Panorama BBC1 - Now

[Bing o]

Seems to be about people racking up credit card debts and loans, and then getting them written off due to paperwork flaws.

Borrowed 120k, had 100k written off...

Had a cold call about this today funnily enough.

Compo culture all over again.

[PhilLL]

P155 boiler alert...

[ALawson]

It is amazing, but if lenders are going to leave themselves open to this then it serves them right. I am not condoning these idiots who cannot repay!

[f13ldy]

Amazing really.

Although I wish I could get that amount of money written off. I won't deny that.

[funkyboogalooo]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I never heard them say anything about £100k fees to Lawyers?

[ALawson]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Tonker I am not condoning it at all, and fully subscribe to the only borrow what you can pay back mentality.

The only point I was making was that some of these lenders are not being lienient to those who genuinely default on a single payment, i.e a salary missing a date or something.

The people trying to purposely borrow 100k knowing not going to pay it back are taking the piss!

[princeperch]

I like this law firm that has dangerous animals on their website. Very good indeed.

http://www.greenhalghs.net/thepeople.htm

Edited by princeperch on Monday 10th November 20:57

[MrV]

First couple played by the rules, PI55 takers but followed the law on what they can do

Second woman ,I thought this was a pretty fair point

Third guy yet another PI55 taker in my eyes

If you borrow the money pay it back

[chris watton]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

£100K is the norm for losing if it gets to High Court level.

[princeperch]

that solicitor from greenhalghs knocked the nail on the head

[Garlick]

His reply when asked why he should be allowed to do it? It's his legal right.

So knowingly borrow 100k and don't worry about paying it back?

Why do we decent people bother?

[Derby]

And there I was thinking that Greenhalghs was a bakers....!!!!!

[PhilLL]

They just said they owe 100k in legal fees. Maybe sell that penthouse new-build flat then? Oh hang on...

[sa_20v]

BBC pandering to the masses...

It's quite simple, if you can't afford something then don't buy it. If you can't physically live without it, get a loan from a highstreet bank - but expect to pay what you owe back.

I have no sympathy for these people. I mean come on, you're in debt, your business is up st creek, and you go to DFS for an overpriced bit of tat to stick your fat ass on.

What happened to social responsibility. It is NOT your money, you HAVE to pay it back - you have no one else to blame by yourself.

[Hyperion]

sa_20v said:

BBC pandering to the masses...

It's quite simple, if you can't afford something then don't buy it. If you can't physically live without it, get a loan from a highstreet bank - but expect to pay what you owe back.

I have no sympathy for these people. I mean come on, you're in debt, your business is up st creek, and you go to DFS for an overpriced bit of tat to stick your fat ass on.

What happened to social responsibility. It is NOT your money, you HAVE to pay it back - you have no one else to blame by yourself.

What he said - no sympathy here either.
I saved for my new sofa and paid with cash...ffs.

[skeggysteve]

Whilst I agree with most of the comments made on this thread I also think that if big business (HBCS was mentioned) can't get a legal document correct then they deserve all they get.

If I deal with a large business they I expect them to get it right. Is that wrong of me?

Also the presenter kept saying we all pay when these people don't pay back what they have borrowed - I thought it would only be the shareholders that lost

[mattley]

skeggysteve said:

Whilst I agree with most of the comments made on this thread I also think that if big business (HBCS was mentioned) can't get a legal document correct then they deserve all they get.

If I deal with a large business they I expect them to get it right. Is that wrong of me?

I didn't see this but I assume you're referring to badly phrased credit agreements. Though I take your point if you and a third party enter into an agreement that you both sign in good faith then to try to weasel out of your side of the agreement on a technicality is pretty scummy regardless of the size of the third party.

In reality the majority of these claims are now being met with the more robust approach of 'so you took our money against a contract you knew to be flawed? That's fine just return the money say we'll say no more about obtaining money by deception' .

[playerone]

mattley said:

In reality the majority of these claims are now being met with the more robust approach of 'so you took our money against a contract you knew to be flawed? That's fine just return the money say we'll say no more about obtaining money by deception' .

Not really. Law firms who have seen conveyancing etc dry up are moving into claims in a big way. As with lots of these types of cases its cheaper for the lender to settle rather than challenge it in court.

Anyway signing a contract that is not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act is not obtaining money "by deception".

[dickymint]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It was actually stated on the programme.

[sneijder]

This is how you get out of coughing up. Or, at least try to.