet again.

 

The Banks (and I use the word banks to cover credit cards and all loan companies) have systematically flouted the laws of this country for years and got away with it. They talk about responsible lending and then penalise us with early repayment charges. They then bring out 5 times multipliers and 60 year mortgages. That to my mind is totally irresponsible. They consistantly bully the consumer and close accounts and post defaults simply because we stand up for our rights.

 

The banks have presided over the highest rates of personal bankruptcies imaginable over the last 20 years or so. They apply charges to suit themselves on those who can least afford it, driving them deeper into a spiral of mounting debt to the point where sevaral have taken their own lives to escape it. That to me is irresponsible and corporate murder charges should be brought against them in those cases.

 

I have worked all my life and never claimed benefits of any sort, I work up to 16 hours a day most days to see the banks I should be able to trust with my financial dealings rob me left, right and centre. One person in five is now affected in some way by the banks unlawful charges.

 

I do not condone in any way (as I have said many times before) not repaying legitimate debt, but I refuse to be subjugated by the banks any longer.

 

If they persist in acting above and beyond the laws of this country then they deserve to be brought to task and made to make restitution to the customers who line their pockets. if that means they cant recover a debt because they lost or failed to execute the paperwork so that it was legally enforceable then that is their problem not mine.

 

Barclaycard denied me my legal rights under the DPA, claiming the microfiche argument so I replied with a legal request for the credit agreement. They have failed to supply that document after several weeks. I am within my legal rights to challenge the validity of their claim. If the only way allowed to me of doing that is in a court of law then so be it. Liekwise I will challenge any other company who deny me my legal rights and treat me with total disregard and lack of respect.

 

I am not one to blow my own trumpet but I have an IQ in the higher levels and I run a successful company. I pay the banks a lot of money to handle both my company and personal finances. I do not expect them to treat me with respect, I DEMAND it.

 

Rant over till somebody else annoys me lmao

[Guest The Terminator]

4. ****** said...

 

I used to work as a stato for Egg, and although it wasn't the stated company aim, it was fairly obvious that a lot of effort went in to achieving maximum indebtedness. The aim was to calculate the maximum someone could borrow without defaulting - i.e. they can afford to make minimum repayments only. It was then done rather well. Sell 0% credit cards. Once the balance was run up, offer a loan. If they stop using the card, offer 0% for another period. Then another loan etc etc. If they don't default, increase the limit. Worth noting that minimum repayments used to be a lot higher (5% or more), but they were reduced to 3% meaning that someone can live to be 1,000 and still never pay off a credit card balance. Once they've got you in the trap your only escape is death, IVA, or bankruptcy.

Monday, June 5, 2006 12:19:45 PM

This was taken off of HPC(House Price Crash)

[un1boy]

Wow Busy day

 

Ok going to throw my two pennyworth in now although some of it has already been said by others. I apologise now for the length of this post.

 

NOBODY is trying to avoid repaying legitimate debts except the banks who have been making up to 3 BILLION a year from charging us unlawful penalties. This is not limited to charges on banks accounts but has spread to credit cards, mortgages and every form of loan on the market. When they are finally caught in their unlawful activities they deny it despite legal judgments going back over 100 years and push the blame firmly back on the consumer. They then make those of us who stand up for our legal rights the scapegoat by saying interest rates etc will rise to cover the cost of repaying the charges. If we dont persist in our legal and lawful rights they ignore our claims.

 

The banks are now running around trying to find ways of propping up their unlawful profits at OUR expense yet again.

 

The Banks (and I use the word banks to cover credit cards and all loan companies) have systematically flouted the laws of this country for years and got away with it. They talk about responsible lending and then penalise us with early repayment charges. They then bring out 5 times multipliers and 60 year mortgages. That to my mind is totally irresponsible. They consistantly bully the consumer and close accounts and post defaults simply because we stand up for our rights.

 

The banks have presided over the highest rates of personal bankruptcies imaginable over the last 20 years or so. They apply charges to suit themselves on those who can least afford it, driving them deeper into a spiral of mounting debt to the point where sevaral have taken their own lives to escape it. That to me is irresponsible and corporate murder charges should be brought against them in those cases.

 

I have worked all my life and never claimed benefits of any sort, I work up to 16 hours a day most days to see the banks I should be able to trust with my financial dealings rob me left, right and centre. One person in five is now affected in some way by the banks unlawful charges.

 

I do not condone in any way (as I have said many times before) not repaying legitimate debt, but I refuse to be subjugated by the banks any longer.

 

If they persist in acting above and beyond the laws of this country then they deserve to be brought to task and made to make restitution to the customers who line their pockets. if that means they cant recover a debt because they lost or failed to execute the paperwork so that it was legally enforceable then that is their problem not mine.

 

Barclaycard denied me my legal rights under the DPA, claiming the microfiche argument so I replied with a legal request for the credit agreement. They have failed to supply that document after several weeks. I am within my legal rights to challenge the validity of their claim. If the only way allowed to me of doing that is in a court of law then so be it. Liekwise I will challenge any other company who deny me my legal rights and treat me with total disregard and lack of respect.

 

I am not one to blow my own trumpet but I have an IQ in the higher levels and I run a successful company. I pay the banks a lot of money to handle both my company and personal finances. I do not expect them to treat me with respect, I DEMAND it.

 

Rant over till somebody else annoys me lmao

 

I agree with what you are saying here Tam, well done!

 

The reason these banks (used to cover the same companies as Tam) refuse to remove Derfaults etc unless we use legal action is because they can charge higher interest rates to those that have them. They issue them willy-nilly for this same reason, purely to make money.

 

I have 2 deafaults on my file, which are illegal because I never received the docs and they can't provide a copy of then, yet the only way for me to get them removed is to fill out an N1 form - they remove them then because the know they are in the wrong.

 

In my sister's case, she is a single mother and went over her overdraft - barcalys have been charging her £90 per month just for being over it. Her wages don't bring her back to zero, so they charge her again wach month - she has been charged £900 since June last year. So, as you can see, the bank have been making a lot out of her, just for adding their unlawful charges - it's absolutely ludicrous.

 

People ask me why the banks have got away with it and I just tell them because we all trusted them and thought that they would abide by the law. The things have realised from this site and my own research about how these companies have no respect for their customers and constantly break the law, sickens me.

 

So, I agree with Tam.

 

That's me done!

[un1boy]

IVA, or bankruptcy.

 

Which all practically mean the same thing!

 

Whay are IVA's marketed as not Bankrupcy when they both effect your credit basically the same anyway?!

[cadencealex]

Which all practically mean the same thing!

 

Whay are IVA's marketed as not Bankrupcy when they both effect your credit basically the same anyway?!

 

Hmmm in my opinion an IVA is a lifeline before bankruptcy... but the penalty is so severe that people hang themselves and end up bankrupt anyway.

 

Bankruptcy wipes the debt out completely and then in 12 months or so - you can trade again....

 

... with an IVA you can continue trading, pay a set amount each month and keep your home - with bankruptcy your home is an asset which has to be sold to pay debts...

 

... none of this is law.. but it's pretty much the way it works

[un1boy]

Hmmm in my opinion an IVA is a lifeline before bankruptcy... but the penalty is so severe that people hang themselves and end up bankrupt anyway.

 

Bankruptcy wipes the debt out completely and then in 12 months or so - you can trade again....

 

... with an IVA you can continue trading, pay a set amount each month and keep your home - with bankruptcy your home is an asset which has to be sold to pay debts...

 

... none of this is law.. but it's pretty much the way it works

 

I see. I wasn't fully aware of how they worked.....with an IVA you can't a mortgage until you've been "discharged" from it for 12 months.....same requirements as a bankrupt, that's probably where I was getting confised!

[cadencealex]

I see. I wasn't fully aware of how they worked.....with an IVA you can't a mortgage until you've been "discharged" from it for 12 months.....same requirements as a bankrupt, that's probably where I was getting confised!

 

 

Easily done until life dictates to you that you have to investigate each option thoroughly

 

We declined both options - a solicitor told my husband to go bankrupt and me to buy his half of the house out.... (yeah sure, no worries... I've got 100k sitting in a piggy bank, why don't I let hubs go bankrupt then use my spare cash)....

[Guest The Terminator]

Which all practically mean the same thing!

 

Whay are IVA's marketed as not Bankrupcy when they both effect your credit basically the same anyway?!

 

I agree. The monetry system in this country is a "shambles". OK you enter an IVA only pay 25% of the debt as opposed to bankruptcy where you pay "sod all" but there are other factors to consider like banks selling off debts at 10-15% of the value and you are correct it still affects your credit rating whatever avenue you go down.Now the banks are whinging about the number of people who are going for an IVA yet as I've already stated they would sell the debt to a DCA at 10-15% of the value so perhaps im missing the plot somewhere but wouldn't be more viable to the banks to reduce the debt to 10-15% to the debtor and save to costs.

[Guest The Terminator]

Hmmm in my opinion an IVA is a lifeline before bankruptcy... but the penalty is so severe that people hang themselves and end up bankrupt anyway.

 

Bankruptcy wipes the debt out completely and then in 12 months or so - you can trade again....

 

... with an IVA you can continue trading, pay a set amount each month and keep your home - with bankruptcy your home is an asset which has to be sold to pay debts...

 

... none of this is law.. but it's pretty much the way it works

 

Just a quick correction the 12month rule and IVA'S are actually law under the 2002 Enterprise Act.

[cadencealex]

Just a quick correction the 12month rule and IVA'S are actually law under the 2002 Enterprise Act.

 

 

I meant none of this is law.... as in... don't quote me.. as I'm not 100% sure!

 

I know that law is applied to bankruptcy etc... else it wouldn't be handled in a court!

[Guest The Terminator]

As the subject of IVA's has come up Im justing wondering if they are regulated under the CCA(1974)

[un1boy]

so perhaps im missing the plot somewhere but wouldn't be more viable to the banks to reduce the debt to 10-15% to the debtor and save to costs.

 

Ah yes, but if the banks just reduced it for you, how would they make sure they could "ligitimately" (in the loosest sense of the word) charge you extra interest....they would have to put something on your ceidt rating....also, HSBC own their Debt collecting agency anyway, so they default you and still get all the debt themselves!!!

[cadencealex]

As the subject of IVA's has come up Im justing wondering if they are regulated under the CCA(1974)

 

Interesting point - if I weren't so tired I'd google it

[Guest The Terminator]

Ah yes, but if the banks just reduced it for you, how would they make sure they could "ligitimately" (in the loosest sense of the word) charge you extra interest....they would have to put something on your ceidt rating....also, HSBC own their Debt collecting agency anyway, so they default you and still get all the debt themselves!!!

 

That's a good way of looking at but obviously they would have to give you new T&C, agreement etc which would have no interest attached to it then of course under what agreement it would be.I'm going to look into this.Could be interesting.....

[tamadus]

4. ****** said...

 

I used to work as a stato for Egg, and although it wasn't the stated company aim, it was fairly obvious that a lot of effort went in to achieving maximum indebtedness. The aim was to calculate the maximum someone could borrow without defaulting - i.e. they can afford to make minimum repayments only. It was then done rather well. Sell 0% credit cards. Once the balance was run up, offer a loan. If they stop using the card, offer 0% for another period. Then another loan etc etc. If they don't default, increase the limit. Worth noting that minimum repayments used to be a lot higher (5% or more), but they were reduced to 3% meaning that someone can live to be 1,000 and still never pay off a credit card balance. Once they've got you in the trap your only escape is death, IVA, or bankruptcy.

Monday, June 5, 2006 12:19:45 PM

This was taken off of HPC(House Price Crash)

 

That pretty much confirms what I have always suspected Terminator. That reduction to 3% triggered an increase in credit limits across the board and it triggered a huge jump in profits.

[Guest The Terminator]

That pretty much confirms what I have always suspected Terminator. That reduction to 3% triggered an increase in credit limits across the board and it triggered a huge jump in profits.

 

Thats exactly the way I was looking at it.

[mcuth]

Hmmm in my opinion an IVA is a lifeline before bankruptcy... but the penalty is so severe that people hang themselves and end up bankrupt anyway.

 

Bankruptcy wipes the debt out completely and then in 12 months or so - you can trade again....

 

... with an IVA you can continue trading, pay a set amount each month and keep your home - with bankruptcy your home is an asset which has to be sold to pay debts...

 

... none of this is law.. but it's pretty much the way it works

 

Yeah, I pretty much agree with your summary above - they both affect your CRA file in the same way. If you go IVA, it's 6 years from the approval date of the IVA. If you go bankrupt, it's 6 years from the bankruptcy date (no, not discharge)

 

The only thing to really bear in mind is assets and length of time repaying.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[julian01]

Hi guys,

This is a great thread and i have been reading it from the start ,respecting everyone`s opinions and such.....

But i have a dilema here.....and i have to say something.

 

Someone with the highest morals,unequalled integrity and absolutely the highest principles forced/offered me a way to secure and influence my financial future.

I was 16 and he was my bank manager, he sold me an idea that would stay with me until now.I am now 37 and struggling ,still, with the idea that he gave me when i was a child,to all except him.

He sold me the idea that credit would always be available to me,that this was the way modern life was going to be.Noone did ,or would explain the consequences of taking credit.Why would they,then ,as now the sellers are driven by money.

I was ,and still am stuck in the frame of mind that i,and only i am to blame for the ills that have happened to me.But this site is begging a question to be answered.

Am i ,indeed, the only one that is responsible...?

Credit is offered and given to individuals under a cloak of unethical practices.Noone,i believe can deny this,read the posts above this one.....People with insight into the way these organisations work have posted.

 

I have taken credit many ,many times to have the things i was coerced into wanting.I have received the charges,with no chance to contest ,many many times from banks that i held with the utmost regard. "i have to pay ,i have to pay them....work 10 more hours and it`ll be ok,it`ll be paid.

My life,my environment, from the day i spoke to THAT manager has been as such.And so have many others i now understand.

Iv`e had companies increase the rate of interest they charge me during my contracts,although i`d never missed a payment with them,this i thought was right.

Ive had defaults, a ccj and a repossession order, all ,but a few i have paid fully.

Was i wholly responsible for all this..?Were the defaults and ccj`s wholly or partly made up of unlawfull charges.

This site and all it`s personal stories lead me to believe that i am not.

However badly i danced,I danced with a partner,a partner that really wasnt interested in dancing to the same song.

So as i conducted myself properly,or to the best that i could,and in accordance with the rules,they,the champions of morality ,ethics and principles changed the rules.They are changed in their favour without any contest obliged to me.Or so it seemed.

I am now of the opinion that the contracts i have signed have always been partly cloaked,that i have not been given assurances that they will conduct themselves properly as they demand of me.

 

Any opportunity ,i have to retrieve some recompense for the years that i have toiled ,to remain part of the good credit environment, i will strive for. When they, have designed money making environments with no ethics or conscience ,an environment that is designed to catch the most vulnerable ,it is surely only right that we use all possible avenues for recompense.

 

If there are those out there that will use the information on this site to renege their responsibilities to the banks,i for one care very little.The banks have it coming,there are too many stories of corrupt banks/bankers for me to care anymore.

The opinions and advice offered on this site is still invaluable for those who are legitimately getting money back from the banks,if there are more ways to inforce the banks to comply then i,again favour this...

Fair or foul ,they are doing the same.

[alanfromderby]

Very well said....an excellent post and one that I imagine reflects the feelings of many people on this forum.

[cadencealex]

A good post Julian.

 

Problem with credit is, it's too readily available - there is no getting away from it. In the high street people approach us with credit card offers - in the shops we are offered 10% discount cards, knocking a few quid off our purchases in store if you take the card there and then.... it comes through our doors frequently... it's all over the internet. And people want to keep up with the Jones'.

 

At 18 I had lots of credit, it was brilliant. I always had the latest mobile phone, the 'money' to go out all the time, the opportunity to go abroad, stay in nice hotels.... basically live a watered down version of a champagne lifestyle on lemonade money! Where did it get me? Defaults all over my credit file - something I didn't learn about until my early twenties, and having to pay back all the creditors over the past few years - an ongoing project!

 

It's Christmas soon. I wont even look online at toys/presents. Everything I buy will be bought cash, and if we can't afford it, we wont have it. Simple.

 

My grandad (early 70's) is a chartered engineer albeit retired. He has worked hard to achieve what he has, and he did it without relying on the credit we rely on so much. A few weeks ago he was telling me about the 'lads' he grew up with in their early twenties. They all bought properties, started in two up two down terraces across Liverpool. They sat on Orange boxes until they could afford to buy furniture. Now they all own huge houses in the nicest areas, lovely cars.. and don't have to watch their bank balances. I looked around my house, 4 leather suites.. several huge telly's, several computers... consoles... etc etc... but we're broke. We've done it all back to front.

 

Well not anymore.

[Mike220359]

I think that people are starting to miss the point.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with tryong to recover charges you have paid that are unfair and in breach of statue or common law. What I think is wrong ias people borrowing money and then deciding that they are not going to pay it back. That is edited plain and simple.

 

I think that anyone who has taken and spent someone elses money and now decides that they want to try to get out of their responsibilities on a technicality is a deceitful, dishonest and slightly stupid and naive.

 

Even if the technicalities you raise work, which I seriously doubt they will, you will still be bound to repay the debt under common law. On basic principles of equity (fairness) the courts are not going to let these people take other peoples money and let them off without having to pay it back.

 

In some ways I agree with you, the trouble is when you have a credit card the amount you borrow is often swamped by the interest you get chrgaed every month viz repayment of 2% per month (Loyds TSB) interest 1.136% per month.

 

It is the applied interest that it is often under scrutiny whne the bank is in default, not the amount that is borrowed. When this is compounded the amount that you originally borrowed is peanuts.

 

I would respectfully argue that you may be a little naive yourself on this matter.

 

Mike

[Mike220359]

Wooppe I'm a classic customer!

[un1boy]

Wooppe I'm a classic customer!

 

lol, little things.....

[Guest The Terminator]

Two very good threads above and I agree with both.I suppose irresponsible lending and mis-selling of PPI can also be added to the list.If I know what I know now i'd most proberly tell the MIB where they can stick their cards because not only me but every member on this site has been "conned".Most of the banks make Del Boy and Arther Daley look like angels.

[Mike220359]

lol, little things.....