"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
news:tdvau3tbfk70je36f7pes3vcc26lj9f5nu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:24:11 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>It's totally wrong.
>>>>
>>>>You paid the higher charges because it is unsecured and then
>>>>appaerently they can secure it on you home.
>>>>A complete con.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On the contrary.
>>>
>>> All the borrower has to do is keep to the terms the loan was taken out
>>> on, IE keep his mortgage payments up to date.
>>
>>Err no it is not a mortage. It is an unsecured debt.
>
> Ok. So ...
>
> All the borrower has to do is keep to the terms the loan was taken out
> on, IE keep his payments up to date.
>>
>>>
>>> If he breaks that contract, the contract is, well ...
>>>
>>> Broken.
>>
>>Yes, but the good thiing is it was an unsecured loan,
>>hence he paid higher interest than on a secured loan.
>>If he breaks the contract he ends up with a bad credit rating,
>>thats all.
>
> You don't imagine that the secured loan
Err we are talking about a unsecured loan here, where did this 'secured
loan'
come from?
> they *may* offer him
No point in offering him one as he doesn't want one. To do so would be
wasting his time.
> will be
> on standard terms,
What would be 'standard terms' for a loan he does not want?
> or the terms that they would have given him if his
> accounts with them
Where did his 'account' come from, he does not have an account with them.
There is no mention of an account with them, you seem to have imagined this,
amongst other things.
> were in good standing ?
He has no account with them so there is no standing.
I am not to sure what you are trying to say really it does not make
sense.
You seem to be talking about a totally different situation.
>
> DG
>
|