Devils advocate time - Using a CCA Request to "Get out of paying a debt"

[sequenci]

I’m asking this as we’ve been discussing it at work and I think it’s a relevant question to ask, as some of you know I work within this field and we're always keeping an eye on this forum as it helps us gauge what is happening in the real world!

We’re all fully aware that many creditors and dcas are pretty slack when it comes to keeping hold of paperwork, due to their incompetence would it be fair for a debtor to use a cca request to try and get out of paying a debt they know they owe?


I can fully appreciate people who are disputing their liability for a debt if they are being chased for a debt they know nothing of, but what about people who try to get out of agreements they know they took out and agreed to? Is it the creditor's fault for being slack? What do you think the future holds?

Any help with this would be gratefully appreciated!

Thanks

[gizmo111]

Bet this turns into an emotional thread.

We’re all fully aware that many creditors and dcas are pretty slack when it comes to keeping hold of paperwork, due to their incompetence would it be fair for a debtor to use a cca request to try and get out of paying a debt they know they owe?

PErsonally I think you have a moral responsibility to repay your debts - however I think once a debt has got to a DCA who cannot produce the paperwork you are in a perfect position to negotiate a full and final reduced settlement.
Debt evasion is not the ethos of this site.

I can fully appreciate people who are disputing their liability for a debt if they are being chased for a debt they know nothing of, but what about people who try to get out of agreements they know they took out and agreed to? Is it the creditor's fault for being slack? What do you think the future holds?

As above, and not producing the agreeement only makes the debt uneneforceable it dosen't eliminate it - the debt still exists.
As for the future I think the creditors will be more careful with their paperwork when making new agreements.

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by gizmo111

Bet this turns into an emotional thread.

i hope it doesn't go ott as it would be really useful to get some decent subjective opinions!

[Bookworm]

Gizmo beat me to my answer, virtually word for word.

[Seahorse]

If it was as simple as that, I might agree that nobody should be trying to evade a debt in this way. Indeed, in my case, I'm trying to find out exactly what I do owe, so I can pay the correct amount.

But where I tend to draw the line is, DCAs who BUY debts for a mere fraction of their total value are worthy of nothing but contempt. If the original creditor was prepared to accept around 10% from these parasites, why then were they never prepared to accept a similar figure from the debtor? Doesn't seem very moral on the part of the creditor. And as we all know, DCAs' morals appear to be non existent anyway.

No, I don't feel that anyone should have any second thoughts about using the system to dodge a debt buying DCA. Just my own personal opinion, and obviously NOT a view supported by this site, just in case you're watching MIB.

[Duffers Mum]

I believe people should pay their debts, however when its a joint debt the lenders always seem to only go after one of the parties. My hubby has had problems with a very old joint debt (with his ex wife) when we were apart I paid token amounts of £10 just because I was sick and tired of getting letters. However it was passed from one DCA to another and each time it meant setting up new standing orders from my account. The last time they passed it on I just didn't bother setting up a new standing order. However when MH suddenly contacted my address and I offered the token £10 per month which the others were happy enough to accept, they refused, in theory the account is statute barred because my hubby has never accepted responsibility and he has never made any payments, however they appear to have made no attempt to contact his ex wife and why should the responsiblity to pay be all his? Most of these DCA's buy the debt for peanuts they should therefore only expect to receive back what they paid for it and should not be using bully boy tactics. If they were more fair and reasonable I'm sure they would get better results!

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by Seahorse

But where I tend to draw the line is, DCAs who BUY debts for a mere fraction of their total value are worthy of nothing but contempt. If the original creditor was prepared to accept around 10% from these parasites, why then were they never prepared to accept a similar figure from the debtor? Doesn't seem very moral on the part of the creditor. And as we all know, DCAs' morals appear to be non existent anyway.

excellent point, by the way i've been following your quest! keep at it

[ODC]

I'm with Seahorse on this one. Most if not all off us have tried in vain to come to some sort of agreement with the banks where we have offered a reasonable compromise when we got into debt. Had they agreed with us then they would probably have got most of the debt paid back (albeit over a longer period). Instead they sell it on to these DCAs for a mere fraction of what is owed to them. Doesnt appear to make sense to me. Of course I want to pay my just and lawful debts but like most ordinary folk my back gets up when people like the DCAs harrass me and my family and make threats. They threaten the law so they should be prepared to accept the consumer has rights under the law also.

[Glenn UK]

its an interesting point i have debated with myself.

clearly if you borrow money then you enter into an agreement to repay that moeny so why shouldnt you repay it?

It seems to me that the lender has responsibilities as much as the borrower and why should either party be able to impose their terms on the one without the other being able to impose their terms back?

If a lender makes errors in their procedure then it is a matter for them and if the loan then becomes unlawful as a result then its thier look out imho.

In coming to this decision it is based on the premise that they have set up their busienss to lend moeny, they have the responsibility to ensure their contracts are in accordance with the law and that they protect themselves from this issue. They are supposed to be the experts.

As far as i can tell many, if not most do not and have not, so who is to blame, not the borrower imho?

It seems to me that if the borrower were to default on the contract the lender is likley to enforce the terms of that contract using the full force of the law, I cannot see why they should benifit from the protection of the law when it comes to enforcing the debt but not when lending the moeny in the first place.

IMHO it makes no difference if the debt is bought by a DCA, this is a nicety and convenient let out for borrower, if you owe the debt then the fact that a DCA is enforicng it doesnt remove your obligation to pay imho.

If the DCAs paid less moeny for the debt but used more pleasant tactis would this change the views of the debtor?

And whilst the DCA may pay a fraction of the total debt owed thats because they are perceived to have higher risks in terms of successful collection of that debt.

These comments re DCAs are not made to support the unlawful techniques some of them use to colect debts, but in experience if you owe the debt and pay it then they dont have to resort to these tactics. I have had a number of debts passed to DCAs and have always managed to arrange reasonable payments without any bother, perhaps im just lucky. I shold add that many of these DCAs get regular mentions on here for their bad practice so i know they do in some cirucmnstances behave unlawfully.

I think for me the bottom line is that if a lender wants to lend moeny then they should make sure their contracts are within the law and ensure so far as is reasonable that people have to repay.

One thing is certain in my mind, when the boot is on the other foot there are no scruples, if you can legititmately get out of a debt then many organisations do.

I am not arguing that this is right, but it does seem to be common occurance for some larger comapnies when dealing with teh consumer.

In conclusin no i dont see it as a problem if the lender has an unlawful contract to get out of it. If the lenders and DCAs carrie don their business in a more humane way then i might take a different view.

JMHO

Glenn

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by ODC

They threaten the law so they should be prepared to accept the consumer has rights under the law also.

quality soundbite right there!

[dannyboy660]

If you borrow money, whoever is the creditor, you have a moral and legal obligation to repay. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

If you find yourself with difficulty in meeting your repayments on time and in full, perhaps through a change of circumstances, you have a duty to inform your creditor(s) with a view to making arrangements that won't leave you penniless, and in danger of falling into that downward spiral which eventually leads to Poop Alley.

At this point of contact to inform of difficulties, the creditor needs to recognise the difficulty the debtor may be in and 'play ball' by not inflating the outstanding balance with ridiculously unrealistic 'late payment' and 'administration' charges. Completely unnecessary, and often the cause of the spiral to Poop Alley - robbing Peter to pay Paul is the expression. However, all too often, if there is more than one creditor involved it becomes a race to squeeze as much out of the debtor before the debt can be charged off, and some/most of the balance recouped.

By the time the debt goes out for purchase or to a DCA, there's a pretty good chance the debtor will be quite some way along Poop Alley, and ready to turn left into GetMeOutOfThis Avenue, with balances blown out of all proportion to what is the real and actual debt. "Compound interest is the most powerful force in the Universe" (Einstein?)

When you become aware there may be a way to bring it to an end, or at the very least give some breathing space without paying for bankruptcy etc, then why not???........ it's perfectly legal and there to protect the small fish from the incompetence and aggression of sharks and bottom feeders. After all, debt purchasers by their very nature, must be the kind of people who would rnug their own disabled grannies if they thought they could make a few quid out of it.

Why on Earth don't the big lenders do what the rest of Europe does, and ask people to sign an 'attachment of earnings' as part of the agreement for credit in the first place?? This could be regulated so only a percentage of income could be taken in time of difficulty, and a return to the lender is guaranteed. No need for scummy purchaser, and just a few reputable collections, but mainly 'in-house' and easier to deal with. The courts need only get involved if the debtor gets into extreme difficulty, but when you know you could automatically lose, say 10% of your income to one creditor alone, who would risk overstretching their finances??

[Seahorse]

Changing the scenario slightly, and a different industry anyway. BUT. Imagine taking out an insurance policy, happy in the belief that if the worst should happen, you'll be covered. won't lose your house/car/whatever.

But then, how many insurance companies refuse to pay out on a technicality, and claim it's our fault BECAUSE WE SHOULD HAVE READ THE SMALL PRINT.

Well, excuse me for believing that insurance should mean exactly that!!!

Now, transfer that thought to people taking out the WORST kind of insurance possible, in many cases - PPI. Sold by these very same institutions we are supposed to feel duty bound to repay. And how many of those policies turn out to be worse than useless?

But I suppose the point I'm trying to make is, Corporate Greed has no conscience. Should they be surprised if we start biting back?

[ODC]

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

its an interesting point i have debated with myself.

clearly if you borrow money then you enter into an agreement to repay that moeny so why shouldnt you repay it?

It seems to me that the lender has responsibilities as much as the borrower and why should either party be able to impose their terms on the one without the other being able to impose their terms back?

If a lender makes errors in their procedure then it is a matter for them and if the loan then becomes unlawful as a result then its thier look out imho.

In coming to this decision it is based on the premise that they have set up their busienss to lend moeny, they have the responsibility to ensure their contracts are in accordance with the law and that they protect themselves from this issue. They are supposed to be the experts.

As far as i can tell many, if not most do not and have not, so who is to blame, not the borrower imho?

It seems to me that if the borrower were to default on the contract the lender is likley to enforce the terms of that contract using the full force of the law, I cannot see why they should benifit from the protection of the law when it comes to enforcing the debt but not when lending the moeny in the first place.

IMHO it makes no difference if the debt is bought by a DCA, this is a nicety and convenient let out for borrower, if you owe the debt then the fact that a DCA is enforicng it doesnt remove your obligation to pay imho.

If the DCAs paid less moeny for the debt but used more pleasant tactis would this change the views of the debtor?

And whilst the DCA may pay a fraction of the total debt owed thats because they are per