Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Ran Up The Debt Because They Sent A Credit Card To Replace The Store Card


Redcellar

Recommended Posts

Harrods credit card replaces store card, sent and spent.

Since the Harrods credit card allowed her to ring up over £5,000 debt she wouldn't have done had the tempting card not been sent to her. Not her fault since she didn't sign anything.

So where does personal responsibility rest. Are we all children who need our @rses wiped for us because we are too dumb to do that ourselves.

Probably.

I'd better add a quote: "If you send someone a card marked 'Harrods, go spend', the temptation is massive to use it.

"I would not have spent £5,000 on that card if I had not been given it, I certainly would not have applied for it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Harrods credit card replaces store card, sent and spent.

Since the Harrods credit card allowed her to ring up over £5,000 debt she wouldn't have done had the tempting card not been sent to her. Not her fault since she didn't sign anything.

So where does personal responsibility rest. Are we all children who need our @rses wiped for us because we are too dumb to do that ourselves.

Probably.

I'd better add a quote: "If you send someone a card marked 'Harrods, go spend', the temptation is massive to use it.

"I would not have spent £5,000 on that card if I had not been given it, I certainly would not have applied for it."

It's clearly all the fault of evil bankers who lent us money we could never repay in order to make themselves rich.

Now they have got all our money and the government are giving them even more

so they can keep on lending us money we can't repay!

Evil bastards.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid bitch, gets a card and spends on it then declines to pay it off.

These problems would go away if we stopped hiding the impact.

If she doesn't pay they should pick a saver and send them a letter saying they are deducting the £5000 from their savings account as this women (details supplied) has refused to pay.

Once stories started hitting the papers explaining to people that if someone doesn't pay the money comes off of savers, people might start changing their attitudes towards trying to get out of paying debt. This "screw the bank" mentality is sickening... it's not the banks that lose the money, the losses get passed onto savers, or if it's really bad, only the taxpayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These problems would go away if we stopped hiding the impact.

If she doesn't pay they should pick a saver and send them a letter saying they are deducting the £5000 from their savings account as this women (details supplied) has refused to pay.

Once stories started hitting the papers explaining to people that if someone doesn't pay the money comes off of savers, people might start changing their attitudes towards trying to get out of paying debt. This "screw the bank" mentality is sickening... it's not the banks that lose the money, the losses get passed onto savers, or if it's really bad, only the taxpayers.

Not to excuse feckless ******wittery but this isn't strictly true, banks make a provision each year for bad debts, which comes out of profit. Profit comes from various sources, in part the spread/margin between what they charge in interest to borrowers and what they pay savers, in part from charges, and in part from other trading activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to excuse feckless ******wittery but this isn't strictly true, banks make a provision each year for bad debts, which comes out of profit. Profit comes from various sources, in part the spread/margin between what they charge in interest to borrowers and what they pay savers, in part from charges, and in part from other trading activity.

why did we bail them out if they made provision for bad debt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to excuse feckless ******wittery....

I think you'll find it's the banks with the feckless ******wittery.

They sent people bits of plastic and let them buy thousands of pounds of actual stuff with them. WITHOUT GETTING THEM TO AGREE TO PAY IT BACK.

Now they want the courts to enforce an agreement that was never signed or even sent to the customer.

Insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'll find it's the banks with the feckless ******wittery.

They sent people bits of plastic and let them buy thousands of pounds of actual stuff with them. WITHOUT GETTING THEM TO AGREE TO PAY IT BACK.

Now they want the courts to enforce an agreement that was never signed or even sent to the customer.

Insane.

There was no agreement, the woman hadn't signed to say she agreed to the terms. This whole type of thing really pisses me off, I take a debt and I repay it but I'm a bad credit risk according to some of these stores underwriters :lol::lol::lol: . The bank is at fault and whoever thought it a good idea to send out a credit card before getting a signature of the customer should be shot. The customer who spent money without intending to agree to repay that money should be up on fraud charges. The whole ******ing system is corrupt to the core, I must've been brought up at the tail end of the time when parents instilled a sense of decency and responsibility for individual actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The customer who spent money without intending to agree to repay that money should be up on fraud charges.

If you give me £5000 and then come back a year later and ask for it back it's not fraud for me to point out that i never said i'd give it back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to excuse feckless ******wittery but this isn't strictly true, banks make a provision each year for bad debts, which comes out of profit
No, profit is what left at the end! The set some money aside to cover bad debt from their MONEY not from profits. They ensure profits remain the same by slashing what they pay savers.
The customer who spent money without intending to agree to repay that money should be up on fraud charges.

I agree - if you claim you didn't ask for or accept the card, then you shouldn't have been using it.

If you give me £5000 and then come back a year later and ask for it back it's not fraud for me to point out that i never said i'd give it back...
ah yes, the idiot defence. Claim you don't know what credit cards are or that you have to pay the money back.

Ultimately, yes the banks shouldn't have sent the cards, and yes the people shouldn't have used the cards. The people, however, knew how credit cards worked, and that if they spent the money they would have to pay it back. They could have cut the card up at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'll find it's the banks with the feckless ******wittery.

They sent people bits of plastic and let them buy thousands of pounds of actual stuff with them. WITHOUT GETTING THEM TO AGREE TO PAY IT BACK.

Now they want the courts to enforce an agreement that was never signed or even sent to the customer.

Insane.

+1

The card companies rely on slipping in agreement changes un-noticed but they went too far with this one.

The banks have screwed us over already, so I don't object to them being screwed back.

People might say that agreements are clear and people should read them, but I will point out that the law is also clear and banks should read the laws they are required to comply to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to moral hazard UK

...I am sure Harrods didn't mind, they got the extra business they would not have got, I am sure the banks made a few bob from the interest payments, the debt collecting company got paid, the court got paid, the bailiff got paid....it helped gdp, helped pay for the extra jobs that wouldn't have been needed, here and abroad.

Stop lending to everyone except those that can genuinely afford to repay....Oh I forgot the ones that can repay don't want to borrow money, they use their own its cheaper. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no agreement, the woman hadn't signed to say she agreed to the terms. This whole type of thing really pisses me off, I take a debt and I repay it but I'm a bad credit risk according to some of these stores underwriters :lol::lol::lol: . The bank is at fault and whoever thought it a good idea to send out a credit card before getting a signature of the customer should be shot. The customer who spent money without intending to agree to repay that money should be up on fraud charges. The whole ******ing system is corrupt to the core, I must've been brought up at the tail end of the time when parents instilled a sense of decency and responsibility for individual actions.

This incident kind of sums up the whole sorry personal debt debacle ... The banks were greedy and stupid for extending the credit, the individual was greedy and stupid to spend money that they couldn't afford to pay back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what did she buy with it?

Is it time for debtors to start repaying - Frank Field talks about measuring contributions of people for social housing - so perhaps it's time we measure (and encourage) contribution from those who f&ck other bits of the system too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the lady in question was sent the credit card, unsolicited and wasn't asked to sign any terms or conditions/contract I don't see how the court could have reached any verdict other than the one they did. What agreement is the bank asking the court to enforce?

As noted above, it's just like the bank posted five grand to this person, no strings attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you give me £5000 and then come back a year later and ask for it back it's not fraud for me to point out that i never said i'd give it back...

They weren't given the money they were given a card and then took the money. That aside, just because the law doesn't say its fraud does not mean the law is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why did we bail them out if they made provision for bad debt?

it wasnt bad debts that threatened them...it was "liquidity"....ie, other banks thought that OUR banks were going to default so stopped lending them money.

The money market is the day to day equivalent of a bail out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the lady in question was sent the credit card, unsolicited and wasn't asked to sign any terms or conditions/contract I don't see how the court could have reached any verdict other than the one they did. What agreement is the bank asking the court to enforce?

As noted above, it's just like the bank posted five grand to this person, no strings attached.

In that case there would be strings attatched, if I put money in your bank account in error and you spend that money and refuse to repay it you'll be up on charges of theft.

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1005023-can-you-keep-money-accidentally-paid-into-your-bank-account.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case there would be strings attatched, if I put money in your bank account in error and you spend that money and refuse to repay it you'll be up on charges of theft.

http://www.money.co....ank-account.htm

this was a loan as defined under the consumer credit acts

The bank broke the terms.

no fraud involved...indeed...the fraud would be at the result of the entity commiting the breach...IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this was a loan as defined under the consumer credit acts

The bank broke the terms.

no fraud involved...indeed...the fraud would be at the result of the entity commiting the breach...IMHO.

As I said, just because the law does not say it is fraud does not mean the law is right, merely needs changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.