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

how would you change the law in this type of case?

Easy there was no agreement, so there was no loan (a loan being when someone goves you something in agreement that you will return it at a later date), she spent money that was not hers, she stole moeny.

Although you are trying to bait me, you must think it is right that someone has takenmoney from you to live the high life. Well one every minute as they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Easy there was no agreement, so there was no loan (a loan being when someone goves you something in agreement that you will return it at a later date), she spent money that was not hers, she stole moeny.

Although you are trying to bait me, you must think it is right that someone has takenmoney from you to live the high life. Well one every minute as they say.

not bait you, just asking what changes to the law you would suggest....in order to discuss the issues raised by said changes to the rest of the world of contract law....

The thing is, in this case, she was sent a spending device, a written agreement and a plea to spend....just what has she done wrong....and how would a law be framed to make her pay without fracking up the rights of everyone else?

Im not saying its right, anymore than spending £50 you find in the gutter. She should have sent the thing back and explained to the issuer their mistake...but the issue is that we have a set of laws and the players have to abide by them...common sense is not an issue at law.(see regulation of bank owned SIVs)

TO add...a long time ago there was a widely reported case of a person going into a shop where there was a display, and written by the shopkeeper was a sign on the display saying "please help yourself".

someone did just that and the shopkeeper called the police and the person was arrested and charged with shoplifting. The case was lost on the grounds that in plain English, the sign said to help yourself meant, to just take what you want. the sign should have said, please serve yourself...you will see these signs everywhere today but not the words "help yourself".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not bait you, just asking what changes to the law you would suggest....in order to discuss the issues raised by said changes to the rest of the world of contract law....

The thing is, in this case, she was sent a spending device, a written agreement and a plea to spend....just what has she done wrong....and how would a law be framed to make her pay without fracking up the rights of everyone else?

Im not saying its right, anymore than spending £50 you find in the gutter. She should have sent the thing back and explained to the issuer their mistake...but the issue is that we have a set of laws and the players have to abide by them...common sense is not an issue at law.(see regulation of bank owned SIVs)

Though the bank clearly screwed up, I can't help feel that she should have committed some sort of offense, even if simply by the fact that she took/borrowed money with no intention of ever paying it back. In fact, that could be your legislation right there: "To take/borrow money which, beyond reasonable doubt, you had no intention of ever repaying". [surely that is just common theft/fraud anyway :unsure: ]

If the bank deposits money in your account by accident, then you spend it, you could equally argue that they have been offered a "spending device" and a written agreement. That doesn't mean it is ok to spend it if you have no intention of paying it back.

The only question should be whether she had meant to pay it back but couldn't, or whether she deliberately spent the money knowing full well she couldn't afford to repay the debt as laid out in the original "agreement" which she never signed anyway. (If she didn't sign it, it means she never accepted it and thus shouldn't have spent the money in the first place).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though the bank clearly screwed up, I can't help feel that she should have committed some sort of offense, even if simply by the fact that she took/borrowed money with no intention of ever paying it back. In fact, that could be your legislation right there: "To take/borrow money which, beyond reasonable doubt, you had no intention of ever repaying". [surely that is just common theft/fraud anyway :unsure: ]

If the bank deposits money in your account by accident, then you spend it, you could equally argue that they have been offered a "spending device" and a written agreement. That doesn't mean it is ok to spend it if you have no intention of paying it back.

The only question should be whether she had meant to pay it back but couldn't, or whether she deliberately spent the money knowing full well she couldn't afford to repay the debt as laid out in the original "agreement" which she never signed anyway. (If she didn't sign it, it means she never accepted it and thus shouldn't have spent the money in the first place).

I don't agree. Some people are shopaholics and can't help themselves. They get a high when out spending so when the bank sends them any form of credit that allows them to spend, they can't actually help themselves but to spend it. In this respect I blame the banks completely for not finding out who can be trusted to look after the money they lend responsibly and to be able to pay it back. Banks should not lend money to people who have little or no control over themselves when it comes to spending money as these will be the tye of people who won't be able to pay it back. Its completely irresponsible of the banks and it could destroy a lot more than someones credit rating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree. Some people are shopaholics and can't help themselves. They get a high when out spending so when the bank sends them any form of credit that allows them to spend, they can't actually help themselves but to spend it. In this respect I blame the banks completely for not finding out who can be trusted to look after the money they lend responsibly and to be able to pay it back. Banks should not lend money to people who have little or no control over themselves when it comes to spending money as these will be the tye of people who won't be able to pay it back. Its completely irresponsible of the banks and it could destroy a lot more than someones credit rating.

Lack of willpower is no defence. It does not let people off the hook for one second. This isn't an either / or situation - both the borrower and lender need a good kick up the ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not bait you, just asking what changes to the law you would suggest....in order to discuss the issues raised by said changes to the rest of the world of contract law....

The thing is, in this case, she was sent a spending device, a written agreement and a plea to spend....just what has she done wrong....and how would a law be framed to make her pay without fracking up the rights of everyone else?

Im not saying its right, anymore than spending £50 you find in the gutter. She should have sent the thing back and explained to the issuer their mistake...but the issue is that we have a set of laws and the players have to abide by them...common sense is not an issue at law.(see regulation of bank owned SIVs)

TO add...a long time ago there was a widely reported case of a person going into a shop where there was a display, and written by the shopkeeper was a sign on the display saying "please help yourself".

someone did just that and the shopkeeper called the police and the person was arrested and charged with shoplifting. The case was lost on the grounds that in plain English, the sign said to help yourself meant, to just take what you want. the sign should have said, please serve yourself...you will see these signs everywhere today but not the words "help yourself".

Fair enough about baiting, I have the view that what this woman did was wrong, what the bank did was wrong and stupid and what the law says is wrong. The law should be there to right wrongs and in cases like this the bank was wrong to send a card (easily rectified, the woman sends it back) the woman was wrong to spend money that was not hers and refuse to repay that money (the courts should be able to make her pay either civil or criminal). As things stand, I have kept my own house in order and am being forced to fund her spending and the banks losses, they law is was certainly never intended to allow that to happen IMHO.

Any debate on the matter here though is irrelevent, I don't make the laws and am not part of the legislature nor of the judicial system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though the bank clearly screwed up, I can't help feel that she should have committed some sort of offense, even if simply by the fact that she took/borrowed money with no intention of ever paying it back. In fact, that could be your legislation right there: "To take/borrow money which, beyond reasonable doubt, you had no intention of ever repaying". [surely that is just common theft/fraud anyway :unsure: ]

If the bank deposits money in your account by accident, then you spend it, you could equally argue that they have been offered a "spending device" and a written agreement. That doesn't mean it is ok to spend it if you have no intention of paying it back.

The only question should be whether she had meant to pay it back but couldn't, or whether she deliberately spent the money knowing full well she couldn't afford to repay the debt as laid out in the original "agreement" which she never signed anyway. (If she didn't sign it, it means she never accepted it and thus shouldn't have spent the money in the first place).

+1, this is my whole view in a nutshell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough about baiting, I have the view that what this woman did was wrong, what the bank did was wrong and stupid and what the law says is wrong. The law should be there to right wrongs and in cases like this the bank was wrong to send a card (easily rectified, the woman sends it back) the woman was wrong to spend money that was not hers and refuse to repay that money (the courts should be able to make her pay either civil or criminal). As things stand, I have kept my own house in order and am being forced to fund her spending and the banks losses, they law is was certainly never intended to allow that to happen IMHO.

Any debate on the matter here though is irrelevent, I don't make the laws and am not part of the legislature nor of the judicial system.

I agree, it seems morally wrong what the woman did.

The law is not there to right wrongs, it is there to see that a: the courts have something to uphold, and b: a person wronged can be compensated.

Im interested to see how a law could be drafted to include what this woman has done, whether it would be a crime ( fraud) or a tort where a civil case would suffice with monetary compensation is supplied. Kneejerk laws have usually ended up with people suffering where to persue a tiny minority, the majority are severely impaired.

The facts are that the current laws mean this woman did nothing wrong....as proved by learned council in court.

Courts of course, can be stupid...take the recent amendment to case law for the safe keeping of a tenants' deposit...the ACT was clearly intended to penalise a landlord for not securing the deposit with the pain of 3 months rent penalty for failure to comply...the high court luvies didnt agree, and now, what should have been a very useful law is totally disembowelled with the "or else" penalty removed.

Its sad, but common sense and "intent" of the lawmakers is often corrupted by fine words and a wig overheating the braincells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though the bank clearly screwed up, I can't help feel that she should have committed some sort of offense, even if simply by the fact that she took/borrowed money with no intention of ever paying it back. In fact, that could be your legislation right there: "To take/borrow money which, beyond reasonable doubt, you had no intention of ever repaying". [surely that is just common theft/fraud anyway :unsure: ]

If the bank deposits money in your account by accident, then you spend it, you could equally argue that they have been offered a "spending device" and a written agreement. That doesn't mean it is ok to spend it if you have no intention of paying it back.

That's a different situation though, mainly becuase the terms and conditions of most bank accounts make it clear to the account holder that in the event of a error resulting in an accidental deposit of funds into your account then the bank has the right to ask for their money back.

In this case the whole point is that the customer did not agree to any terms and conditions. Whether deliberately or through stupidity they have managed to exploit a loophole, which if the bank had been doing their job right she would never have had the chance to do.

The only question should be whether she had meant to pay it back but couldn't, or whether she deliberately spent the money knowing full well she couldn't afford to repay the debt as laid out in the original "agreement" which she never signed anyway. (If she didn't sign it, it means she never accepted it and thus shouldn't have spent the money in the first place).

Why shouldn't she have accepted it? If a bank sent me a credit card through the post without me agreeing to it, and I knew that I could spend the money and escape via a legal loophole then surely the rational action would be for me to do so? Any corporations and/or government I have dealings with is looking to extract the maximum amount of cash from me for the least possible effort, so why shouldn't I do the same when the roles are reversed?

If the very essence of a capitalist society is extracting the largest amount of wealth for the smallest amount of labour then surely this woman should be revered, alongside the city slickers in Canary Wharf and chaps like George Soros?

The solution to this problem is simple, the banks should not hand money out to people unless they actually have a firm belief they are going to get it back. This includes a written, signed agreement alongside things like credit checks and affordability calculations. Of course, if all loans and credit cards had that as a stipulation then we wouldn't have been able to have the credit fuelled boom which our politicians (and some sections of the populace) so enjoyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a different situation though, mainly becuase the terms and conditions of most bank accounts make it clear to the account holder that in the event of a error resulting in an accidental deposit of funds into your account then the bank has the right to ask for their money back.

In this case the whole point is that the customer did not agree to any terms and conditions. Whether deliberately or through stupidity they have managed to exploit a loophole, which if the bank had been doing their job right she would never have had the chance to do.

Why shouldn't she have accepted it? If a bank sent me a credit card through the post without me agreeing to it, and I knew that I could spend the money and escape via a legal loophole then surely the rational action would be for me to do so? Any corporations and/or government I have dealings with is looking to extract the maximum amount of cash from me for the least possible effort, so why shouldn't I do the same when the roles are reversed?

If the very essence of a capitalist society is extracting the largest amount of wealth for the smallest amount of labour then surely this woman should be revered, alongside the city slickers in Canary Wharf and chaps like George Soros?

The solution to this problem is simple, the banks should not hand money out to people unless they actually have a firm belief they are going to get it back. This includes a written, signed agreement alongside things like credit checks and affordability calculations. Of course, if all loans and credit cards had that as a stipulation then we wouldn't have been able to have the credit fuelled boom which our politicians (and some sections of the populace) so enjoyed.

You're quite right any immoral person would spend spend spend, that does not make it right that the bank sent the card nor does it mean the law should not be changed to make her actions a crime. Great she didn't agree to the arrangement, what was she doing spending the money, the law should take into account her intent, and her intent was to permanently deprive someone else of their property. The laws are wrong in this instance, she was wrong and the bank was wrong and you and I are picking up the tab, YET AGAIN, I may well just spend a shitstorm of the banks money and not bother to repay, one of you lot can pick up the tab-thanks you're most generous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're quite right any immoral person would spend spend spend, that does not make it right that the bank sent the card nor does it mean the law should not be changed to make her actions a crime. Great she didn't agree to the arrangement, what was she doing spending the money, the law should take into account her intent, and her intent was to permanently deprive someone else of their property. The laws are wrong in this instance, she was wrong and the bank was wrong and you and I are picking up the tab, YET AGAIN, I may well just spend a shitstorm of the banks money and not bother to repay, one of you lot can pick up the tab-thanks you're most generous.

same could be said about Government.

they spend my taxes, they spend every penny, and when that isnt enough, they sell bonds based on next years taxes...spend spend spend and I am powerless to stop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're quite right any immoral person would spend spend spend, that does not make it right that the bank sent the card nor does it mean the law should not be changed to make her actions a crime. Great she didn't agree to the arrangement, what was she doing spending the money, the law should take into account her intent, and her intent was to permanently deprive someone else of their property. The laws are wrong in this instance, she was wrong and the bank was wrong and you and I are picking up the tab, YET AGAIN, I may well just spend a shitstorm of the banks money and not bother to repay, one of you lot can pick up the tab-thanks you're most generous.

That seems to be the way all corporations in our society work. Their raison d'etre is to deprive individuals of our hard earned cash for as little of their own outlay as possible. I find the very mention of the word "moral" hilarious. How many of our FTSE100/250 companies would have the "morals" to turn down free cash from one of their suppliers?

In addition, I find it quite ironic/amusing that this very story has happened due to corporate greed of the bank in question (they weren't getting enough customers in hock to them so they thought of this scheme to get a bunch more people in their debt, paying interest to them for as long as possible.). Hoisted by their own petard indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems to be the way all corporations in our society work. Their raison d'etre is to deprive individuals of our hard earned cash for as little of their own outlay as possible. I find the very mention of the word "moral" hilarious. How many of our FTSE100/250 companies would have the "morals" to turn down free cash from one of their suppliers?

In addition, I find it quite ironic/amusing that this very story has happened due to corporate greed of the bank in question (they weren't getting enough customers in hock to them so they thought of this scheme to get a bunch more people in their debt, paying interest to them for as long as possible.). Hoisted by their own petard indeed.

And thus by your logic this woman has done nothing wrong :huh:

'Why shouldn't she have accepted it?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yup. Regardless as to how stupid the individual is, it was the bank risking their solvency by lending them money.

Everyone is aware of bankruptcy laws and that people will spend money they can't pay back. Everyone is also aware what non-secured lending is. If there is no signed contract too, everyone should realise that they are on shakier ground too. Lenders should be fully aware of all this more than anyone.

The greedy banks doing this lending should go bust and the depositors who are trusting said banks with their money should withdraw it. It's the only way any sanity is going to return to the system.

edit: added a bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case the whole point is that the customer did not agree to any terms and conditions. Whether deliberately or through stupidity they have managed to exploit a loophole, which if the bank had been doing their job right she would never have had the chance to do.

Why shouldn't she have accepted it? If a bank sent me a credit card through the post without me agreeing to it, and I knew that I could spend the money and escape via a legal loophole then surely the rational action would be for me to do so? Any corporations and/or government I have dealings with is looking to extract the maximum amount of cash from me for the least possible effort, so why shouldn't I do the same when the roles are reversed?

Though the law (appears) to agree with you, I think she shouldn't have accepted it because her motive was simply to steal/defraud the lender. Call me old fashioned but I think outright stealing for personal gain is wrong under any condition.

If a bank sent me a credit card I didn't ask for and I had no interest in it I would send it back or throw it in the bin. I wouldn't max it out and then pretend to be some kind of victim.

She may not have signed any agreement with them, but neither did she sign an agreement saying it was ok to use it to borrow money without paying it back. How is it any different to finding a credit card on the street and maxing it out? You didn't sign anything, the temptation is there.. it's just wrong. Period.

The fact that the bank is also in the wrong goes without saying. Perhaps civilly she should keep the money, then criminally it should be reclaimed from her as proceeds of crime and given to a victims of crime fund.

I know that clearly isn't what will happen, but it's nice to dream of a fair society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though the law (appears) to agree with you, I think she shouldn't have accepted it because her motive was simply to steal/defraud the lender. Call me old fashioned but I think outright stealing for personal gain is wrong under any condition.

If a bank sent me a credit card I didn't ask for and I had no interest in it I would send it back or throw it in the bin. I wouldn't max it out and then pretend to be some kind of victim.

She may not have signed any agreement with them, but neither did she sign an agreement saying it was ok to use it to borrow money without paying it back. How is it any different to finding a credit card on the street and maxing it out? You didn't sign anything, the temptation is there.. it's just wrong. Period.

The fact that the bank is also in the wrong goes without saying. Perhaps civilly she should keep the money, then criminally it should be reclaimed from her as proceeds of crime and given to a victims of crime fund.

I know that clearly isn't what will happen, but it's nice to dream of a fair society.

It's probably under 'implied contract' or some such. While we can suggest that the person knew what contract they were entering into, they could still claim ignorance.

The best way to avoid such issues is to clearly explain the T&Cs and to request a signature to form a fully binding contract. That the banks didn't want to waste time/money doing this, let alone credit checking the individuals it seems, the banks seem to have brought this on themselves. It could all have been avoided with due time and care.

[EDIT: BTW, if you posted someone a tenner and they spent it, would you consider it theft? Even if you supplied T&Cs saying that you would be collecting it from them again the next week if they didn't want it, it's a pretty foolish thing to do.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they mean that she did nothing illegal. Never confuse the two.

It's a civil matter, and not a criminal one.

She could only be found to be liable, not that she'd done something illegal.

Anyway other cases will be heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though the law (appears) to agree with you, I think she shouldn't have accepted it because her motive was simply to steal/defraud the lender. Call me old fashioned but I think outright stealing for personal gain is wrong under any condition.

If a bank sent me a credit card I didn't ask for and I had no interest in it I would send it back or throw it in the bin. I wouldn't max it out and then pretend to be some kind of victim.

What if you threw it in the bin, possibly without even knowing what was in the envelope? Suppose somebody else used it - you'd have a card nominally assigned to you, which you had never asked for, never agreed to now with a lump of credit against your name.

This is just more scandalous bait debt offered by the banks - there has been no change in attitude anmongst this crop of crooks, bailing them out was the very worst thing to have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thus by your logic this woman has done nothing wrong :huh:

'Why shouldn't she have accepted it?'

Personally, of course I believe it is wrong what this woman has done. However, given that our whole capitalist/corporatist society is wrong, with every organisation looking to screw every individual for every penny they have, with their friends in the government aiding and abetting them then I fail to see why she shouldn't have taken advantage of the situation? Sauce for the goose and all that...

As I said, if any FTSE100/250 company had a supplier who offered a free line of credit which did not have to be repaid then that company would of course take advantage. To not do so would be a breach of the rules stating that (1) shareholders come first and (2) the responsibility of the board of directors and senior management in a company is to produce as much of a return as possible to a company's shareholders. Failing to take advantage of such an opportunity would represent a breach of these rules.

Of course, a company might choose not to take advantage of such a situation, but the only reason for doing so would be if it was not in their interest to do so (e.g. if they did this it would sour the relationship with the supplier meaning they could not do business with them again). In that case then the company should not take advantage, but not because to do so is morally wrong, but because it would represent a bad financial decision.

This woman has made exactly the same decision. She has calculated that there is more value in getting the debt written off than having to deal with this particular organisation again, as surely they will not accept her as a customer again any time soon (although we all know full well she'll probably be allowed a similar card in the next year or so if she applies). She has behaved in exactly the same way I would expect any corporation in our society would do. Obviously it's not fair, but then again life rarely is, and it would seem that making life "more fair" is way down the priority lists of all the major political parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you threw it in the bin, possibly without even knowing what was in the envelope? Suppose somebody else used it - you'd have a card nominally assigned to you, which you had never asked for, never agreed to now with a lump of credit against your name.

It didn't happen, and if it had, you wouldn't be liable.

There is also a PIN required.

The person it was address to, used it. The same person who formerly had a Harrods store card, used the Harrods credit card.

Laura Ashley wrote to my sister last year, informing her the store card was changing to a credit card. Probably as with similar changes at with other stores. (She only makes the occasional purchase, but I don't like her shopping there, especially not on credit, but she earns more than I do; if I see a new item at her place I ask her if she's been 'out on the lash' again). They gave her notice. It requires a PIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you threw it in the bin, possibly without even knowing what was in the envelope? Suppose somebody else used it - you'd have a card nominally assigned to you, which you had never asked for, never agreed to now with a lump of credit against your name.

This is just more scandalous bait debt offered by the banks - there has been no change in attitude anmongst this crop of crooks, bailing them out was the very worst thing to have happened.

I would argue that the person who used it is in the wrong (the one who went through your bins). Assuming that they had managed to steal the pin number as well (and/or completed the security questions usually required for online shopping), then I would have thought that the delivery address should go some way to prove who the guilty party was.

Either way you would have a much better case than "I thought it was a present from the banks so I spent it. Never crossed my mind I would have to pay it back".

Though, apparently a better case is not really needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you send someone a card marked 'Harrods, go spend', the temptation is massive to use it.

Why do they bother classifying us as adults if this is peoples mindset. The word 'responsibility' simply is'nt in their vocabulary

Im sure the temptation for most men when they see a scantily clad young woman is massive too...

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.