Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

[garlok]

Morality, the moral obligation etc.

How many times have we heard this from the FOS, DCAs, other consumer forums, banks, and even County Court judges. “You have borrowed the money now pay it back!”

Let us be clear on this, There is no “morality” issue.

I am certain that the overwhelming majority of people on here are not “debt avoiders” as we are portrayed many times even by some of those who claim to be our fellow campaigners. We are honest decent people who because of circumstance generally beyond our control cannot any longer cope entirely with our responsibilities. This hits our pride and our self- respect. It should not do this. But our creditors will exploit this to the full if they can get away with it and further destroy your self esteem and self respect.

I know this is another subject but the money you and I borrowed probably never existed in the first place, it was created at the stroke of an accountant’s pen the moment you took out your loan or credit card. The moment you and I signed (if we ever did), the income stream from it was sold offshore outside the tax jurisdiction of this country. Yes you and I were sold like chattels and the bank becomes a tax evader.

Once I am told by anyone in this that I am a debt avoider and play the morality card , they have lost the argument as afr as I am concerned. It is being used as a psychological tool all of the time. It is used to further erode your self respect and pride. Emotional blackmail. Examine if you will the financial sector, read the appalling stories on these forums. You will find that common decency, honesty, compassion and consideration for fellow human beings, help and support for their fellows are totally alien concepts. Therefore there can be no claim to the moral high ground EVER.

I do not like name calling when in serious discussion but my word-smithing is not that good that I can express what I want to say without some analogy. I consider these people to be predatory reptiles whose single focus is to feed their own appalling habits without any thought for the consequences to others. The reptiles of past eons have an excuse, they were programmed to do nothing differently, these people are doing it in the full knowledge of what they are doing, it is a fully conscious decision. Hence if anyone owns the moral high ground it is us. No one, particularly new people starting out on this rocky road should feel ashamed that they are in this position as many of us did when we started. Never succumb to this spurious argument. It is not our fault that the banks have failed to meet their statutory obligations. Francis Bennion (author of CCA1974 following Lord Crowther’s report) made it clear that should they fail to meet their obligations in full under these laws then it was right and proper that they should forfeit all rights and benefits due to them under the law. As a parting shot to this post can I be permitted to quote the managing partner from one of the largish litigation law firms in this field:-

“This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large, sophisticated financial institutions organisations, comply with legislation laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer.The financial penalty laid down by Parliament for their failure to comply with the legislation is that the lenders with the legislation lose the right to enforce the agreement.”

I would be grateful to hear others take on this as “mindset” is a very important factor in achieving success with the issues as we learned a bit late down the line.


Best regards
Garlok

[jen_br]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I agree with you, sometimes the banks and lenders have taken advantage of people that they knew could not afford what they were selling. Some should say the borrowers shouldn't have taken it. But I feel that SOMEONE has to be the responsible adult and say instead of lending I need to help this person guide them through their troubles.

The lenders didn't do that-- they kept on lending knowing it was going to end bad, knowing there would be CCJ's and peoples lives would be ruined.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Well if the debt collection sector cannot show a bit morality why should we.

Something else if I may not connected as it has been bugging me.

Is these country really in debt to the tune that this government says it is or is that one mighty smokescreen to justify there cuts.

It just appears to me if they really wanted to get this country out of the debt they say we are in clawing in all that unpaid tax from tax evaders will do it.

That must come to billions ever year.

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Absolutely,PF.

In fact very recently there was a Reuters report on this. It would seem that there is about £120billion pounds owed to the Revenue in uncollected taxes. Enough basically to wipe out the deficit. Excuse? It cannot be collected because the vast majority of it is owed by very wealthy individuals, the financial sector and corporate institutions and they might leave the country with their assets if the taxes were to be collected or attempted to be collected.

????????????????????????????

regards
Garlok

[roomtobreathe]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Morality?

We enter the web of debt hoping to keep our pride intact but a few days officially in debt and you soon come round to seeing that there is no morality. The creditors have a balance sheet. That calls the tune. You become a number on a bean counters balance sheet.

[jen_br]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Yeah thats kinda sickening!

Why aren't we knocking on the riches doors with DCAS for their tax. IfI owed a 5.00 IR would be knocking on my door lol.

Also, the amount that footclubs spend on people surely thats taxable!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

The following come to mind:
Irresponsible Lending and;
a Commission driven industry...

[Never-In-Doubt]

Niddy POV

Sorry for the late reply, am just sorting out the new template letters and find myself having a field day here quoting mis-haps from judgments.... so again, we ask the same question - is it moral?

Goddam right it is morally correct to STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS. After all, that is what we're doing - we're not "don't want to pay" but more, "we tried to come to an agreement but you were too interested in profits than customer service so the final option left to me was to check the small print......"

Point in fact here, if we didn't check the small print for something, anything - then rest assured if the role was reversed the banks and their super-powered lawyers would! Without question of a doubt they would - so therefore we are simply fighting for our right as a consumer, a layperson and most importantly as a human being!

Some of the quotes i'm adding in the templates give away some of the reasons we are doing this, take a mooch at the following little paragraph and see what I mean...

"Hayes v HFC, at Blackpool county court in July 2010. She successfully overturned a charging order on her home. Judge Bell agreed that the reconstituted agreement was not accurate. Then you have the case of Kotecha v Phoenix in which Phoenix attempted to recover a debt owed on a HFC bank credit card. The appeal judges agreed the bank had not been able to supply an accurate copy of the original agreement. In Murphy v Cabot the recorder, Nigel Clayton, found the copy of the agreement was illegible. Similarly, in Paterson v Cabot Judge Russell decided the copy of that agreement was illegible plus the terms and conditions were not the ones originally supplied. In both the Cabot cases they lost as they had clearly failed to produce a properly reconstituted document."

Now you may wonder why I posted that little snippet up here - to show you that banks, dca's and even courts do make mistakes. So sod morality, do what is best for you in your specific situation.

Niddy
:niddy

[Angry Cat]

Re: Niddy POV

Sorry for the late reply, am just sorting out the new template letters and find myself having a field day here quoting mis-haps from judgments.... so again, we ask the same question - is it moral?

Goddam right it is morally correct to STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS. After all, that is what we're doing - we're not "don't want to pay" but more, "we tried to come to an agreement but you were too interested in profits than customer service so the final option left to me was to check the small print......"

Point in fact here, if we didn't check the small print for something, anything - then rest assured if the role was reversed the banks and their super-powered lawyers would! Without question of a doubt they would - so therefore we are simply fighting for our right as a consumer, a layperson and most importantly as a human being!

Some of the quotes i'm adding in the templates give away some of the reasons we are doing this, take a mooch at the following little paragraph and see what I mean...

"Hayes v HFC, at Blackpool county court in July 2010. She successfully overturned a charging order on her home. Judge Bell agreed that the reconstituted agreement was not accurate. Then you have the case of Kotecha v Phoenix in which Phoenix attempted to recover a debt owed on a HFC bank credit card. The appeal judges agreed the bank had not been able to supply an accurate copy of the original agreement. In Murphy v Cabot the recorder, Nigel Clayton, found the copy of the agreement was illegible. Similarly, in Paterson v Cabot Judge Russell decided the copy of that agreement was illegible plus the terms and conditions were not the ones originally supplied. In both the Cabot cases they lost as they had clearly failed to produce a properly reconstituted document."

Now you may wonder why I posted that little snippet up here - to show you that banks, dca's and even courts do make mistakes. So sod morality, do what is best for you in your specific situation.

Niddy
:niddy

Agree:
Do what is best for you, in your specific situation!

[oscar]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Anyone that has read my threads in the UE section (particularly the Marbles and the "Oscar and MBNA" one) should now that I am very much anti bank. I never used to be, although I did feel sometimes that 'enough' may not have been done, but soon, as part of my work
and life experience, I found that 'enough' was very little (and sometimes nothing or ignored.

As it is said before (in some way shape or form) it can easily be argued about the morality of paying, but what about the morality of lending (to somone you know cant pay). I think someone mentioned (not directly) about bonuses. Its not just sales that generate them, its the collection when the shit hits the fan as well.

I think we should have a coup - an uprising - with NIddy as our leader!! Whose for invading downing street? (Afterall, we need a base!)

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Oscar,

The sad fact is we all start out pro-bank due to being feed the wrong shite and it is not until the shite hits the fan that we find out differently and learn from those mistakes.

As for invading downing street it looks like mr uturn cameron and his bunch of croonies are doing a pretty good job of that as people are starting to see through his bullshite.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I think we should have a coup - an uprising - with NIddy as our leader!! Whose for invading downing street? (Afterall, we need a base!)

Have a few advisors in government made up of people from the real world would not go amiss, just like Sarah Payne was who brought about sarahs law if it worked for her it can work again as we certainly have not a broad section of society in goverment indeed it is made up of a bunch of millionaires.

Sod camerons big society as that just equates to cuts in public services lets have ordinary average citizens as advisors then we will have a big society.

[peterbard]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hi
But Morality is an issue I am afraid.
Currently the government are trying to get parliament to agree to the recovery of over £2.2 billion in benefit overpayments to people on minimum earnings, people who are living beneath the poverty line they are calling this a unlawful windfall. This is immoral in my view.
In a few weeks the MOJ will be producing a public consultation paper, that will eventually lead to bailiff getting the right to use physical restraint and force to enter premises, against the will of the debtor to recover civil debts. This is immoral. Some of us are adressing these issues and fighting them on the grounds of their intrinsic immorality.

Taking money from creditors with no intention of paying it back is immoral.
You cannot have one side without the other if it is wrong for them it is wrong for you.
However

We all find ouselves in positions where we genuinely cannot repay our debts, then we must find a compromise, a mutually acceptable solution. if this is not possible because of the intransegence of one of the parties, then you have to do what ever is nessesarry to survive, at that point morality is not an issue by nessesity but not by choice.

Peter

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

A very very BIG thank you to all of you that have responded to my original post. I have felt very strongly for a long time that this argument is spurious and should have no place whatsoever in the FOS and other so called help areas.

I am in total agreement with Niddy and his post here and thank God for people like him who have had the foresight to set up areas such as this for us to air these issues and better still DEAL with them.

And help others along the way to also resolve their problems. The more we can weaken the effect of these "weapons" they try to use against us, the stronger the will of the new person to get what is fact their full rights under the law.

Again many thanks
regards
Garlok

[midastouch]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Great thread.

When I first was 'persuaded' by LTSB to take out a credit card in 2003, I had no steady income as I was a stay at home dad looking after two young kids. The employee basically said (I'm obviously paraphrasing), "you get child benefit don't you? Ever sold anything on Ebay? Just put down £5,000 a year"

Now of course, responsibilty is a two-way issue. I know that I should have told him to bugger off, but the truth is it should never have been offered in the first place.

My initial £1,500 limit in 2003 grew to £12,000 in 6 years - and my credit rating was A1 for most of that time. Of course when the credit crunch came and my marriage collapsed, were LTSB bothered? Of course not! This, the same LTSB that are currently 45 % owned by the public due to their reckless gambles - truly it beggars belief! Did we as tax-payers ever get an option to bail out these bunch of crooks?

We're being crapped on from a great height and we are morally right to stand up to this clear abuse by the banks and government.

I'm going through 6 years of statements, adding up my actual spend, and the amount payed back in interest and incidental charges. I'm sure the final figure will make for an interesting, and quite horrific, amount of money.

Keep smiling all,

MT