Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Great comments midas,

We did the sums on credit cards which were 25 years old we have paid over 5 times the amounts spent in total on purchases and cash withdrawals.

I know now my debts have been more than paid in full. I now have a clear conscience whatever the law says.

Some people on here know the full extent of what was done to us and me in particular because of my own ignorance of the situation. I stupidly believed that all this "nonsense" (please forgive the word's usage here) about unenforceablity, consumer rights, CMCs and the like did not apply to me. I had pride, self respect and responsibility and would honour to my dying day my responsibilities which contribute to the destruction of my health and I was taken literally to the very edge of my grave by the totally amoral behaviour of the creditor.

I then looked at the small print. I then and went to seek proper help. I found a large specialist litigation law firm who knew what they were doing. Now I will reiterate there is not any morality issue. Our battles are not over, one is won outright and they will not face any court battle, skulk in the darkness trying to get someone esle to do their dirty work.

regards
Garlok

[midastouch]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Spot on Garlok!

Six times - wow! If some of those were not enforceable, have you thought of counter claiming?

I bet most consumers have no real idea as to the real cost of using these 'credit tokens' over a long period of time - I certainly didn't.

It's certainly been an education.

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Yep I have many times midas and it was brought to a head in the end with me telling them outright come to the table or get nothing and by the way here is the claim for compensation for what you have done. Here is the date here is the time.

When went to the real professionals, we told after they had investigated, pay nothing more at all, sit and wait with patience, they have been told go to court if they felt they had a case (which they don't LOL) then they get ambushed! Dont worry about CRFs they will trash them anyway, justly or unjustly, take that on the nose and when we have to we will destroy their case. That was all good enough for me. do you know that that all cost less than one month's payments on the cards and i now have written assurances from the senior partner that we will be defended at no further cost to ourselves should they ever try anything on in a court of law.

If, in the state I found myself in those fateful days of ignorance, I could get through it all I am sure with help from sites like this anyone can be guided through it.

I think that says it all really.

best regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I can relate to PB's post here as well to be fair. Guys, look beyond his opening statement to the last para; fine - he feels what you borrow you should repay yet let's not forget - we here will not assist those that just won't pay.

See this:---> Unenforceability Templates - Section 6

Now, the last para is where things start to come back to perspective; yes I agree sometimes with the best will in the world, your beliefs can go out the window if forced to survive. Ok, how abput this scenario, you're a die hard veggie - never eaten meat in your life. You then have a plane crash and All you have to eat is the wildlife around you, or you die if you refuse to eat!

Remember the group of blokes that turned to cannibalism when their plane crashed on the mountains.....

Just saying, it's kinda true....

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Yes Niddy the last para is fine with me. However when real professional advice was and is that you should forget all about morality when trying to resolve these issues I think that has to be taken aboard. I was told that the creditor will have no qualms at all about destroying you and that I had to get the mindset in place that there was no morality in this.

I had to be strong minded. The creditor was and is wrong under the law in our cases. I should never weaken on any front. Yep that is what got me and mine through.

regards
Garlok

[jen_br]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

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.

Peter

I don't think many if any people start out that way Peter. But the banks are like drug dealers... do you arrest the person buying the drugs or do you go after the dealer who supplies.

In this case we MUST go after the supplier, they are giving to anyone who can't afford and the bank KNOWINGLY gives loans, CC increasing limits to those who can't afford.

Who really is at fault here?

[jen_br]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Midas my experience was similar to yours... I came to this country 8 yrs ago, lloyds gave me an account and a CC with 1500 this grow to 18k in 3 years... !!

I got ill very ill and couldn't work (cancer) and then it started to tumble for us ... me not working and just buying a new house caused our bank balance to drop, robbing peter to pay the mortgage off on the CC.

Basically I turned over my statement one day saw "If your in financial difficulties please call...." So I called.

I was told to say that I earned more then I said I did... so was my husband we were sold on a consolidation loan far more then what we could pay but it sounded good because well the guys at the bank wouldn't lead us down a bad path right????

WRONG! We then were given this loan from TSB with 16.9 percent interest on it (Yeah looks like lloyds knew we couldn't pay back just from the rate they charged said the CAB)

So it brings me to today.

[billypre]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

If you borrow money you should pay it back where feasible and just..................but............my signature says it all.

[midastouch]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I don't think many if any people start out that way Peter. But the banks are like drug dealers... do you arrest the person buying the drugs or do you go after the dealer who supplies.

In this case we MUST go after the supplier, they are giving to anyone who can't afford and the bank KNOWINGLY gives loans, CC increasing limits to those who can't afford.

Who really is at fault here?

Very good analogy.

And as Garlok points out, it's not as if the banks actually lose any money here.

If you're really unlucky, they can get a charging order (secured loan) at 8% interest after fleecing you for years at the unsecured rate!

Surely there should be a warning on credit card applications that homeowners may potentially face that risk? At the very least, if they want a charging order, interest should be re-calculated at 8% from the conception of the agreement.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Lol @ Billy. Thing is you ought to add a post here with what happened to you, ie LEGALLY HARASSED INTO ACCEPTING A CCJ ON A SB DEBT!!

If only if only you'd never signed the form that judge would have allowed an appeal/overturn - buggery!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

If you're really unlucky, they can get a charging order (secured loan) at 8% interest after fleecing you for years at the unsecured rate!

Surely there should be a warning on credit card applications that homeowners may potentially face that risk? At the very least, if they want a charging order, interest should be re-calculated at 8% from the conception of the agreement.

best not go there, totally different argument!!

As for not costing the banks, well you know they too borrow the funds they lend us? But tough!! It does affect their shareholders which is good enough for me!!

[cymruambyth]

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

LTSB yuck.

I was suffering from a shock family bereavement working 14 hours a week and LTSB gave a loan for £25k and a CC for £12k in my name with no reference to OH.

It was for consolidation but at that point we were already suffering financially ....... I know I didn't have to accept, but when your bank does a financial review and throws so much money at you when you are down you think that everything is fine.

We imploded within 18 months and when I had a free review at a different branch they said that they would not have given any money BUT would not put this is writing.

[jen_br]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Geez seems TSB did this to a lot of people don't feel so bad now.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Seems they also can't produce a compliant default notice either

[Silverback]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hello Niddy!

As for not costing the banks, well you know they too borrow the funds they lend us?

I'd argue that, no, they don't. Odd as that may seem.

This is how it works:

• They encourage Consumers to borrow Debt into existence.

• The Number-Money thus created pops onto their Computer Screens, using the Application/Agreement as a form of Cheque that they "deposit" into the Account before "lending" it out.

• This is why the UK Money Supply keeps growing and growing, with little or no involvement by UK Government (97% of our Money has been created by banks and Building Societies, the other 3% is Cash pound notes and coins).

• If the banks were not so greedy, they would then live off the Interest they charge, as the "Debt" is paid off.

• The "Debt" is not actually cleared, the Number-Money created when the "Debt" was first created, never gets "repaid out of existence". No, it remains as part of the UK Money Supply. It gets added to the bank's bottom line as it is paid down (with Interest of course).

• The banks are not happy with earning a measly few percent on something they never had in the first place, so they invented a fantastic game called Securitisation. It really is money for old rope, and why a banker did not come up with the idea a few Centuries ago, they will never know.

• Anyway, what they do is they "Sell" the "Debt" to a special Tax Avoidance (Evasion?) Vehicle called a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), which is a more or less non-existent Shell Company every bank keeps in a little tin box in the Broom Cupboard along with the Mops and Brooms.

• The SPV is really part of the bank, but they pretend it isn't.

• The SPV "Buys" the "Debt" and then by the magic of banking, it gets chopped and diced up into "Bonds".

• The SPV then "Sells" the very best "Bonds" to their banking mates, and the least profitable "Bonds" to gullible Pension Funds and other investors, in return for a cut of the "Interest" the "Filthy Debtor" is struggling to pay back via hard-earned "Real Money". That being the "Real Money" they scrimp and save by digging holes in the ground, building things, or training to be Doctors, Welders, Teachers, Soldiers, Bus Drivers, Brick Layers and other similar real jobs that does not include banker, Politician, Estate Agent or Lawyer.

• The SPV hands the "Real Money" acquired via Securitisation straight to the bank as a lump sum, who then pays the fattest of the fat car bankers most of it via huge Bonuses. The rest the bank simply gambles via playing complex games they don't really understand on the Money Markets with other bankers. The aim is to find other bankers more dull and greedy than themselves so they can screw them and earn even more.

• The bank then harvests the "Interest" from the "Filthy Debtor", keeps a nice fat slice to pay the rent and bank fodder junior staff not deemed fat enough fat cats yet to get a proper bonus. The rest it pays to the SPV who pays it to the Bond Holders, starting with the bankers holding the best "Bonds" and what's left goes to the worst performing "Bonds" bought by Pension Funds and other similar groups who still think the banks can be trusted.

• The banks thought this Securitisation game could go on, and up, and out and keep on inflating, without any limit.

• So, they invented even cleverer games, called Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) that are so clever, no banker could understand them because they were all invented by propeller-head Maths PHds from Oxford, Harvard and Cambridge. In layman's terms, these are brand new "Debts" made up of other "Debts", which are then, in turn, chopped and diced and sold off as brand spanking new "Bonds". Some CDOs are in turn made up of batches of other CDOs, which are again chopped and diced and sold off as further brand new "Bonds". The bankers never buy these, they know they are bad news, so just sell them to wide eyed Pension Fund Managers who cannot see they are too good to be true.

• The whole thing, or so the bankers thought, was limitless, and could generate bigger and bigger bonuses. All they had to do was keep on creating "Debt" so their Global Ponzi Scheme could keep on pumping up. If they ran a bit short, they can always add clever Charges and increase the Interest Rates the "Filthy Debtors" pay when they stumble trying to keep up with the engineered spiralling costs.

• However, the banks failed to spot that almost every "Filthy Debtor" was carrying around a mountain of bankers and Bond Holders living on the back of what the "Fithly Debtor" thought was just a rather nasty Credit Card, Loan or Mortgage.

• The whole Global Ponzi Scheme collapsed when Bob the Builder fell over his Cat, and could not pay his Mortgage for a couple of Months. He stopped Building, so Eddy the Electrician ran a bit short, and could not, in turn, pay his Mortgage either.

• This set up a shock wave that reverberated throughout the Global banking Ponzi Scheme, because they both banked at Megabuck bank plc, and Megabuck bank plc had spent so much on Bonuses and Russian Whores, that it was caught short and so had no "Filthy Debtor" Interest to pay either its Gambling Debts with the other banks, or any of the "Bond Holders".

• The other banks then ran short, and found they could not clear their Gambling Slates either, nor pay their "Bond Holders"...and the problem Knocked-on around the whole world in less then 20 seconds, because the banks are all Networked with each other. Someone spilt some coffee on a keyboard in a bank in Tokyo, which didn't help the situation and added a few zeros to the problem without any banker knowing.

• Within a matter of a few seconds of the bank finding out that Bob the Builder and Eddy the Electrician had dared to burp on their Mortgages, the whole Global banking Ponzi Scheme had collapsed, and the banks stopped trusting each other, knowing their banking mates were all crooks like them, and clearly not to be trusted.

• They stopped the Securitisation Game, and stopped everything else too, just in case, because none of them had any idea how it all worked anyway.

• Selling the Bentleys and letting the Russian Whores go was not an option, so the banks called up their Self-Serving Politician mates, and told them to start printing Number-Money to make up the shortfall. Which they of course gladly did, because they were also not about to sell their Bentleys either, nor let any of their Russian whores go if the bankers didn't.

• They decided to call the problem a "Credit Crunch" and elected to blame it on something they called "Toxic Debts" to thrust the blame as far away from the banks as possible, and as close to the "Filthiest Debtors" they could find to deflect the blame.

• The Bailout money was used to pay off the banking "Bond Holders" who were otherwise getting very upset at not being paid. The other "Bond Holders" could wait, so what if a few Pension Funds collapse, that's not their problem. All the rest went into hidden accounts, ready to spend when the "Filthy Debtors" - who clearly caused all of this beastly mess anyway - had started to go properly bust in the resultant Recession, when the bankers could move in for the kill and mop up their Assets for a song...ready to rent the same Assets back to the growing band of "Filthy Debtors" who were expected to no longer be able to afford to buy a home of their own.

There, so, no, they don't borrow anything to lend to us. We borrow it into existence for them, and they then sell our Debts to pay their fat Bonuses. If any money finds its way back to a bank, they award it to themselves as a Bonus.

Silverback