stevie_b Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8282264.stm A decision by a county court judge could mean thousands of borrowers being able to renege on their debts. Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields county court has decided that the MBNA credit card company cannot demand the repayment of a customer's debt. It tried to force Lynne Thorius to repay the £8,000 she owed on her card. This makes no sense to me. She seems to have been let off on a technicality regarding regular payments to a 3rd party insurer as part of her Payment Protection Insurance (PPI). I think it sets a very dangerous precedence that people (in some cases) can spend as they like and have their debts written off. I'm sure many people will rejoice this ruling thinking that it gives them an easy way out of their debts. I think it's another step towards people not being held responsible for their own actions, another step towards moral bankruptcy to add to economic bankruptcy. The way I see it, the existence of PPI insurance doesn't seem to have much bearing on her spending or her ability or obligations to pay back what she has spent. Madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multics Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Good for her. The money market is unscrupulous and it does not rely on moral values. Also, it's not fair to assume that because the debt was written off or is ruled unenforceable that the person in question is necessarily an irresponsible person. Banks make millions on bounced cheque fees, exceeded overdraft fees, late payment fees and "other technicalities" for their own commercial benefit, so I don't see where the problem is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Without reading it, I suspect the agreement was quashed as the contract was unenforceable as it was missold. A lot of agreements with credit companies are being quashed of late due to misselling. There are companies who soley operate to challenge such agreements and get a % of the saving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 No. It's not because it's mis-sold. It looks like she knew what she was getting (payment protection) and how much it was going to cost her. The only information that was withheld was the fact that the Payment Protection insurance company was paying a commission back to the credit card company - it didn't really affect her at all. This ruling could have huge repercussions throughout the industry, as I believe such commissions are pretty common practice (although it depends whether the customer is informed of such, of course). It's certainly good news for the law business - I expect the ££££ are already ringing in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 No. It's not because it's mis-sold. It looks like she knew what she was getting (payment protection) and how much it was going to cost her. The only information that was withheld was the fact that the Payment Protection insurance company was paying a commission back to the credit card company - it didn't really affect her at all. So it was missold. It doesn't need to affect her, simply that she was not informed. Again I repeat my 1st post. Do a search in google: there are loads of companies offering the 'service'... even advertise on Galaxy FM Its a very popular topic in the news atm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 So it was missold. It doesn't need to affect her, simply that she was not informed. Oh, okay - if that's still classed as "missold", fair enough. Personally, I think it's a horribly bad use of the term as the customer knows exactly what they're getting and how much it's costing. Still seems like extremely pedantic reasoning to me - I assume such a ruling is just there to make sure the customer is given the information to indicate that they are probably paying slightly over the odds for the "product" they are purchasing. In which case I would say that: a) if the customer thinks it's too expensive, they shouldn't have taken it in the first place - they could have shopped around for independent payment protection if they really wanted. b) the kind of person who just signs up for the payment protection they are offered wouldn't have noticed the information about the commission buried on page 27, subsection (c- iv) of the credit agreement anyway! Again I repeat my 1st post. Do a search in google: there are loads of companies offering the 'service'... even advertise on Galaxy FM True - they're all over the place. Just another form of ambulance-chasers, IMO But hey - as long as the lawyers are raking it in rather than the banks, that's okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 *ahem* The Claims Guys *ahem* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 I couldn't agree more Snooze. I think she's just exploiting a loophole, which will make future credit agreements read like War And Peace. I also agree with your ambulance chasers comment. The debtor and her lawyers haven't acted against the law AFAIK, it's just that they're using the law in ways which were never intended, and those ways could make things more miserable for all of us (more expensive credit, etc etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J35_T3R Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Good for her. The money market is unscrupulous and it does not rely on moral values. Also, it's not fair to assume that because the debt was written off or is ruled unenforceable that the person in question is necessarily an irresponsible person. Banks make millions on bounced cheque fees, exceeded overdraft fees, late payment fees and "other technicalities" for their own commercial benefit, so I don't see where the problem is. Here here! Banks are raking it in, about time they got their fingers burnt for a few things! Lending to as many people and as much in the first place hasn't helped things anyways. In some ways, banks have themselves to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Couldn't agree more that the financial institutions have been screwing us for years, are partly responsible for the situation the economy is in today (btw - personally, I still lay the majority of the blame of the sub-prime mortgage market with the borrowers - not the lenders) and should, by-and-large, recieve their "bonuses" in the form of a shooting up against a wall. But! They need to be punished for the things that they have done wrong, not by exploiting loopholes elsewhere, otherwise we're just creating an even bigger pile of sh*t for ourselves - especially when we're just switching from being screwed by financial firms to being screwed by law firms. Law firms like this just LOOK more public-friendly because they are redistributing wealth to poorer folk rather than richer folk. Note that while this sounds like a good, moral thing, bear in mind that in both cases, the money ultimately comes from the poorer people. For example, like Stevie says - think through what happens when 1,000 people all manage to get £10k of debt written off like this? Bank X has to write off £10m of credit. What happens as a result? One of two things: a) Bank needs bail-out support, so the money comes from the tax-paying public - ie. Us! b) Bank funds the loss itself - how? From other lenders, debtors and more of those fees that you're complaining about - ie. Us! On top of which, where does that money end up? Answer - partly with the bank's debtor customers (the ones who are causing the bank stability problems anyway) and partly with the law firms exploiting the situation. Let's fix the financial firms, yes - let's put them back down in their rightful place, please - but let's do it properly, not like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Agree with you guys as to the woman exploiting the situation. Having said that though it is a good thing and a very clever government tactic for enforcement. The laws are there to protect people, the banks ignored the laws, thought they could get away with it, ran the risk and got stung. Giving the consumer the ability to enforce the law is a clever way of damn well making certain it's enforced. As for ambulance chasing, similar laws also apply solicitors. I have personally challenged cases with costs in 6 figures simply because I suspected the conditional fee agreement wasn't enforced correctly. Also, whilst on my soap box, the government has also introduced a new law re distance selling etc giving a mandatory 7 day cooling off period. Ignoring this makes the contract unenforceable.... Surely it's sensible to allow the consumer to enforce such things and are good to protect society. You would be amazed how many people are not as intelligent than the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Oh and these credit firms are mostly not law firms btw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Having said that though it is a good thing and a very clever government tactic for enforcement. The laws are there to protect people, the banks ignored the laws, thought they could get away with it, ran the risk and got stung. Giving the consumer the ability to enforce the law is a clever way of damn well making certain it's enforced. That's a very good point - essentially empowering everyone to ensure laws are enforced sounds like generally a good idea. The problem that I see is that the contract law is just so insanely complicated that there's just too many loopholes to be exploited like this which creates a whole artifical market for legal industry experts to exploit everybody. Where the flouting of the law has no real effect to the supposed "victim" (like in this case), or the law is just so damn complex that the "accused" probably just didn't understand it rather than deliberately broke it is where I start to question the system. The (flawed) precedent system of law then just compounds the problem. Also - the actual outcomes should be a lot more flexible: the credit firm neglected to tell the customer that they were getting an extra commission, therefore she gets her entire debt wiped out?! Surely we need a way of coming up with more "reasonable" compromises - different levels of compensation rather than just out-and-out cancelling of an entire contract. (by the way - I don't mean this to be offensive, as it may sound - I don't blanket ALL legal bods as evil exploiters, of course, and realise that it is generally a minority of the ambulance-chasing and now credit-chasing outfits that create this bad image) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Snooze no offence is bein taken mate and I hope none is being taken in return. The thing we need to try and remember is everything is done for a reason. The law says you can't hide commissions... The punishment isn't prision, castration etc but the debt isn't enforcable (ie the woman doesn't have a debt). I wouldn't worry bout the law being over complicated... It's very simple and the banks pay the best legal minds to deal with everything for them... The problem for them is that they think they can get away with things and In my opinion they should get get punished. The law is very simple to understand if you know of it (the banks will) but we as individuals don't. It's like all the people who moan about the ambulance chasing solicitors on the tv... Those firms are not solicitors but companys who get commission from solicitors for refering cases.... They don't advertise that fact but with the rules in place the solicitor has to tell u they will pay th a commission Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.