BananaMan Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 If you are properly offshore and live aboard ship you can avoid tax altogether... Only if youre away more then 9 months a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buyerbeware Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 This guy had 37k pounds on a credit card debit and why he was refused his mortgage in 2003. how did he manage that if he was already black listed from the 1500 pound computer hp in 1997? Anyway he is fighting a noble fight and many will benefit if he wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buyerbeware Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 If youre contracting youll make 400-500 a day for an OK job offshore. If you are employed then wages seem to be around 75K per year which after tax etc... isnt a great deal once tax has been taken off. The days of people offshore earning silly money have long gone. 400 to 500 hundred a day isn't much and typical of a senior position professional engineer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMan Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 400 to 500 hundred a day isn't much and typical of a senior position professional engineer. In the Mail it says he is a Offshore Construction Surveyor. A quick search on indeed.co.uk brings 9 jobs over 70K http://www.indeed.co.uk/jobs?q=+offshore+construction+surveyor&l= Unless youre doing a job that only a few are qualified to do the wages aren't that great. Maybe 500-600 a day is closer for the better qualified, go to Kazakhstan and such dreadful places and youll earn more, the Middle East is now all Indians hence the wages out there arenr the greatest if you can get a job that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little fish Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 http://www.theguardi...k-supreme-court An interesting case, what happened to the money PC World got from HFC bank for the laptop? Someone must have had the outstanding balance? Is there more to this case than is being presented? Here's more background info. Richard also posts at CAG fairly regularly and is @Judge_Rico on Twitter. I have been following this case for years and am delighted that he is getting somewhere now. Similar to this happens regularly in the UK - I just hope some common sense prevails this time- reckon he deserves it. http://www.scotcourt...2010CSIH49.html http://www.scotcourt...ns/A187_04.html Petition if anybody is interested http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43459.html edited to add link http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html' rel="external nofollow"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 They do, and I just love the way that firms treat their customers this way. Indeed their first line of attack seems to be a threat to blacken your credit history. Just pay cash for stuff, if you can't afford it, don't buy! A few points: First, few people can buy a house for cash. Most will need credit. Second, Landlords may check credit records and refuse to let to you on the basis of a bad record. Third, credit cards are incredibly useful and if you are travelling a lot - booking hotel rooms, renting cars etc - then you will find it very difficult to get by without one. Fourth, a poor credit record may affect your chances of pursuing a successful career in a number of professions (eg. financial, legal). Fifth, employers are becoming ever more probing into the private affairs of potential employees and in the not too distant future a bad credit record may affect your employment chances in the general market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 A few points: First, few people can buy a house for cash. Most will need credit. Second, Landlords may check credit records and refuse to let to you on the basis of a bad record. Third, credit cards are incredibly useful and if you are travelling a lot - booking hotel rooms, renting cars etc - then you will find it very difficult to get by without one. Fourth, a poor credit record may affect your chances of pursuing a successful career in a number of professions (eg. financial, legal). Fifth, employers are becoming ever more probing into the private affairs of potential employees and in the not too distant future a bad credit record may affect your employment chances in the general market. A lot of that backing up my saying the credit rating agencies need to be careful. If you didn't get a job because of an incorrect bad credit reference then you can sue for damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankus Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 What usually happens , when deposits are cancelled and refunded , its done by reversing the original agreement ,thus cancelling the credit . What looks like what happened is the the "deposit " was rung up as in "in gratis" expense ,possibly by HO ,to save the cost of a legal action , which did not account for any transfer of stock or change the status of the initial sale . The branch would have received a credit for the sale and a stock reduction of 1 laptop on the branches stock file at the time of purchase . If he had left the computer there it would have to have been isolated in the branches secure stock cage and labeled to make sure it was not added to the branches stock file during stock counts and audits .As far as the finance company would have been concerned the sale is still valid and the debt is their concern until that agreement is physically reversed in the original branches till. Should done in the presence of the customer and signed and countersigned by both sides that the refund is complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 They do, and I just love the way that firms treat their customers this way. Indeed their first line of attack seems to be a threat to blacken your credit history. Just pay cash for stuff, if you can't afford it, don't buy! Why I walked away, they threatened me with blackening my credit record and after some conversational runaround I got the to admit they had already done that anyway. I am a much better person for having done this. In every way, most of all economically, no more shit I don't need or even really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 And there was me thinking that the consumer credit act 1974 had a 14 day cooling off period. I'd have thought that his claim for the money back was legitimate enough for the agreement to be cancelled as soon as he'd returned the laptop. Unless this doesn't apply in Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtickle Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 My credit rating is 999 (theoretical maximum) and I have had no loans and only debit/charge cards for the last 10 years or so. There is no such thing as a "credit rating" in the UK. Experian and Equifax only hold raw data of payments and balances. Any organisation doing a search has its own method of deciding how to use that information and their own "scoring" method which not only varies between lenders, but they won't share their methods or their results with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Here's more background info. Richard also posts at CAG fairly regularly and is @Judge_Rico on Twitter. I have been following this case for years and am delighted that he is getting somewhere now. Similar to this happens regularly in the UK - I just hope some common sense prevails this time- reckon he deserves it. http://www.scotcourt...2010CSIH49.html http://www.scotcourt...ns/A187_04.html Thanks for posting those links. The key legal point that made into into the press when the appeal judgement was made was a lender does not have to cancel a loan used for a purchase, if the purchaser subsequently rescinds the purchase. This guy had argued that Section 75 of the consumer credit act 1974 made the lender jointly liable for any deficiency of the goods (same section that makes credit card lenders liable for goods bought on a credit card). The appeal court judge argued that this did not apply in this case, based upon some very pedantic arguments as to the precise phrasing of the law. The result was that rejecting the laptop and cancelling the sale meant that the loan agreement could continue and the lender was right to report it as a default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jemmybutton Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 They do, and I just love the way that firms treat their customers this way. Indeed their first line of attack seems to be a threat to blacken your credit history. Just pay cash for stuff, if you can't afford it, don't buy! I have a debit card and that's all. I got rid of my credit cards about 2 years ago. I hate the damned things. I could not care less about my credit rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 The key legal point that made into into the press when the appeal judgement was made was a lender does not have to cancel a loan used for a purchase, if the purchaser subsequently rescinds the purchase. The appeal court judge argued that this did not apply in this case, based upon some very pedantic arguments as to the precise phrasing of the law. The result was that rejecting the laptop and cancelling the sale meant that the loan agreement could continue and the lender was right to report it as a default. A further illustration that the law is an ass. The decision seems to fly in the face of common sense. The loan was to purchase a laptop which did not meet the requirements of the buyer as specifically made known to the seller. The small claims court agreed and ordered the seller to allow the purchaser to rescind the contract and return the deposit paid. Surely you would think that the seller should not accept payment from the finance house and effectively cancel the loan. Clearly that was what the buyer thought would and should happen. As do I. Seems to me that PC World's incompetence led to them fraudulently accepting payment from the finance house and that they should be responsible for the damage that followed. Perhaps the quantum was excessive, but not the principle. I really can't follow the appeal court's logic in deciding otherwise. Perhaps HSBC bunged the judge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 The credit-taker is perfectly at liberty to cancel any agreement within 14 days since the credit agreement is between him and the credit giver. The rational response of any retailer under these circumstances is to accept the goods back, provided they're in original condition, and refund any deposit. PC world is clearly at fault here but then so is the consumer, for not being aware of his rights under the consumer credit act and for mistakenly believing that it was PC world that was extending him credit. In effect, it's like paying a retailer with a bundle of money that's attached to a fishing line for two weeks. I have the right to yank back that money within 14 days of making the credit agreement. I would then return the goods or make alternative payment arrangements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 A further illustration that the law is an ass. The decision seems to fly in the face of common sense. The loan was to purchase a laptop which did not meet the requirements of the buyer as specifically made known to the seller. The small claims court agreed and ordered the seller to allow the purchaser to rescind the contract and return the deposit paid. Surely you would think that the seller should not accept payment from the finance house and effectively cancel the loan. Clearly that was what the buyer thought would and should happen. As do I. Seems to me that PC World's incompetence led to them fraudulently accepting payment from the finance house and that they should be responsible for the damage that followed. Perhaps the quantum was excessive, but not the principle. I really can't follow the appeal court's logic in deciding otherwise. Perhaps HSBC bunged the judge? the finance would have been paid to PC World...the loan should have been repaid by them when it was cancelled. Im sure the law has changed since this contract was fouled up to reflect the circumstance. The Consumer credit act was changed to reflect the changing lending market and added many types of loan purchases made in this way...some things this doesnt apply to, even credit cards....for example, to get the protection, your card had to be issued after a certain date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disenfranchised Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I hope he wins the case, the downstream impacts to those with a single recorded default are out of all proportion. A personal example: A friend started working for Barclays and was told her wages had to be paid into a staff account, so she had no choice but to open one. Her previous account with HSBC had a higher overdraft than Barclays were willing to set up, so she was unable to close that account straight away. As soon as she stopped using the HSBC account, they started to pursue recovery of the outstanding overdraft for about £900. She did not have £900 to give them, and made a naive mistake in that, rather than try to negotiate, she ignored the issue for a couple of months. Naturally, they heaped a few charges on, which took it over the limit, then a couple of hundred quids worth of interest and bank charges on top of that. At this point, she asked for my advice, so I took her to the branch to discuss it. They refunded the vast majority of the charges and agreed a structured repayment (low interest loan), which she eventually paid off a few months early. I thought this was the end if it, but no... several years later, she applied for a job with RBS, and failed the vetting process due to the single default HSBC had recorded on her file for this incident 5 years previously. This girl was 18 when she took out the overdraft, defaulted once, then paid everything back (and then some), and yet was denied employment in the industry 5 years later as a result. Conclusion: don't use credit facilities & never think that the banking industry is any more than an amoral cesspit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I hope he wins the case, the downstream impacts to those with a single recorded default are out of all proportion. A personal example: A friend started working for Barclays and was told her wages had to be paid into a staff account, so she had no choice but to open one. Her previous account with HSBC had a higher overdraft than Barclays were willing to set up, so she was unable to close that account straight away. As soon as she stopped using the HSBC account, they started to pursue recovery of the outstanding overdraft for about £900. She did not have £900 to give them, and made a naive mistake in that, rather than try to negotiate, she ignored the issue for a couple of months. Naturally, they heaped a few charges on, which took it over the limit, then a couple of hundred quids worth of interest and bank charges on top of that. At this point, she asked for my advice, so I took her to the branch to discuss it. They refunded the vast majority of the charges and agreed a structured repayment (low interest loan), which she eventually paid off a few months early. I thought this was the end if it, but no... several years later, she applied for a job with RBS, and failed the vetting process due to the single default HSBC had recorded on her file for this incident 5 years previously. This girl was 18 when she took out the overdraft, defaulted once, then paid everything back (and then some), and yet was denied employment in the industry 5 years later as a result. Conclusion: don't use credit facilities & never think that the banking industry is any more than an amoral cesspit. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 A further illustration that the law is an ass. The decision seems to fly in the face of common sense. The loan was to purchase a laptop which did not meet the requirements of the buyer as specifically made known to the seller. The small claims court agreed and ordered the seller to allow the purchaser to rescind the contract and return the deposit paid. Surely you would think that the seller should not accept payment from the finance house and effectively cancel the loan. Clearly that was what the buyer thought would and should happen. As do I. The point made by the appeal judge was that the consumer credit act 1974 meant that the lender WAS jointly liable for any deficiency in the laptop - in the same way as it would be if it was a credit card purchase. If the buyer had claimed from the lender that the laptop was defective and not fit for purpose, then they (or PC world) would have been required to replace it. However, the point the judge made was that the protections in the CCA were only there to protect against non-delivery or defective goods. There was then a lot of pedantic arguing over the meaning of words, ending with the decision that the wording of the act was meaningless if the sale was rejected by the purchaser. The conclusion was that in the case of the purchaser rescinding the purchase, then the protections in the CCA are lost, and the purchaser remains liable for all the conditions of the loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 The point made by the appeal judge was that the consumer credit act 1974 meant that the lender WAS jointly liable for any deficiency in the laptop - in the same way as it would be if it was a credit card purchase. If the buyer had claimed from the lender that the laptop was defective and not fit for purpose, then they (or PC world) would have been required to replace it. However, the point the judge made was that the protections in the CCA were only there to protect against non-delivery or defective goods. There was then a lot of pedantic arguing over the meaning of words, ending with the decision that the wording of the act was meaningless if the sale was rejected by the purchaser. The conclusion was that in the case of the purchaser rescinding the purchase, then the protections in the CCA are lost, and the purchaser remains liable for all the conditions of the loan. The Court of Appeal judgement seems, IMHO, to have ignored a crucial point. If the buyer rescinded the contract and the seller accepted the rescission, even if only later when compelled to by a court judgement, then the seller should have cancelled the credit agreement and repaid to its associated finance house any amount they had paid to it in respect of the purchase. Any interest should therefore be payable by them either direct to the finance house or as damages to the purchaser. This loss would stem directly from the breach of contract and would not be too remote to be considered an unforeseen consequence. In effect if the purchase contract rescinded then the loan should be annulled. Any costs incurred by the finance house should be recoverable from the party at fault, i.e. the seller. How anything as simple as this should lead to an argument shortly to be concluded in the House of Lords beggars belief. The Scottish appeal court judge seems, well in my judgement not competent to hold office. Oh for more men like Lord Denning with a concept of justice to hold office. Another issue you've pointed out from the judgement is that the CCA provisions were safeguards if the goods were faulty or defective. They were not fit for purpose as accepted as fact by the first court and therefore defective. How can the appeal court judge refute this issue of fact. It is not a point of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little fish Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 And we're off... http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/28/laptop-credit-agreement-fight-supreme-court?CMP=twt_gu wonder how long this will go on for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryrot Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 And we're off... http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/28/laptop-credit-agreement-fight-supreme-court?CMP=twt_gu wonder how long this will go on for? "signed a credit agreement with HFC Bank, part of the HSBC group, for £1,449 to cover the balance, but subsequently returned it because it did not have an inbuilt modem" What they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Hmm, not sure about this one. PC world are bunch of d1cks. Consumer finance is a scam. Offshore workers tend to go nuts - paid a lot of money and sit there thinking about for 2 week stretches. It would help if they did not get shacked up with thai brides and leave them alone for 2 week stretches. Still the lawyers win and the judges are kept in (un)gainful employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinAndPlatonic Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 The guy won...sort of http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-26731192 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 The guy won...sort of http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-26731192 i think he deserved the original level of damages - £8,000 is a sick joke. Shame on the Supremes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.