Anyone got any opinions on this... ? Basically the bloke on the link i have posted below, spent (over several years) 20 grand on his credit card, and then when his income dropped, he couldn't make the repayments. So the credit card company hassled him for payments. He managed to get it thrown out because he managed to convince the judge that the company never sent him a list of terms and conditions originally and 'hounded' him for payments.
Although I am no fan of the banks and credit card companies, I think it's pretty bad that the whole debt was written off. I mean, when his income dropped, by all accounts, the man didn't pay ANYthing to the credit card company - he basically seems to have got away with paying his debt back, on a technicality. I think it's a bit of a disgrace that he squandered all this money and doesn't have to pay a penny back. Surely this just leaves the door open for everyone and anyone to rack up debts and then refuse to pay it back when the income drops.
I know that it's easy to get into debt and not be able to predict the future (ie if you are going to lose your job and good salary,) but surely he could have offered to pay SOMEthing towards his debt. I agree with one of the posts on the message boards on the article, that he should have been made to pay at least half the debt.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/ne...ceuk-3176316204.html
What do people think?
Although I am no fan of the banks and credit card companies, I think it's pretty bad that the whole debt was written off. I mean, when his income dropped, by all accounts, the man didn't pay ANYthing to the credit card company - he basically seems to have got away with paying his debt back, on a technicality. I think it's a bit of a disgrace that he squandered all this money and doesn't have to pay a penny back. Surely this just leaves the door open for everyone and anyone to rack up debts and then refuse to pay it back when the income drops.
I know that it's easy to get into debt and not be able to predict the future (ie if you are going to lose your job and good salary,) but surely he could have offered to pay SOMEthing towards his debt. I agree with one of the posts on the message boards on the article, that he should have been made to pay at least half the debt.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/ne...ceuk-3176316204.html
What do people think?