Whose fault is this (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=754842)

Should credit card companies be made to work together so as to ensure that an individual does not get themselves in to such a financial mess or should each person be responsible for their own decisions/actions.

We all live on credit to some degree or other but some people seem to get in so deep that there is no way that they can possibly escape. Is it their fault? Should they be protected from themselves by the law?

IMO there should be more protection. These companies give you all the rope you need to hang yourself and when you get out of control they come down on you like a ton of bricks.

It is the bloke's fault not the banks. Banks make clear the charges involved with credit cards.

At the end of the day if you are old enough to obtain a credit card, you should be responsible for using them sensibly and within your financial limit.

It takes a lot of form filling and usually a signature more than once to get a credit card...

Its definatly the Credit card users fault!

Its like saying a killer can get let off as it was the victims fault for being in the way of the knife 19 times...

Originally posted by Lickszz
IMO there should be more protection. These companies give you all the rope you need to hang yourself and when you get out of control they come down on you like a ton of bricks.

They might give you lots of rope, but they don't force you to put your hand on it that is your decision.

I get 3 or 4 invitations for credit cards a week and I don't have an income. How irresponsible is that of the companies concerned.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
It is the bloke's fault not the banks. Banks make clear the charges involved with credit cards.

At the end of the day if you are old enough to obtain a credit card, you should be responsible for using them sensibly and within your financial limit.

It's not always as clear cut and dry as that. People can unexpectedly lose their job or have an accident and find themselves unable to work or pay debts. These companies have laws regarding harassment to which they must obey but some of them frequently break them and get away with it.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
They might give you lots of rope, but they don't force you to put your hand on it that is your decision.

See my reply above. They know your earnings but they insist on offering you more money than you can ever afford to repay by upping your credit limit.

Yes they might up your credit card limit, but they don't force you to spend that money that responsibility is with the credit card user.

With regards to credit limit increases, they are offering you the money. Your not asking, they are offering. Not to mention begging you to transfer balances.

By and large have you any idea how much trouble this country is in with debts of this kind?

It is frighteningly easy to get huge amounts of credit these days.

I believe that credit-card companies are to blame for preying on weak people to run up mountains of debt which they will be saddled with for life.

These are their bread-and-butter customers, without them they wouldn't exist.

Originally posted by Lickszz
With regards to credit limit increases, they are offering you the money. Your not asking, they are offering. Not to mention begging you to transfer balances.

By and large have you any idea how much trouble this country is in with debts of this kind?

I think that Credit Card companies etc. need to be more responsible with their lending. But at the end of the day it is ultimately the user that is responsible for spending - come on show a little self restraint and don't spend on things that you can't afford!

Have you read the link attached to this article? It's about how the guy was harassed and ended up taking his own life.

It also states that the guy already had numerous credit cards (probably up to his neck in it) but was still able to obtain additional ones without any noticeable checks been carried out. Surely any sort of research would have uncovered that he was a liability and out of control.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Have you read the link attached to this article? It's about how the guy was harassed and ended up taking his own life.

It also states that the guy already had numerous credit cards (probably up to his neck in it) but was still able to obtain additional ones without any noticeable checks been carried out. Surely any sort of research would have uncovered that he was a liability and out of control.

Sorry, didn't first read the link - it is very unfortunate. But I still stand by my original comments.

I think somebody being able to have 19 credit cards is crazy. How would somebody be able to pay back the amount of credit owed on 19 cards? It doesn't make any sense to keep giving someone credit cards who is already in massive debt. And it's so easy to get them. I get 2 or 3 offers a week in the post for credit cards or loans.

I doubt it will ever happen but maybe there should be a restriction in place as to how many cards someone can have at one time?

When I got my first credit card I was surprised to see the company keep upping how much I could borrow without me asking for it. That sort of thing really doesn't help.

Yet you practically have to give blood, sweat and tears to get an extension on an overdraft on a bank account.

Originally posted by Dug
I think that Credit Card companies etc. need to be more responsible with their lending. But at the end of the day it is ultimately the user that is responsible for spending - come on show a little self restraint and don't spend on things that you can't afford!
There is also an argument that could be made that the person involved may have some sort of addiction. You can be addicted to everything else, why not spending money on cards.

I think shared responsibility should be the main factor here. The credit card companies have a duty to seek out what credit this chap already had, and what payments he had made. Then they should check (for certain) his financial status then do the math on whether or not her could 'really afford' the next card.

I'd lay equal blame for this. Also, I think I'd rather go bankrupt by the courts, have my debts quashed and start from scratch. At the end of the day.... he's not broken the law so much that he'd get locked up for anything. There is always a way out... that doesn't need to result in suicide.

Originally posted by DaBouncer

I think shared responsibility should be the main factor here. The credit card companies have a duty to seek out what credit this chap already had, and what payments he had made. Then they should check (for certain) his financial status then do the math on whether or not her could 'really afford' the next card.

I'd lay equal blame for this. Also, I think I'd rather go bankrupt by the courts, have my debts quashed and start from scratch. At the end of the day.... he's not broken the law so much that he'd get locked up for anything. There is always a way out... that doesn't need to result in suicide.

Yes - as I said the lenders need to be more responsible and stringent about checking applicants, and clearly in this case it seems ridiculous more credit cards were allowed. But I don't think people who are in serious debt can claim to be "clinically" addicted to spending or whatever and then be let off.

What about the Americans who are suing McDonalds who claim that the restaurant made them fat? What about the person who sued claiming she didn't realise that the coffee would be hot!

The smokers who sued (I think it was successfully?) BAT claiming not to realise that fags gave you lung cancer.......

Originally posted by Dug
The smokers who sued (I think it was successfully?) BAT claiming not to realise that fags gave you lung cancer.......

I thought in this particular case it was smokers from the 70's before health warnings were issued on ciggarettes?

Have you noiced that someone who is on benefits, can usually always get credit on a new car, mobile phone, credit card, loan etc. Where as people working like myself stuggle to get credit, despite we can usually afford the payments each month. I can never understand that.

Ok, this is a sad unfortuate case, but I don't know what really happened, none of us do. The article is extremely biased, starting straight away with talking about high street banks hounding him.

We don't know what the circumstances were behind this, the man could have been a lcomplete liar and obtained them through dishonest means. e.g. When I apply for anything at my bank I have to say if I have other credit cards and I could lie quite easily. I only have one card and that's the way I will keep it. This man could have known full well what he was doing.
This man could have been in trouble with all sorts meaning he needed money quickly. e.g. involved in drugs, involved in dodgy dealings etc.
He could have just been a greedy idiot who wants materialistic things and just spent not caring about the consequences.
He could have been leading a double life, having affairs with women and buying them gifts.
He could have been in trouble and was being blackmailed by someone.

There are so many things that could be behind all this. He may have known full well what he was doing, or he may have been completely stupid. The article will of course make out it is all the bakns fault because the article is about having a go at the banks and the family will say he was an innocent man and it wasn't his fault.

Without knowing the full story of what happened, it is hard to say where the blame lies. I just know I'm not as gullable to read that article and assume him innocent and the banks at fault.

High street banks hounding! What are they loan sharks now? Do they come round your house and threaten to kill you? No you'll get letters through your door like with any bill, asking you to pay, or court proceedings will occur etc. I wouldn't say that is hounding, that is the banks right to get back the money they have given you.

I do however agree that banks do make it far to easy for you to borrow money these days and they keep upping my credit card limit without telling me. The difference is, I'm not stupid enough to think it's free money sat there to spend. I don't use my limit. I spend to my means. If I can't afford it, I don't get it. Some people are too greedy these days. The banks rely on people's stupidity and people's greed.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I thought in this particular case it was smokers from the 70's before health warnings were issued on ciggarettes?

I think it was further back than that. But my point is when are we products of our own free will, and therefore accountable for our actions, or when are we part of a larger "machine" (i.e. society or whatever) and therefore blame lies with those institutions that govern our lives?

Dug I hear wht you're saying in you are right in what you say. We all have a social and moral possition in life to understand when enough is enough.

However these banks (even if the person lies) have I'd say have a duty to make sure the checking process is carried out in full. In order to stop this sort of thing happening.

It's not just for the good of the individual but also for the good of the banks that may lose money if a person were to be declared bankrupt.

I mean before I left for work this morning 4 different envelopes with my name on in the post were applications for credit cards (I currently have 1 already). Last night I applied for the mint card (because it gives that 8 months interest free option on purchases... and I know I'm gonna use it soon). However I input my details which could have easily been fabricated. My place of work and my address. And my application came back instantly as approved with a £2600 credit limit on my new card.

OK I know what I can and cannot afford and with my finacee who IS the single best person I know who dispises ALL debt, and who will make sure my cards get paid for... I will not get into the situation as above.

I just think all this credit is too easy to get hold of... and the banks are at least 50% to blame as the individual who abuses the credit.

Hi Foxxx, Please forgive my editing your post.
Originally posted by Foxxx
[B]Ok, this is a sad unfortuate case

I agree. There are lots of people in the same boat. It's imperative that they are made aware of the help that is available.

[i]Originally posted by Foxxx
The article is extremely biased, starting straight away with talking about high street banks hounding him.

The article named a few creditors and stated that he had been hounded and from my experience this is what certain creditors do. Apparently, the family are still been hounded for these debts.

[i]Originally posted by Foxxx
He could have just been a greedy idiot who wants materialistic things and just spent not caring about the consequences.


The final consequences were him taking his own life and leaving his family behind.

[i]Originally posted by Foxxx
There are so many things that could be behind all this. He may have known full well what he was doing, or he may have been completely stupid. The article will of course make out it is all the bakns fault because the article is about having a go at the banks and the family will say he was an innocent man and it wasn't his fault.

Irrespective of this, the man was still allowed to accumulate more debt than he could afford to pay back. The banks should have an obligation to check applicants background/credit history and refuse credit where necessary in such cases.

[i]Originally posted by Foxxx
Without knowing the full story of what happened, it is hard to say where the blame lies. I just know I'm not as gullable to read that article and assume him innocent and the banks at fault.

If the article has done nothing else it has highlighted how easy it can be to obtain additional credit, no matter what kind of financial trouble you may already be in.

[i]Originally posted by Foxxx
High street banks hounding! What are they loan sharks now? Do they come round your house and threaten to kill you? No you'll get letters through your door like with any bill, asking you to pay, or court proceedings will occur etc. I wouldn't say that is hounding, that is the banks right to get back the money they have given you.

In the past I've worked voluntary helping people deal with their debts. Some of the creditors are notorious for hounding if they think they can get away with it. A couple of the American companies commonly resort to disgraceful tactics such as:

Telephoning 2-3 times a day
Telephoning when they have been informed to deal in writing
Telephoning debtors at their work when they have been told not to
Telephoning at unsociable hours
Been threatening on the telephone
Sending repeat conflicting correspondence

All the above can be classed has harassment IMO. Some of the high street banks use external and internal debt collection companies who do their dirty work for them under another name. Imagine when you have as many as 19 of these creditors constantly calling you. Some of the debts I have seen people with are frightening. There are women who are frightened to tell their husbands of the debt they are in so obtain extra credit to pay the current credit (robbing Peter to pay Paul) This could have been what happened to the guy in the article. Once you start spiralling out of control it becomes difficult to seek help. The bottom line is some people are extremely naive to the help that is available to them and try to struggle on when they clearly can't. They get deeper and deeper and then suicide sadly becomes more and more attractive way out. However, a few of the banks have now started issuing debt advice and contact organisations along with the letter chasing their money.

Originally posted by Mo
Whose fault is this (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=754842)

Should credit card companies be made to work together so as to ensure that an individual does not get themselves in to such a financial mess or should each person be responsible for their own decisions/actions.

We all live on credit to some degree or other but some people seem to get in so deep that there is no way that they can possibly escape. Is it their fault? Should they be protected from themselves by the law?

The responsibility lies with an individual, we would all like to get everything we want on tick, but who would go to those extemes, the man must have been crackers!!!:loopy: :loopy: :loopy: