Banks
Your Ginger Fuhrer froths, "I hate my bank. Not because of debt or anything but because I hate being sold to - possibly pathologically so - and everytime I speak to them they try and sell me services. Gold cards, isas, insurance, you know the crap. It drives me insane. I ALREADY BANK WITH YOU. STOP IT. YOU MAKE ME FRIGHTED TO DO MY NORMAL BANKING. I'm angry even thinking about them."
So, tell us your banking stories of woe.
No doubt at least one of you has shagged in the vault, shat on a counter or thrown up in a cash machine. Or something
( , Thu 16 Jul 2009, 13:15)
Your Ginger Fuhrer froths, "I hate my bank. Not because of debt or anything but because I hate being sold to - possibly pathologically so - and everytime I speak to them they try and sell me services. Gold cards, isas, insurance, you know the crap. It drives me insane. I ALREADY BANK WITH YOU. STOP IT. YOU MAKE ME FRIGHTED TO DO MY NORMAL BANKING. I'm angry even thinking about them."
So, tell us your banking stories of woe.
No doubt at least one of you has shagged in the vault, shat on a counter or thrown up in a cash machine. Or something
( , Thu 16 Jul 2009, 13:15)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
*facepalms*
Thus establishing an intent to repay and protecting yourself from charges of theft
How, precisely? Your intention is not to repay. And if the banks can show that without your little slush-fund, they can show it with it as well.
But let's move aside from the proof thing. By following your scheme, there's plainly no intent to repay. So it's straightforward fraud, and there's therefore no time limit - irrespective of whether you're found out within the six years.
If it was really that easy, don't you think that the credit card companies'd've spotted the hole and moved to close it?
( , Fri 17 Jul 2009, 20:01, 1 reply)
Thus establishing an intent to repay and protecting yourself from charges of theft
How, precisely? Your intention is not to repay. And if the banks can show that without your little slush-fund, they can show it with it as well.
But let's move aside from the proof thing. By following your scheme, there's plainly no intent to repay. So it's straightforward fraud, and there's therefore no time limit - irrespective of whether you're found out within the six years.
If it was really that easy, don't you think that the credit card companies'd've spotted the hole and moved to close it?
( , Fri 17 Jul 2009, 20:01, 1 reply)
?
Of course it was my intention to repay, that's why I did repay. If I had no intention to repay I would not have made sure that some payments where covered. How can the banks show I had no intention to repay if there clearly is a repayment?
And how could it be fraud? Did I at any time give false information with an intent to defraud? No. I was honest and truthful. I just didn't get around to making all the repayments. And as I haven't heard from the institutions involved for over six years they can no longer pursue the debt through the civil courts. It's not a loophole that credit card co.s and banks can fill. It's the law in the UK. If you want to take a civil action against anybody for anything you must do it within six years of the whatever it was that gives you reason to take action. Somehow I find it unlikely that that law will be changed because the banks would like it. There might be a few complaints.
It worked. It worked because it does work. I am sorry you are upset about it but hey, it worked. And it will work again for anyone that tries it. It works constantly for many people. If you have spent any time at the top of a debt collection department you will know that any debt where the company have been unable to make contact with the creditor for six years or more is written off. Just like that. Because it can't be taken to court and is therefore unrecoverable.
That's the way it is. It is not fraud or theft or anything naughty. It is just knowing the law and knowing how to make the system work for you.
Knowledge is power and, in this case, cash.
And if anyone does find themselves being chased for a debt that they have heard nothing about for six years or more get in touch with the company involved and laugh at them. Or go to your local CAB and let them do it for you.
( , Fri 17 Jul 2009, 20:26, closed)
Of course it was my intention to repay, that's why I did repay. If I had no intention to repay I would not have made sure that some payments where covered. How can the banks show I had no intention to repay if there clearly is a repayment?
And how could it be fraud? Did I at any time give false information with an intent to defraud? No. I was honest and truthful. I just didn't get around to making all the repayments. And as I haven't heard from the institutions involved for over six years they can no longer pursue the debt through the civil courts. It's not a loophole that credit card co.s and banks can fill. It's the law in the UK. If you want to take a civil action against anybody for anything you must do it within six years of the whatever it was that gives you reason to take action. Somehow I find it unlikely that that law will be changed because the banks would like it. There might be a few complaints.
It worked. It worked because it does work. I am sorry you are upset about it but hey, it worked. And it will work again for anyone that tries it. It works constantly for many people. If you have spent any time at the top of a debt collection department you will know that any debt where the company have been unable to make contact with the creditor for six years or more is written off. Just like that. Because it can't be taken to court and is therefore unrecoverable.
That's the way it is. It is not fraud or theft or anything naughty. It is just knowing the law and knowing how to make the system work for you.
Knowledge is power and, in this case, cash.
And if anyone does find themselves being chased for a debt that they have heard nothing about for six years or more get in touch with the company involved and laugh at them. Or go to your local CAB and let them do it for you.
( , Fri 17 Jul 2009, 20:26, closed)
actually
it is fraud and theft.
You may well get away with it, but don't try and argue that doing so makes it legal and OK.
( , Sat 18 Jul 2009, 9:41, closed)
it is fraud and theft.
You may well get away with it, but don't try and argue that doing so makes it legal and OK.
( , Sat 18 Jul 2009, 9:41, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread