Mynewt:

I agree (somewhat) if its the changes in interest that are causing an issue, but to me the OP just didn't come across as being one of these cases, granted that just maybe the way I interpretted it.

You are correct. They said they had been swindled over a 0% interest rate which is reason enough to want to pursue the line of enforceability.

Mynewt:

That said, you know when you take out a credit agreement such as this that the interest charges are liable to fluctuate.

Why do I have a feeling that I know what's going to come next?

Mynewt:

How many people complained or would complain if the rates fell?

Understandably, you may not have expected an increase as large as this, but you should have at least prepared for it. I mean its common sense, prepare for the worst and expect the best - so that if your expectations aren't met at least your prepared for it.

Bingo!!

This thread isn't about me and I don't want to kidnap it but I will make some general points.

I've held CC's for over 25 years so I have some experience of them. I've never been aware of a credit card rate falling any more than a couple of percentage points irrespective of the starting interest rate. No-one will complain about rates falling, but when interest rates are so low and the IBLR (the rate banks lend to each other at) is not much higher, I can't see any justification in increasing rates - even by a couple of points. The only conclusion can be greed, indifference, and the fact that they can because the "contract" allows them to. If our only defence against this is to question the efficacy of the contract, then that's the way it has to be.

There will be exceptions with people whose payment history is not good or people who have had debt problems in the past, but when you have a perfect record of paying off all loans and mortgages, and you've never missed a payment - ever - on any loan or credit card owned, then what is the justification for huge increases in percentage charges when the credit risk hasn't changed.

Mynewt:

I seem to remember reading somewhere on here, that people were able to get the interest frozen on their accounts (along with their spending privaleges) on their cards to help repay the debt. Have you investigated this possibility?

I'm assuming you've never dealt with a CC company and tried to get your interest rates reduced or frozen before? All they want is your money. They're not really interested in helping as most of the threads in this forum attest to.

Mynewt:

And for the record, i'm one of those lower-income earner's. I know this, which is why I take personal responsibility for my spending and why I get so angry when people don't take the same repsonsibility, exploit loopholes and in the end, add to the increases I have to endure.

Good for you. I too take personal responsibility for my spending and borrowing and have never borrowed more than I could afford, but when I'm managing nicely, reducing my balance, and people start to ask for an additional 18,000 a year in interest payments, no amount of "planning ahead" would have forseen such a massive increase in payments or such an increase in interest rates at a time when interest rates are at their lowest ever.The fact that I've managed to pay an additional £1500 per month shows that my borrowing was well within my "affordability" limits. Now I fear I'm getting near that end of the "spare monthly cash" if rates keep increasing.

Even so, that isn't the point. This forum is about people looking for help in fighting unfair practices or dealing with debt problems. It's not about you venting some spleen and feeling morally superior because you've managed your income/outgoings better than someone else and you're annoyed that they are "getting away with it" or "looking for loopholes".

If you don't want to contribute to helping people that's fine, but I find it distasteful that you should come on here questioning the behaviour or people just because you feel they are getting away with something that you don't agree with. You only have to read through these forum to understand that most people are simply looking for help. Very few posts are about "getting rid of the debt". I've lost count the number of posts saying "I want to pay off my debts...". People are being pushed to the edge for all sorts of reasons - most of them outwith their control - and many of them have found an unsympathetic ear when they approach their creditors with a genuine want to pay them off. I salute those who are fighting back, and I'm gobsmacked at all the people who are helping by providing expertise, comfort, and their own personal time to help out strangers. If you don't agree with what is happening here, don't read the posts, but don't you dare come over all morally superior just because you aren't in that position and don't like people who, I quote, "don't take responsibility", "exploit loopholes". Most of them aren't, it's the behaviour of the CCC and banks that you should be questioning.

PRBrown,

I would be interested to know what you think is a reasonable 'exposure' to credit? I personally believe that if your unsecured debt is more than one earns in a year, it's already out of control.

What do you think? Am I being unreasonable?

Wow ... another great post PRB.

My own experience is similar to most. Initially managing the credit well within income. But I found over the years my payments required to keep up skyrocketted from £300 / month to well over £600 / month. Out of my salary that was unsustainable.

Unfortunately I didn't find this forum (and other similar) until after I had wiped out £5000 savings and £15,000 of sold off insurance policies.

My only alternative would be bankruptcy and possible loss of my family's home. No way am I going lying down. Like a rat in a corner I WILL fight to the end.

Skywalker

I don't think you are being unreasonable. People have spent money that they now realise they cannot afford to repay. But the financial services companies that allowed this to happen and are now charging unreasonable interest are equally to blame. As are governments around the world who have through poor regulation, allowed this to happen.

If the Financial services companies have issued credit agreements which are unenforceable than I see no problem in allowing due legal process to take place. The courts will decide at the end of the day. It always seems unfair to me that those on low or average earnings are criticised when they try to avoid paying back credit. How many millionaires who can afford expensive lawyers and accountants, get away with not paying their creditors back or avoiding to pay tax.

People will always have aspirations for a 'lifestyle' that is beyond their reach. To bridge the gap between their earnings and the level of spend they require, they look to financial services companies to provide loans. The trouble is if millions of people get away with not making reasonable repayments of their debts, some of these financial services companies will go bust, affecting the rest of the economy. People will then be forced to live within their means.

I think the following paragraph also sums up the social issue at the heart of the debate.

“Materialist consumerism” is people buying stuff that other people think they shouldn’t. But a free society has to mean people pursuing happiness by doing things–like spending their own money as they choose–that others disapprove. Some social critics just hate this. They’d prefer it if right-thinking moralists like them got to tell everyone else how to live.

Personally having worked for a bank who are as tight as a nats ar** and where you can get sacked for being in debt, I try to avoid taking out any credit if I can avoid it.

Huckster

huckster,

I think we are both on the same page here. I agree with what you write, particularly your last sentence - which is the way I have always lived.

I may come across as unsympathetic which isn't entirely accurate, I do feel some sympathy for people in these situations, but it has a limit. Usually when their actions/inactions cost me... They've gotten themselves into this situation, when they signed for credit they acknowledged the lender's right to increase their charges, and consented by signing on the dotted line. Wether or not you read the T&C's or not, you signed to say you had, and now your being held to this agreement - your crying foul.

It's not the lenders fault your now unable to meet your responsibilities, but it is that lender that will now have to shoulder the impact of this as well as each and everone of their other customers.

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about resolving this situation and from my interpretation it is very much the latter that is currently being explored. You can try talking with the lender, I am sure in most cases where given a choice between freezing interest and being paid back the capital and some interest, and leaving the interest along and not recieving any payment - that they'll make the right choice, failing this you can seek advice from the CAB, and some accreddited debt counselling services (be sure to research the establishment you choose as many are not as genuine as they may appear). By trying to "exploit a loophole" your just digging yourself a deeper whole, that will not only make your current situation worse, make relations between yourself and current lender even more difficult, and make your financial future all the more harder to deal with. (credit rating falling, meaning credit harder to obtain, unfavourable rates etc).

The best way to avoid this situation is not to get in this mess in the first place, you can only do this by being completely responsible, and preparing for that rainy day. The OP clearly has a grudge which as I said previously more-than-likely comes down to thier own failure to read throughly the documenation he would undoubteldy have been provided. (I state this as there's been no proof provided to their claims of a "swindle").

Skywalker:PRBrown, I would be interested to know what you think is a reasonable 'exposure' to credit? I personally believe that if your unsecured debt is more than one earns in a year, it's already out of control. What do you think? Am I being unreasonable?

I don't have an opinion because I don't think it's possible to set such hard & fast rules. It all comes down to affordability and proportionality.

For example, say someone is earning £24K per annum and borrows that amount on an unsecured personal loan over 5 years. Their typical repayment migh be along the lines of £490 per month on a take home pay of around £1500 (estimates only). That's not only one-third of their take-home, but it only leaves them with £1000 a month to pay everything else.

If someone on £90K per annum borrowed £90K, their monthly repayment of a 5-year period would be approx £1900 against a take-home of around £4900. That still leaves around £3000 per month of cash for other things.

My conclusion, the person with the higher income is more easily able to sustain that proportion of borrowing than someone on a lower income. I appreciate there are other factors such as lifestyle that are likely to be significantly different between these examples, but the fact remains higher-level incomes will usually be able to sustain proportionally higher levels of borrowing.

I'm neither condoning nor criticising these levels of borrowing, just making an observation.

Mynewt:
They've gotten themselves into this situation, when they signed for credit they acknowledged the lender's right to increase their charges, and consented by signing on the dotted line. Wether or not you read the T&C's or not, you signed to say you had, and now your being held to this agreement - your crying foul.

We're never going to agree because our interpretation of what is going on is so vastly at odds with one another.

I expected variable rates, but I also assumed (OK, wrongly in my naivity - how quickly we learn) that banks and CC companies were honourable institutions because you also do the same thing when you sign up for a mortgage i.e. variable interest rates. Lets forget about fixed rate terms for the moment.

In the case of mortgages we expect lower interest rates since the loan is secured on an asset, but you also expect variable interest rates to closely track that of the Bank of England interest rates and the IBLR, with the final interest rate you pay also reflecting the level of risk you present to the lender.

In the case of mortgages, which are more tightly regulated, this is exactly what happens. Some people pay more, some pay less, but the rates tend to track the underlying interest rates fairly closely and fluctuate up and down in response to changes in this base rate.

It's a fact that you will never get a credit card without agreeing to their some of their terms - properly executed or not - but that doesn't bother most people because such terms are included in almost any type of borrowing you undertake whether it be a mortgage, a car loan, or a credit card. In most cases we have a reasonable expectation that variable rates will be variable in accordance with some sort of gross ecomonic factor that we all understand; usually the Bank of England base lending rate

In the case of CC's the initial interest rates may be higher as it is unsecured lending, but you would also expect any changes in interest rates being imposed would be a response to the underlying cost of the CC companies in relation to them lending the money to you. Lets also not forget that every time you use a credit card the credit card company get a slice of that action at a cost to the retailer selling you the goods.

Instead, the interest rates being charged by CC companies seem to follow no logic except their own, which appears to revolve around how much they squeeze out of their customers before they squeal. What bothers people like me is that the rates aren't varying in response to underlying economics trends, cost bases, or perceived risk, but are based on the fact that CC companies are exploiting their "right" to increase rates to levels that could never be morally justified by any stretch of the imagination, and which no-one could reasonably expect would even be allowed at Law.

I'm not complaining about variable rates per se - they are a fact of life - but I am complaining about their ability to increase their rates to a level that bears no relation to their costs in lending the money and the fact that I have no powers to stop this happening.

The only path left to get any sort of negotiating stance is to make them prove they have an enforceable agreement. This isn't being done to avoid paying the debt but to get the interest rates reduced to a level that is a more accurate reflection of the "market interest" rate for that level of borrowing.

Mynewt:

It's not the lenders fault your now unable to meet your responsibilities, but it is that lender that will now have to shoulder the impact of this as well as each and everone of their other customers.

Apart from the small number of people that are using this legislation to try to get out of paying their loans or take responsibility for their spending, people like myself and basa48 (if I read his posts correctly) are simply railing at the unreasonable levels of interest rates being imposed. This is entirely the fault of the lenders. If they hadn't increased their rates to such unsustainable levels me, and many many others, wouldn't be spending time here.

Do you really think I would agree to borrow at 34.9% if I was borrowing money now when the underlying interest rates are so low? Of course you wouldn't.

Mynewt:
There is a right way and a wrong way to go about resolving this situation and from my interpretation it is very much the latter that is currently being explored.

Only because there is no other way that actually works.

Mynewt:
You can try talking with the lender, I am sure in most cases where given a choice between freezing interest and being paid back the capital and some interest, and leaving the interest along and not recieving any payment - that they'll make the right choice,

That sounds reasonable but my real-world experience suggests otherwise. CCC's and banks may go on consumer programmes and talk about what they are doing to help people with unmanageable debt and how concerned they are, but it's all smoke and mirrors. How can anyone say they have their customers interest at heart when they charge huge interest rates to existing customers which bears no relation to their costs in providing this facility, and then entice new ones with 0% interest for 15 months? It's morally reprehensible.

Long story short. A few months ago I investigated borrowing the money on my mortgage (I have a lot of equity in my house) to pay off all the CC debts. Not only would this turn unsecured borrowing into secured (better for the lender) but it would have reduced my monthly outgoings by a huge at that time. What happened - I was refused on the ground of affordability. When I questioned this I was told that they looked at my current outgoings, ADDED ON the additional cost of the larger mortgage, and used the total figures to calculate my potential because "most" people who take out loans never pay their credit cards off. So there you go, I was wanting to do the right thing, make the debt "safer" for the lender, and reduce my outgoings by a significant amount, and pay of all my CC's (unenforceable agreement or not) and I wasn't able to.

Mynewt:
failing this you can seek advice from the CAB, and some accreddited debt counselling services (be sure to research the establishment you choose as many are not as genuine as they may appear).

Why should I? Really, why should I? Why should I have my expenditure controlled by a 3rd party (you can only spend X per month for petrol, only Y is reasonable for food costs) and stick to a budget that is controlled and scrutinized by companies that are causing the problem in the first place.

I don't want or need a debt management plan. I want the CC companies to behave in a responsible manner by charging interest rates that are a reflection of their costs and risks in lending the money to me, and are a reflection of the "going market rate" for that amount of borrowing.

Mynewt:
By trying to "exploit a loophole" your just digging yourself a deeper whole, that will not only make your current situation worse, make relations between yourself and current lender even more difficult, and make your financial future all the more harder to deal with. (credit rating falling, meaning credit harder to obtain, unfavourable rates etc).

I've tried being reasonable. I have absolutely no respect for the business practices of these companies because I can find no moral compasss or reasonable behaviour being exhibited by any of them. This forum is full of examples of so-called respectable companies behaving in despicable ways - ignoring the Law, lying at court, taking action where the Law disallows them to, selling debts to companies without proper execution of default notices and termination, scaring customers into giving them money, harrassing customers with numerous telephone calls per day despite being asked to communicate in writing only, writing letters full of threats, misquoting the law to give credence to their own position even if it isn't legal. It's a disgrace, and yet you say I should wary of souring relations with my creditors. Give me a break!

I've not defaulted, I've never not paid, I've tried to negotiate better rates, I'm paying massive interest rates on debts that are reducing every month, and I am no higher a lending risk than I was before, yet interest rates continue to increase to unsustainable levels that bear no resemblance to any costs I can calculate. You tell me what other options I - and many other people - have?

Mynewt:

The best way to avoid this situation is not to get in this mess in the first place, you can only do this by being completely responsible, and preparing for that rainy day.

You're moralizing again. Let me see you purchase a new home and/or car without some sort of borrowing. How do you purchase goods online (to save money) without a credit card (I've tried using Maestro but it doesn't work at a lot of places). Credit is a fact of life. Times have moved on for most people where money in an envelope was how people saved, and wages were paid weekly by cash in brown envelopes with a wage slip inside. I don't have 40" TV's in my house, I haven't been on holiday for about 6 years (too busy with company) and I don't feel I've been irresponsible with the borrowing I have. What's going to make me "irresponsible" is 34% interest rates that are being imposed by a company that isn't interested in talking to me about reducing them. My situation is no different from thousands of other people.

Mynewt:
The OP clearly has a grudge which as I said previously more-than-likely comes down to thier own failure to read throughly the documenation he would undoubteldy have been provided. (I state this as there's been no proof provided to their claims of a "swindle").

How do you know it's a grudge? Maybe it's a genuine case where 0% was promised but not provided. I don't know whether they read the T&Cs or not so I'm in no position to make a point about that. Just as there in no proof there was a swindle there is no proof that there wasn't either.

You seem to be quick to take the moral high ground by making assumptions that aren't based on the evidence provided. It sounds just like the way a CC company behaves when they go after a debtor who is (only) asking them for proof that their reporting of defaults, or their "right" to increase interest rates to unreasonable levels, is really a part of any contract that exists between them. No properly executed agreement = no rights to do these things.

What makes the companies right in your eyes and people who want to fight them wrong? People aren't using "loopholes", they are using legislation that has been in place since the 1970's. If anyone is attempting to use a "loophole" its the CC companies we read about in these forums every day, where truth, decency, and following the Law is seen as a choice rather than a fact.

Much of your repsonse boils down to not reading the infomation provided and inproper planning. Different credit agreements should be read so you understand what is covered in the agreement and sometimes more importantly what's not covered. In this example there was no reference to any mechanism to prevent the increase in rates.

PRBrown: The only path left to get any sort of negotiating stance is to make them prove they have an enforceable agreement. This isn't being done to avoid paying the debt but to get the interest rates reduced to a level that is a more accurate reflection of the "market interest" rate for that level of borrowing.

Well this isn't the case is it? its not the only course of action, just the only one your willing to undertake as we'll see in a moment.

PRBrown: Do you really think I would agree to borrow at 34.9% if I was borrowing money now when the underlying interest rates are so low?

If your not reading the T and C's you might just be and as this show's you certainly did, in fact you agreed to rates of any value, as set by the issuer.

PRBrown: Why should I? Really, why should I? Why should I have my expenditure controlled by a 3rd party (you can only spend X per month for petrol, only Y is reasonable for food costs) and stick to a budget that is controlled and scrutinized by companies that are causing the problem in the first place.

Here's those other solutions we looked at and your refusal to investigate, and as to why you should because its a viable solution to the problems faced. Wanting the CCC's to be reasonable is a great idea just don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen - better to do something productive and look at viable solutions.

PRBrown: How do you purchase goods online (to save money) without a credit card (I've tried using Maestro but it doesn't work at a lot of places).

Paypal

PRBrown: My situation is no different from thousands of other people

Finally we agree on something

PRBrown: How do you know it's a grudge?

Basic human psychology. If you've been the victim of fraud/a swindle you do not keep the details to yourself when talking about it, its a basic instinct to make the details public to highlight the perpetrator to the attention of others and to protect others from the same fate. Additionally a swindle is a greater concern than a CC excersising their rights to alter rates (no matter the feeling of said action) and would be the opening to the OP's post rather than a mere single sentance.

PRBrown: If anyone is attempting to use a "loophole" its the CC companies we read about in these forums every day, where truth, decency, and following the Law is seen as a choice rather than a fact.

Where does it ever say CCC's have to be decent, and i'd like you to prove how the CCC has broken the law or been in anyway dishonest? All that's been provided is eveidence of a CCC increasing their rates as per the T&C's of their provision of credit - hardly illegal or dishonest.

As I said, we're never going to agree. You can continue with your stance and interpretation, and I'll stick with mine. I was going to reply but then decided that I can't ignore the pile of work on my desk any more, and more importantly I understand that a flame-war isn't going to solve anything when we have such wildly different views. I think we can agree to disagree and leave it there.

My original post was to sympathise with redforever and it wasn't my intention to take over their post - my apoligies to redforever for that.

Hopefully someone can now help redforever with their queries and I hope it all works out for them in the end.

"I don't have an opinion because I don't think it's possible to set such hard & fast rules."

Hahaha It seems to me that you certainly have opinions, that you are more than able to expostulate.

Sympathy is all well and good, but responsibility and accountability count for a lot as well. But I am sure that you don't have an opinion on that either.

Skywalker:................ responsibility and accountability count for a lot as well.

Except when it comes to paying the bills.

Skywalker:"I don't have an opinion because I don't think it's possible to set such hard & fast rules." Hahaha It seems to me that you certainly have opinions, that you are more than able to expostulate.

If you want to focus on a single sentence in a paragraph and focus on that as being the essence of what I said then go ahead.

You asked what I thought was a reasonable exposure to debt and whether I agreed with you that once unsecured debt equalled a years income it was out of control. I said that I didn't have an opinion on that, and if you want me to expand I don't have an opinion because the question asked doesn't provide enough information to for me to give a hard-and-fast answer. I gave 2 examples based on a level of income and equivalent proportions of borrowing. In one case that level of borrowing would likely be unsustainable while in the other example it probably would be sustainable. If it's any comfort, my opinion - as stated - was that there can't be hard & fast rules.

If we then speculate on other scenarios not in evidence, was I to assume that unsecured borrowing equivalent to a years salary was irresponsible when it was owed by a high-earner who was single and had no mortgage, or that level of borrowing was being carried out by someone with at wife, three kids, a car loan, and a 100% mortgage at 5 times their salary? In one case I can't see any real problems, in the other I can see bad debts and re-possession looming fast. The simple fact is I couldn't give a catch-all answer based on what I was asked.

I'm not an absolutist who thinks that there can be a hard-and-fast rule that can apply to all situations. There are always other factors that affect a decision.

I do have opinions, but not on everything under the sun, and I rarely have one based on a hypothetical situations that only focus on a single issue when many other factors would influence that decision in the real world.

Skywalker:"

Sympathy is all well and good, but responsibility and accountability count for a lot as well.

Didn't I say that? In answer to your question I said "it depends on affordability and proportionality". That doesn't change.

I also believe that responsibility and accountability is a two-way street, but that isn't a measure I'm seeing much evidence of when reading these forums and the way many people are being treated by DCAs, CCCs, and banks.

Skywalker:"

But I am sure that you don't have an opinion on that either.

Is that an opinion or a fact? I have no opinion on your opinion of whether you think I have an opinion in reference to your opinion.

I may not have a great deal of personal sympathy to give for borrowing that has been so blatantly irresponsible that it defies belief, but when it comes to people being put into positions through no fault of their own by dramatic changes in circumstances that couldn't reasonably be foreseen at the time the borrowing took place, or those who are placed in situations where they have been responsible but the irresponsible and unaccountable actions of a third party have caused them hardship, then I have every sympathy.

At the end of the day, my opinions don't matter one jot on this forum. What matters on these forums is that people can come here for advice on debt problems they are experiencing and get some help. While people can be selective in who they decide to help, much of the help being provided is put into the public domain for others to help themselves. Will some people use this information to try to get out of paying back money they have borrowed? - I'm sure there will be - but most of the queries here stem from a genuine need to deal with unexpected debt problems and a desire to manage them responsibly.

I am of the opinion (they are still coming) that no reasonable person goes out deliberately to put themselves into unmanageable debt, and no amount of moralizing after the fact is going to change the position they find themselves in now. When they come here, it's usually too late. The debts exist. I'm sure most people would love to turn back the clock and change what they did, but that can't happen. What they need help with is finding a way to manage the debt that now exists. They don't need to be told they shouldn't have done that because I doubt no-one will be feeling more guilty for getting into that situation than that person. Telling them that they are irresponsible, lack accountability, or are stupid to have got themselves into that situation doesn't actually make a difference because it too late - far too late for most people. If that can be the extent of the contribution some people can make (I'm not directing this at you Skywalker, so don't take it personally) then that contribution isn't worth expressing for the purposes of these forums.

I really don't care whether people agree with my opinion on things or not. I just want to see people being helped by these forums. I want to see an end to the bullying, harassement, and intimidation, that seems to follow in the wake of debt issues by giving people a way to fight back and/or assert the rights and protections that they have in Law. I also can't abide the holier-than-thou attitudes of those who think that people with debt problems deserve everything they get, that they should have known better, and the assumption that people in these situations lack any sense of responsibility or accountability.

I would like to have more to offer at the moment than the occasional rant, but through the unstinting help being provided by many people I'm getting a good grounding in relevant consumer law and a good idea of the kind of tactics being employed by DCAs and CCCs when someone tweaks their tail.

An interesting discussion, and, No, I will not be drawn into tossing my hat into the ring.

I subscribe to these forums to offer help where it is asked for. I leave the moral agonising to the poster. At the end of the day I can walk away.

My only concern is this:

There is a law (fact) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

If one breaks the law, one should expect to be punished.

If I set myself up as a loan shark and operated outside of said law then I would be hunted down and imprisoned - rightly so.

This principle should be applied equitably to all, no one and no company should be able to operate outside of or above the law, or the law become worthless.

The lenders, before they are permitted to lend, are scrutinised and licensed in accordance with an undertaking to comply with the law.

If a lender fails to comply with the law then they surrender their rights under the law.

Part of the licensing process is to test the capacity of the proposed lender to comply with the law. Every lender has a legal department, populated by qualified people who's skill is in interpreting the law and understanding the implications, for and against, in order to ensure compliance.

In short, the lenders have no excuse for failing to comply.

Where a lender complies with the law then they are entitled to the protection of the law, where they fail to comply then the law should operate to protect the consumer from illegal practice.

Simplistic, but it works for me.

And I can sleep at night.

S

There is one other factor in this unequal struggle between debtor and creditor.

That is the cost of bringing an action against a creditor. It can cost a good deal of money to bring an action against a creditor.

Generally the CCCs can throw almost unlimited cash at a case (claim or defence) even if only to beat a poor LiP into submission with clever QCs. Similarly a debtor (who may already be cash poor) cannot afford a good QC to defend his case.

This places an enormous disparity on the outcome of cases which can be won or lost on technicalities of law and procedure. A judge is almost always bound to be swayed more by a QCs arguments than a LiP.