Well said Kampervan. The last word is that nobody in this argument is wrong. However the simple fact is that the two opposing sides are on each side of a financial line that is all too often crossed by decent moral law abiding people by mistake or by misfortune, or far too often by downright trickery by the lenders.
The moral outburst from our guest above says 'financial security' to me. Morals are all very well if you can afford them. In an ideal world 'don't buy what you can't afford' might be an option, but if you are a pensioner, who lost out to crappy bank investments and have an ailing wife it's a different story.
The daft name I have used above, is a headline to a long story over decades. I can tell you stories about abuse from Banks that would leave you open mouthed in disbelief.
I fought back and won hands down, and nowadays help other people to regain control of their lives.
Richard is right Banks may possibly sue if they get a whiff available equity, usually they fail to turn up in court. Mostly they use debt collectors who are even more incompetent than the Bank collection departments and have less rights to approach you than the Pizza delivery boy. You are only in trouble if the DCA uses a statutory demand, and then you can probably get it set aside.
If you have no stomach for the fight then I fully understand and prepare to be impoverished. If you are sick and tired of being financially exploited then stand your ground and fight your corner.
Finally grovelling apologies for a post that reads like a mission statement but I just want to add that the bank could not care less if you pay or not. The collections department is run by ordinary folk who are probably deeper in debt than you are. Banks like all bully's go for the easy target, they will harass the student until he or she tops himself, or pester the widow until she has a heart attack, that's their level. I for one will not stand for it, and my life is better for it.
{Phew! thanks for reading if you got this far!}