- Is it best to avoid banks altogether?
- By Mick
- Opinion
- 26/08/2017 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Julian ( 1 article in 2017 )
Anyone entering into a commercial 'loan' agreement and mortgage [death pledge] covenant with a bank may just be asking for trouble.
Any such 'agreement' can often present a difficulty and penalty to little Mr and Mrs Smith in the street, as what may appear in the beginning to be an arrangement all warm and fuzzy to naive and unsuspecting mums and dads, may just turn out to be a unilateral agreement from hell — one you wished you had never entered into.
Often laced with unfair terms giving rise to an imbalance in power weighted in favour of the bank, interest, fees and charges, defaults and costs may see your 'alleged debt' growing quicker than you can say 'Rumpelstiltskin'. Plus, the longer the 'loan' continues the greater the stranglehold of any valid common law agreement appears to be, tightening the noose even further.
At this point, people are often forced to give up and bail out; sell or refinance if possible, sometimes losing huge sums of money in the process wondering why they ever entangled themselves with a bank in the first place.
But what if you want to keep your home, can't sell or refinance? What if you have done no wrong — bar being the victim of unforeseeable circumstances when entering the contract; such as family breakdown, loss in income, separation, death of partner, all on top of a loan you really never could have afforded in the first place?
What about being unduly influenced into a bank transaction that you didn't really want, but did so under threat, fear or some type of coercion by a broker, being an agent of the bank, or your partner?
Then after your partner has separated or even died, you are left holding a liability from an agreement that you did not truly consent to. So where do you stand if you cannot obtain any proper legal representation against a bank in seeking redress to either void the contract and mortgage or make the transaction at least voidable?
Why should you be punished? What about when there are bank issues of wrongdoing, misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct, among other things?
Are lawyers really available to run defences against a bank? Can the lay person match the financial resources of a bank who hires not one, but a firm of lawyers, even if you can manage to find and engage a lawyer remotely interested in challenging a bank? Then, if you are lucky enough to find a lawyer and trust them, what is their effective power? What are your financial guarantees and protections that indemnify you against risk and loss, from both the bank and your own lawyers, if you lose?
The strategic tactics employed by banks in litigation are cut-throat, as they need to be to avoid any form of precedent, which may weaken or expose the trickery that affords bankers and their many associates in the legal and financial industries that rake in billions of dollars yearly from the spoils of mortgages and defaults.
As Matt Day playing role of a lawyer, in the 2005 ABC telemovie Hell has Harbour Views, arguably one of the best movie representations of lawyers' shenanigans, bellowed out below from a scene indelibly portraying the scandalous and unconscionable actions and performance of banks and insurance companies, it's no wonder that the little guy in the street has no hope in hell.
And what of any regulatory and legal protections for redress against a bank such as the Financial Ombudsman, ASIC and ACCC?
How effective is FOS in favour of the consumer when they take up to 18 months to get documents from the bank and then still not get everything, cancel a promised conciliation conference without reason at the behest of the bank and give you no feedback along the way keeping you in the dark, all while the bank continues to charge you interest and hefty fees [as punishment] for attending FOS, which you are told by organisations such as the Consumer Action Law Centre they are not suppose to do?
A shocking racket at best and jailable offences at worst.
As it is clear that FOS often finds in favour of the bank, the whole FOS process is an illusory remedy for many and especially for those vulnerable souls who need it the most.
Apart from extreme cases of maladministration, FOS does not provide any proper legal recourse for the consumer and appears to be yet another body that simply hangs of the nipple of the banking con machine and money supply. So help us God.
Any such 'agreement' can often present a difficulty and penalty to little Mr and Mrs Smith in the street, as what may appear in the beginning to be an arrangement all warm and fuzzy to naive and unsuspecting mums and dads, may just turn out to be a unilateral agreement from hell — one you wished you had never entered into.
Often laced with unfair terms giving rise to an imbalance in power weighted in favour of the bank, interest, fees and charges, defaults and costs may see your 'alleged debt' growing quicker than you can say 'Rumpelstiltskin'. Plus, the longer the 'loan' continues the greater the stranglehold of any valid common law agreement appears to be, tightening the noose even further.
At this point, people are often forced to give up and bail out; sell or refinance if possible, sometimes losing huge sums of money in the process wondering why they ever entangled themselves with a bank in the first place.
But what if you want to keep your home, can't sell or refinance? What if you have done no wrong — bar being the victim of unforeseeable circumstances when entering the contract; such as family breakdown, loss in income, separation, death of partner, all on top of a loan you really never could have afforded in the first place?
What about being unduly influenced into a bank transaction that you didn't really want, but did so under threat, fear or some type of coercion by a broker, being an agent of the bank, or your partner?
Then after your partner has separated or even died, you are left holding a liability from an agreement that you did not truly consent to. So where do you stand if you cannot obtain any proper legal representation against a bank in seeking redress to either void the contract and mortgage or make the transaction at least voidable?
Why should you be punished? What about when there are bank issues of wrongdoing, misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct, among other things?
Are lawyers really available to run defences against a bank? Can the lay person match the financial resources of a bank who hires not one, but a firm of lawyers, even if you can manage to find and engage a lawyer remotely interested in challenging a bank? Then, if you are lucky enough to find a lawyer and trust them, what is their effective power? What are your financial guarantees and protections that indemnify you against risk and loss, from both the bank and your own lawyers, if you lose?
The strategic tactics employed by banks in litigation are cut-throat, as they need to be to avoid any form of precedent, which may weaken or expose the trickery that affords bankers and their many associates in the legal and financial industries that rake in billions of dollars yearly from the spoils of mortgages and defaults.
As Matt Day playing role of a lawyer, in the 2005 ABC telemovie Hell has Harbour Views, arguably one of the best movie representations of lawyers' shenanigans, bellowed out below from a scene indelibly portraying the scandalous and unconscionable actions and performance of banks and insurance companies, it's no wonder that the little guy in the street has no hope in hell.
"...people can't afford a long drawn out process, but if you're an insurance company or bank you can, so you spin it out as much as you like, that way you can wear them down...hold things up, bog things down, act like pricks, agree to nothing, deny, deny deny, defend, defend, defend, appeal, appeal, appeal, don't admit a thing, hope they run out of money to fight, hope they give up, hope they die..."
And what of any regulatory and legal protections for redress against a bank such as the Financial Ombudsman, ASIC and ACCC?
How effective is FOS in favour of the consumer when they take up to 18 months to get documents from the bank and then still not get everything, cancel a promised conciliation conference without reason at the behest of the bank and give you no feedback along the way keeping you in the dark, all while the bank continues to charge you interest and hefty fees [as punishment] for attending FOS, which you are told by organisations such as the Consumer Action Law Centre they are not suppose to do?
A shocking racket at best and jailable offences at worst.
As it is clear that FOS often finds in favour of the bank, the whole FOS process is an illusory remedy for many and especially for those vulnerable souls who need it the most.
Apart from extreme cases of maladministration, FOS does not provide any proper legal recourse for the consumer and appears to be yet another body that simply hangs of the nipple of the banking con machine and money supply. So help us God.
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here