When is it right to exploit a loophole?

[rude-boy]

Inspired by the thread that got pulled advertising a service which will look into having CCA loan agreements voided due to prodecdural errors and the such like.

I am firmly in the camp of if you sign up to a loan you have a duty to repay it, short of it being a massive con when you should certainly have to repay the original loan amount in any event.

That said there was a very swift hostile reaction to the suggestion that if errors had been made in the documentation and so on such loans could be set aside. My question is:-

If this is so wrong, why don’t all people caught speeding by more than 10% of the posted limit just pay up rather than exploit a ‘loophole’ (procedural error).

There is very little difference in that in both instances the ‘offender’ knew, or should have known, exactly what they were doing and what the consequences of their actions could be, but where as one will be seen as a cad and a bounder for getting out of paying up the other will be vilified.

Edited by rude-boy on Wednesday 22 October 15:32

[JagLover]

In one case there is a victim (the lender you are not repaying) but not in the other.

It is a matter of morals rather than the letter of the law (in both cases)

[Plotloss]

Its always fair to exploit a loophole, always.

Whether your morality or lack there of compels you to do so is a different matter.

[rude-boy]

JagLover said:

In one case there is a victim (the lender you are not repaying) but not in the other.

Isn't there a load of victims with the speeder though, all us tax payers who have been deprived of another £60 in the pot which must now be made up another way...

[esselte]

mickken said:

If a loophole against greedy banks or the Government....exploit to your hearts content.

Exploiting government loopholes is exploiting all tax payers...? Just an idle thought....

[Davi]

As above it's all down to morality. If the loophole is in regards to a large institution that will just as readily see you stripped of everything you own than admit to a mistake, I'd be at it like a shot. If a small businessman made an honest mistake and exploiting the loophole could ruin them, I wouldn't (but may well look for a compromise that was mutually beneficial)

[Kozy]

I'll exploit each and every loophole I find, moral or not. Sod the rest of you.

[odyssey2200]

Loophole only exist to be exploited through someones negligence in not making sure an agreement was properly formulated.
Their look out IMHO

If the loophole were in the Banks, Governments, Plods favour, would they have any reservations about exploiting it against you?

Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 22 October 15:48

[JagLover]

rude-boy said:

JagLover said:

In one case there is a victim (the lender you are not repaying) but not in the other.

Isn't there a load of victims with the speeder though, all us tax payers who have been deprived of another £60 in the pot which must now be made up another way...

Ahh but you are talking of a financial penalty as a result of breaching some arbitrary law (the speed limit). The taxpayer is only being deprived or revenue for which, arguable, it had no right in the first place. In the case of a loan the lender has every right to expect to be repaid.

[sleep envy]

rude-boy said:

There is very little difference in that in both instances the ‘offender’ knew, or should have known, exactly what they were doing and what the consequences of their actions could be, but where as one will be seen as a cad and a bounder for getting out of paying up the other will be vilified.

are you directly out of pocket if someone expolits a speeding charge?

I am when someone uses a loophole to avoid paying the loan back to my bank - I end up paying the additional defecit

[rude-boy]

One could say that the interest on the CCA was arbitrary though. As Von is more than happy to point out the day you apply for your provisional licence you are signing up to be bound by the rules of the road, arbitrary or not.

My personal view is that with a ticket I would try to find anyway out of it I could unless it was an honest cop (as was the ticket I got many moons ago). If I’ve borrowed money from someone I would expect to pay it back, regardless of what loopholes I might be able to find, unless they started to move away from the original agreement.

[johnfm]

sleep envy said:

rude-boy said:

There is very little difference in that in both instances the ‘offender’ knew, or should have known, exactly what they were doing and what the consequences of their actions could be, but where as one will be seen as a cad and a bounder for getting out of paying up the other will be vilified.

are you directly out of pocket if someone expolits a speeding charge?

I am when someone uses a loophole to avoid paying the loan back to my bank - I end up paying the additional defecit

How? Do they amend your contract every time someone defaults? Or do they only amend it when someone defaults using a loophole?

[rude-boy]

sleep envy said:

rude-boy said:

There is very little difference in that in both instances the ‘offender’ knew, or should have known, exactly what they were doing and what the consequences of their actions could be, but where as one will be seen as a cad and a bounder for getting out of paying up the other will be vilified.

are you directly out of pocket if someone expolits a speeding charge?

I am when someone uses a loophole to avoid paying the loan back to my bank - I end up paying the additional defecit

you are indirectly out of pocket on both counts.

[sleep envy]

johnfm said:

How? Do they amend your contract every time someone defaults? Or do they only amend it when someone defaults using a loophole?

you don't think the repayment charges include for losses made on defaulted loans?

[sleep envy]

rude-boy said:

you are indirectly out of pocket on both counts.

the cost of the fine hardly makes up for taking it to court

if it is proven that the case can't be heard a saving has been made - everyone is a winner

[johnfm]

sleep envy said:

johnfm said:

How? Do they amend your contract every time someone defaults? Or do they only amend it when someone defaults using a loophole?

you don't think the repayment charges include for losses made on defaulted loans?

yes, but I doubt you get a rebate if there have been less defaults than predicted.

[sleep envy]

sure, you just get offered a more competive loan

[Frik]

I haven't seen any related threads but had someone call me up from some "law firm" yesterday asking if I wanted to get a refund on my loan payments due to potential mis-selling which I presume is what you're refering to here J.

I was curious wtf they got my number from to be honest.

Edited by Frik on Wednesday 22 October 16:31

[rude-boy]

Frik said:

I haven't seen any related threads but had someone call me up from some "law firm" yesterday asking if I wanted to get a refund on my loan payments due to potential mis-selling which I presume is what you're refering to here J.

I was curious wtf they got my number from to be honest.

Doubt it is connected.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?mem...

Was the OP of the other thread iirc, pm him if you want to find out more, I'm sure he just forgot the rules against ads.

[p1esk]

When is it right to exploit a loophole?

When you've been caught speeding.

Best wishes all,
Dave.