Is it right to force people to pay back money in goods or material wealth?
Yes
No
Sometimes
More often than not
Spam and spam and spam with a side order of spam
Other:
0voters
Simple question if you owe money to person b, does he have the right to start legal proceedings which could mean someone turns up with a lorry and takes the value of their loan back?
In simple terms is the bailiff system right.
I think not. It’s an invasion of civil liberties and people should be pursued by other means.
This is the 2nd part of my ignored 1st post about a disturbance in the force. Since that was boring beyond words, I’ve revamped it to ask something more general. Call it The Return of The Jedi or something. If this is ignored I will sulk like a baby.
Seems pretty clear to me that if you legally owe someone money, then they have a right to pursue legal action to get it, assuming you are not paying them according to the prearranged terms.
What if they are fighting in court, say for an unarranged overdraft due to bank charges? Should they be allowed to claim their money back despite it being a contested account. Because they do they are extremely illegal and downright rude, phoning some people 8 times a day to ask for money. It’s harassment and they get away with it because they are a faceless institution. And now what’s worse is that the court case to force banks to revoke unfair charges looks like it will be resolved in Europe, which just says our legal system cares more about the recession than about justice. The high courts are corporate lackeys lets face it. The government said they should lose, the banks thought they were going to lose, and what happens they go into recession the public bails them out and they have the nerve to fuck us up the ass for it. It makes me mad. They’re banks not temples for Christs sake!
Im sorry but Im not quite sure what you are talking about. Bank charges and phone calls, and court contests? Are we just talking in general terms about debt and debtor, or is this more about some specific sort of financial agreement?
Because no one is obviously interested in what the banks do as they are icons of virtue I had to rewrite the thread to get any sort of discussion going, people love banks it seems around here at least.
I wanted to know what people thought about the situation in the UK basically where 1 in 12 people have outstanding unpaid bank charges, and rather than force the banks to admit they are unfair, they let them off on a technicality. Ie contractual obligation which says nothing about whether the bloody charges are fair in the first place. They assume if you agree to them (and you don’t because they rape you literally) then they can do what they want no matter what the law is. For example my bank had its own rule that they would not charge you more than £120 in any one month so they charged me £160 and left me with nothing and then when I asked them to remove the charges they told me they couldn’t. So you can see why some people are fed up, the worst account I’ve heard is a debt in the tens of thousands solely bank charges. That is just wrong, but apparently the high court doesn’t think so.
Long story short, if we didn’t hate banks already we now loathe and detest them or at least 1 in 12 of us do who now have to pay these outrageous charges.
Luckily there is light at the end of the tunnel because we the public/government own majority shares in banks they could in theory tell them not to press for the charges which would be nice. Will they though? I doubt it. This is going all the way to Europe I think, which could take 5 years. Which should mean they shouldn’t press for charges but now I’ll get 8000 letters a day asking for their money despite that being illegal. The laws are their for a reason you know!
But it seems relevant to ask, what are these bank charges for? What were the terms of the original agreement between the bank and you? And why are they “unfair”?
We all agree they should charge us but £35 for going 5 pence overdrawn by accident is bloody ridiculous of course that’s not the half of it, or should I say that is the half of it because the charge then makes you overdrawn so they wop on another £35 so it’s £70 for anything more than .5p.
What people want to pay is a small charge for a small amount and a large charge for a large amount. That is fair. The banks however make millions out of this so they don’t think they should. Which if you ask me means jack shit, your our wives now, we paid for you in taxes, time you started making love to us not raping us whenever you feel like it.
Of course there’s the double standard as well if you are rich they tend to remove the charges because your business matters to them. Where as if you are a student or unemployed you get taken to court, and made bankrupt if you can’t pay. Charming huh? Socialism is dead.
My brother doesn’t even get charged for going overdrawn any more because the bank manager sucks him off practically every time he goes in to complain about it. So now he is charge free more or less all because he runs a sizeable business that makes a sizeable amount of money.
Ok, but then I have to ask. . . why dont you just go somewhere else for your banking? Surely you can find a bank with more reasonable overdraft policies. If not, search online and consider an online bank with direct deposit for your paychecks and ATM use for cash withdrawl.
Or heres a better idea, maybe just dont overdraw your account. . .?
Anyway what I was looking for was a perspective from other people whether British or not. Do you think I’m unreasonable? Obviously the Financial Standards Authority (FSA) agrees with me, but the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) does not. So now we’re in no man’s land between Europe and the High courts. I feel the need to rant at my disgust at the legal system on finance. I have always thought our legal system second to none, but I’m beginning to lose faith with a system that cares more for the institution than the common man.
I did, but I still have to pay the money £800 all for going 10p overdrawn by accident when my pay check failed to clear.
They used to give you some leeway if your pay slip was in and had not quite cleared because it was a BACS transaction and they are practicly inviolable and guaranteed. They decided however to stop doing this because it meant they could then stitch people up by failing to inform them of the slight change in the system. Thus £800 in the hole which I cannot and will not pay.
Genius why didn’t one in 12 UK citizens think of that. Because the charge system screws you.
What do you mean it screws you? We have overdraft fees here in American banks as well. For starters, it charges you when your account goes into the negative. This means that you have spent more money than you have. So when you say “the system screws you” this is only true if they are adding charges that you did not make, thus causing your balance to be lower than it otherwise would based only on your own spending.
But if they are randomly taking money out of your account (while it is still positive) this would be theft, and clearly it would not happen for long, as people would take them to court for stealing their money. The reason your account goes negative is because you spent more money than you had. Period. If your paycheck does not clear sometimes then you need to be aware of this fact and keep a cushion of money in your account, just in case. You are responsible for your own finances, and assuming that no one is arbitrarily taking sums of money out of your account without your approval (while it is still positive) then you are personally responsible for the fact that your purchases exceed your available funds.
I agree that overdraft fees, especially many piled on top of each other due to pending transactions coming due all at once, sucks, Its happened to me before. But I paid it, and then I made sure never to let my account get so low again. It meant that I went for a couple of months without spending more than the bare minimum I needed, so I could build up a decent cushion of extra cash in my account that I never touch. Now I do not get overdraft fees.
I am sure there must be some small local banks that do not charge so much. However that is really beside the point, because as long as you remain a customer of your free choice you are condoning their policies. We may not like all of them, but as long as we agree to bank there we are giving our consent to be subject to those policies, as well as the fact that they may be changed at any time. The bank determines its own policies, and sometimes they suck, I agree. But you cannot just pin this on banks: if you did not overdraw your account then you would not get overdraft fees.
So please explain, just why are sums of money being taken out of your account against your will and while it is still a positive balance, thus causing it to go negative without you having any control over it. . . ? If the only sums being taken out of your account while it is positive are those which you expressly agree to and purchase yourself, then really you have no one to blame for overspending but yourself. Sorry, I know it sucks, Ive been there. But I manned up and forced myself to learn a bit more financial responsibility, and solved the problem. I guess I dont see why other cannot do the same.
You missed the point, it’s not that they charge people its that they deliberately try to make poor people run up thousands (and I mean deliberately, we’ve all done it but if you are wealthy it happens less) So its a stealth tax on the poor effectively since they’re supposed to be our banks, ie we have a nominal share in them. It’s not just a one off charge, if you can’t pay it triples then quadruples. You don’t think they charged me £800 all in one go at least £300 was informing me that the bailiffs were coming round, which of course they weren’t because they had no legal right to do that and they should be penalised for that alone as its against the sub clause on harassment over this issue. They don’t care who they hurt because the rich people don’t get fined, and its the poorest people in the UK who foot the bill for the rest. This is not fair. If I was wealthy and I accrued a charge they would waive it, I know it and anyone with a fat wedge knows it, anything over a few million is a hit to them.
No there are no banks that don’t charge on current accounts a large amount. The smallest is probably around £20. That is more than it costs to send the letter which has been worked out as about 5p. We agree free banking shouldn’t be free, what I cannot agree on is being stiffed by banks just because I am poor or a student. They should not be behaving in such a manner and frankly I’m not sure how many people would disagree thus this thread.
There’s no explaining it then. 1 in 12 people in the US are responsible for 60 billion in debt on bank charges are they? This isn’t just me this is almost everyone in their life who is effected by this. If you are lucky you will get away with it because you are employed but what if ends don’t meet one month and you can’t pay?
I get your point you think our system is fine and that we should rightly have no say. When they run up huge bills they should be bailed out where as we should have a tonne of bricks dropped on us. I expect as much from people who are in love with their financial system. But thanks for the advice.
I agree 100% with Sidhe here. We get charged overdraft fees for spending money we don’t have, but banks do the very same thing on a regular basis. They spend exactly ten times the amount of money they have at all times. Where are their overdraft fees? Really, when you think about it, money is based on debt anyway. So then it has negative value. So if I have minus negative 80 dollars in my account, then doesn’t the bank owe ME $80? Minus negative 80 = positive 80, no?
Also, what if I don’t want to pay overdraft fees? What bank do I go to then? No bank. But then how do I live in a world which requires you to have a bank account to live as a normal person. If you work for an employer you can go to a check cashing place to get your money for a small fee. But if you own a business, then how do you cash your clients checks? The whole system is rigged to force you to use the banking system. You are applying the pretense of freedom of choice to something where there is none. I cannot choose not to use the banking system without being heavily penalized. And even if I deal 100% in cash, I am STILL using the banking system since I am using their commercial paper which they directly determine the value of at any given point. In other words, when you take a loan out for your house my money (which really belongs to the banks) goes down in value. So even if I take no loans myself, I am still victimized by your loans like it or not. The only legitimate way to not use the banking system entirely is to deal entirely in barter. If I try and pay for goods and services using constitutional money, then I can be arrested for counterfeiting. I know of several people who have. That is the bank cartel enforcing their monopoly on trade. So the real options are do not trade at all, go to jail, or accept the banking system. Any contracts entered into under this pretense of coercion should be considered entirely invalid. If someone puts a figurative gun to my head and forces me to sign a contract, then should I be held liable for that?
I always tell people that when they sign any contract that they do not want to sign but have to, they should cross out the word “signature” and write in “autograph” in its place. These are two entirely different things legally. An autograph is not legally binding. In court, your scratching out of signature and replacement with autograph would be seen as a counter offer.
Finally, there is the fact that a bank contract is a unilateral contract. The bank does not sign the contract therefore, you own the contract legally and can change it at any time since you are the only party that has an interest in it. It is different then a lease for example where both parties sign the contract. That is a legally binding contract. All others are not. Commercial law can be taken advantage of in several different ways like this.
A contract that has no escape clauses is a bad contract. I quite agree. Nice to see there are some Sane people left in my country.
That’s why they broke their own rules then, it was a contract which only I signed up to.
I wish basic maths was the solution but negative a negative in the banking system equals a negative its very imaginary, but then money is a concept really. The standard is no longer the gold standard, money is not based on value just usury these days, debt is good as long as it is not yours then you get that paid off by taxes and turn around and shaft anyone in the same circumstances without a shred of the idea it’s hypocrisy creeping into your head, cognitive dissonance much?
A banker would immediately grasp that -1^2=-1 or some form of i.
I doubt even all bankers think its fair. I also know that they did not expect to win and still don’t in the long run. This has made a lot of people very, very angry.
When they reward the fat cats such huge bonuses this year I hope they choke on it personally, it’s our tax money that helped you out is it too much to expect any respect in return to the individual customer? Apparently not.
In a bilateral contract, both parties take accountability for the terms and enforcement of the contract. A unilateral contract has very little legal basis for legal enforcement. Let me provide an example. If I were in a bilateral contract, lets say a lease, and in the original contract it says that I must pay the rent in American Dollars. Now lets say that the dollar collapses and so both parties no longer want the payment to be in American dollars. If both parties were to sign a new contract saying that the terms of the old contract were no longer enforceable then the new contract would then trump the old contract and any differences in the wording of the contract would default to the new contract. If I were to write a new contract that changed the terms and my landlord did not sign it, it would be invalid, likewise if the landlord were to write a new contract and I did not sign it then that contract would be invalid. It is only valid if both parties sign since both parties signed the original contract. If there were three parties, it would take three signatures to change the contract. If it were four parties it would take four.
Now how many signatures are required to change the terms of a unilateral contract? Think about it. Only one person signed it to begin with. Now lets say the bank which you bank at goes insolvent and gets bought out by a bigger bank. But the bigger bank does not want to follow the contract which you originally signed. Well they have no obligation to uphold the original contract because they never signed it. So they could end the agreement and drop you as a customer if they wish to. But then they want to keep you as a customer so then they decide to have you sign a new contract which is also a unilateral contract. Which contract is then valid? The newer one of course. But the bank did not sign either. Now knowing that, if you violated the new terms of the contract and then went to court and presented the old contract which you had followed the terms of, do you think the courts would rule in your favor? Of course they wouldn’t since the obligated party had signed a new contract that nullifies the old.
So now lets use that idea and turn the tables around. Let’s say you signed a unilateral contract for the bank (note I said “for” not “with”) and you find the terms of the contract to be very unfair. So you would like to make new terms that are more fair for you. Well you were the only one who signed the original contract, so you have every right to draw up a new contract in which you are the sole signing party of interest that nullifies the old one. So then the best thing you could do to make it a very legally sound contract is to take it to the bank in which it came from and use their notary service to notarize your signature on the new contract with new terms. Then you could make a copy of the new contract and send it certified mail to the bank in which the contract was made. Having done this, you would be rock solid in court. However, I warn that the banks have the best commercial lawyers in the business and for all intents and purposes own the courts. As I said in other posts. No such thing as a fair trial. But the idea behind the whole thing is rock solid…
The devil is in the details. May I ask are you studying law or just an interested amateur because you sound remarkably knowledgeable? I get all my wisdom from consumer forums run mostly by lawyers and people in the know who exist because of the banking system literally.
I wish they’d force the bank to make charges fair. That seems like too much to ask our financial ombudsmen though. Capitalism eh? A stagnant shit pile based on screwing the individual when you get down to the nitty gritty of it. Not that I’m against it but I certainly couldn’t let it run free like libertarians want. We’d all be fucked up the ass all the time if they got their way, which is why Ayn Rand is such futile waste of my personal time to read.
Atlas wont ever shrug I hope, he might just adjust the position of his shoulders to even out the weight distribution but that’s about it.
Let me state my economic position liberal but regulated. My political position dead apparently.
