Read The Small Print | Vital Forums

Read The Small Print

#1
Read the small print: Man who altered credit card contract sues bank for not sticking to terms

Dmitry Argarkov, 42, scanned the agreement into his computer, changed the terms of the contract and returned it to the lender... and they failed to notice

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/read-the-small-print-man-who-altered-credit-card-contract-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms-8753602.html

:1:
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
#2
I would bet he gets done for fraud, not rewarded for changing the terms!

Not sure i totally buy this thing re credit cards and people suing to not pay because an I wasn't dotted or a t crossed.

We all know what we are signing up for, not good moaning afterwards what horrible rob dog bastards they are!

Ie 0% one minute, 30% the next.

Hateful horrible institutions that should be controlled (interest rates should be capped) but as said, no one forces people to run up these massive debts.

Interesting case Fieldy.
 
#3
He's taking the piss suing for 24million or whatever it was for breach of contract cause unless he was very clever in rewritting the terms he wouldn't have removed fully their right to cancel at any time or for breach (and he was late in payment).

Nothing wrong with altering the terms, they should check, and that's their own fault, but he's taking it a step too far now - if he wanted to prove a point he should be suing for a declaration or a nominal sum, not trying to mint himself out of it but I imagine their laws are very different than ours in that respect anyway.

Apparently some Russian lawyers think he has a solid case if google translate is anything to go off. Good luck to him though, be interesting to see their fraud arguments because if he's basing everything on the already upheld contract, there's no fraud - at least via our laws in my mind. More likely for him to win maybe and the Judge just award nominal damages rather than look at anything criminal.

A case like that (going that far) would be thrown out over here I suspect because at the very least you could make a strong winning argument that his punitive clauses weren't needed for the contract to operate fairly, and also the zero interest element was anti competitive and him seizing an very unfair advantage over the bank which would void it, but nowt wrong with using unenforceability as often wrongly reported in this country if these companies can't follow the law and comply with it.

Bit more detail - http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/498048/20130809/russian-writes-credit-card-terms-dmitry-argarkov.htm

Hoping this one gains some traction so I can keep following it to be honest.
 
G

Guest

Guest
#4
I bloody luv this, its about time they had it up em!!

Its alright them giving us contracts and taking us to court if we fail to meet the terms we signed for, but its another story when its them? Is it heckers like, good on the chap, hope he gets a fortune out of the robbing runts!
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
#5
But despite being despicable, are they robbers? Does anyone get a gun to their head to take the credit?

Nope.
 
#6
Strictly no, but unsolicited mailers have deceptively changed attitudes towards credit because it was so freely available from 20 odd years ago.

It encouraged the generation at the time to not save for what they wanted and instead 'get credit'.

So do you have to hold a gun to somebodies head when you've physically changed social attitudes in your favour?

Could an argument be made for a perverse stockholm syndrome situation with banks and financial institutions now?

Equally, those who utilise the law to assert their rights within a contract or legislation, are often frowned on, yet they aren't doing anything the banks themselves don't do - rely on the small print.

If the banks want to give it, they have to take it when they foul up.
 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#7
I can see this being turned round on him mind! The big boys have the power to ensure it. It is fraud. Will he won't he, get away with it?
 
G

Guest

Guest
#8
No nobody forces anybody to borrow money from the these lot, but what i will point out of my yam yam pea brain is these bankers cause the financial crisis and mess through shear greed, yet go unpunished, so the mess they cause lack of jobs etc price of food etc and making money more scarce and borrowing to small buissness they then force folk to need to borrow more cos of the hardship they have created through gambling hard working peoples pensions etc up the wall.
 

gator

Vital Champions League
#9
Great story hope he succeeds only one way to do em but reckon I can't say through legal reasons but all I will say is if you own your house ya stuffed
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
#10
Society is part of the greed Clive.

We 'all' blame the bankers but there is no willingness to accept some responsibility ourselves.

People like my dad were right, if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

The banks won't regulate themselves, no way should they be allowed to charge 30% especially having got people on 0% deals but unless the government grow a pair and stop this practice, which to me isn't a million miles away from the loan sharks, the banks will keep on doing it.

However, again, people really didn't /don't have to be so thick. It is the take take take society that for me started under maggie.

One thing they should be made to do is fully illustrate to people BEFORE they do transfers etc what it will cost them when the offers and or 0% offer ends.

Or stop 0% deals totally.

I can't see any justification, especially with the base rate so low, for any credit card to cost more than 15% which in itself is a fecking high rate.

But again, can people really blame banks for their own greed/stupidity in non responsible spending and lending?

Back to the need for education maybe.
 

gator

Vital Champions League
#11
OK J another angle is it's because of the banks and their cavalier lending that cost me my job which was a fantastic job of 8 1/2 years.So I found myself having to take whatever was available and ended working for a company who paid well but put profit before safety and as you know I nearly lost my life but luckily escaped with a mangled leg never do my job again that's my gripe.
 

david-avfc

Vital 1st Team Regular
#12
Not sure he will get away with it. If it were the other way round and the bank changed the contract they would be in all sorts of shit. If hes lucky it will be settled out of court

 
G

Guest

Guest
#13
Im really sorry to hear that gator mate, feckin hell, when/if i get my inheritance sorted out what i got coming i will take you out for the day to Villa on me dude promise! and carry ya if i have to!!
 

david-avfc

Vital 1st Team Regular
#14
People want the credit, but then when they get into massive debt that they can't pay back they blame the lenders. People need to take responsibility in their lives, I do not except ignorance as an excuse because people must know they will have to pay it back.

The reason why credit cards can charge 30% interest is because of supply and demand and risk/reward.

People will pay for easy credit, so thats why they can charge so high. Simply put, if people weren't prepared to pay 30% APR for a credit card they wouldn't charge it.

Its a fact that the most profitable customers are those who are most least likely to be able to control their finances and therefore also the riskiest customers (as they are more likely to default on the credit) so the 30% covers the risk of not getting the money back.
 
G

Guest

Guest
#15
The Fear - 9/8/2013 23:02

Society is part of the greed Clive.

We 'all' blame the bankers but there is no willingness to accept some responsibility ourselves.

People like my dad were right, if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

The banks won't regulate themselves, no way should they be allowed to charge 30% especially having got people on 0% deals but unless the government grow a pair and stop this practice, which to me isn't a million miles away from the loan sharks, the banks will keep on doing it.

However, again, people really didn't /don't have to be so thick. It is the take take take society that for me started under maggie.

One thing they should be made to do is fully illustrate to people BEFORE they do transfers etc what it will cost them when the offers and or 0% offer ends.

Or stop 0% deals totally.

I can't see any justification, especially with the base rate so low, for any credit card to cost more than 15% which in itself is a fecking high rate.

But again, can people really blame banks for their own greed/stupidity in non responsible spending and lending?

Back to the need for education maybe.
Fear you always speak sense mate, thats why my head hurts in answering to you lol, but yeah my dad is exactly the same, he always goes on about in the old days if you couldn't afford something you didn't have it and how nowadays people want everything and are greedy, time for us all to get real sooner or later and stop living out of our means me thinks, apart from his first motorbike as the garage owner allowed him to pay x amount each week until he paid for it and then let him take it, i know this cos i never stop hearing the same old stories ffs ;)


I think we have all become a bit lazy with credit technology and things will end up reverting back to how they was back then out of must rather than need.

 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#16
I won't judge anyone who gets into money problems. No one knows whats around the corner. I had financial issues many years ago. I sorted it and paid everything off.

Now we have a credit card each for emergency use, holidays and such like. Mr K has a cataloge we use sensibly and that is it.

People find it hard to believe. These damn phone calls from debt agencies saying they will help you sort your debt. It's like where the freak did you get our no from. Then it's like will you listen carefully take our name off your registrar we don't have debt issues and we don't need your help.

It often takes the threat of reporting them to get rid. Yes we signed up to the schemes on no's and mail, but it doesn't seem to make much difference.

The worst I had many years ago was s foreign woman ringing trying to sell me a T Mobile phone. She finally got the message when she rang at 6 am in the morning. The message began with 'f and ended in f. Never heard from her again
 

JamTomorrow

Vital Youth Team
#17
The Fear - 9/8/2013 20:43

Does anyone get a gun to their head to take the credit?

Nope.


Are some people forced into having to take credit to pay their bills, look after and feed their families? Is that not a gun? With some of those forced into debt due to the banking/credit system, is it really that black and white?



 

gator

Vital Champions League
#18
No it's not that black and white Jam it's alright being born with a silver spoon but what about the one's with a stainless steel one who was given the chance to upgrade to a silver one by the free enterprisingly Maggie.
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
#19
JamTomorrow - 10/8/2013 00:46

The Fear - 9/8/2013 20:43

Does anyone get a gun to their head to take the credit?

Nope.


Are some people forced into having to take credit to pay their bills, look after and feed their families? Is that not a gun? With some of those forced into debt due to the banking/credit system, is it really that black and white?
No, it is never black and white, it is shades of grey. There are some below the poverty line deep in the shite.

There are also loads of people who are just greedy, want everything yesterday and don't care how they do it (until they realise, despite decent incomes, they can't pay their debts)
 
#20
The risk argument of high interest debtor rates nolonger washes because the risk comes from low credit scoring individuals (A CRF is no indication to credit worthiness either as your point score can be as bad as somebody eyeballs deep in deep struggling to repay IF you simply have little debt history) and unsecured loans.

Secured loans carry less of a % cost BUT banks can now apply for unsecured loans to be turned into secured loans AND often have done in my experience when customers have contacted them for help, done I&E sheets, and done everything a bank publicly says to do when struggling.

As part of getting interest frozen for a period, or freezing or removing additional charges, agreeing to lower repayments for a time they present their offer making it a secured agreement moving forward so they more than mitigate their risk.

But the customer then doesn't get the equivalent drop in interest rate, they ultimately they end up paying for an unsecured loan, that is now secured.

There were quite a few instances of court cases following the Gov's change in the rules. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-2211657/Lenders-given-fast-track-make-charge-borrowers-homes-unpaid-debts.html

But in reality there's never been such a thing as a required higher interest unsecured loan for home owners, because the charging order option (where costs are added so the bank aren't out of pocket there) has always existed.

Although it's no secret the majority of a high street banks income comes from those who struggle. The question has to be is the system right when a bank profits in that manner? Should they be required to do more to mitigate that element or should they have free reign to capitalise on it?

As said though, the banks wanted the 'want it, save for it' attitude to change and did all they could to make it happen, the country fell for it and now many are in the position of trying to fund their life from a credit line instead of from what they can actually afford.

Instant gratification and keeping up with the 'Jones' has a lot to answer for and people have to be strong enough to not care again.

Until the attitude of 'want it, save for it' returns, people will continue to really struggle - and yes education, along with basic legal rights, should be a key part of the schooling system to address this.

But the cynic says the 'country' want people who can repeat verbatim from a text book and not think for themselves don't they.

It's also somewhat of an oxymoron blaming the bankers as the crash and problems came - well the tipping point - on the subprime market and all the various ways to profit from a single mortgage, it's the people will never see who were engaged in all that and some of the vitriol normal bank staff have had over the years has been a disgrace, they've all been tarred with the same brush but the people who came up with these cockamamy schemes that went bump I imagine are still handsomely paid.

The choice should be simple really, the banks and their importance in life have effectively turned themselves into a necessary universal provider and utility like gas, elec, water and they should be treated and regulated the same but I still maintain they shouldn't be listed and should be low for profit beneficiaries because they don't need to make uber profits to capitalise, because their requirement ensures regular profit.