Hi

It's been a while since I was in debt (a 2003 credit card) and just want to bring myself up to speed as to the rules now should I find myself in trouble again.

I appreciate the rules were tightened in 2006 which closed a loop hole of the lender requiring to provide a copy of your signature in order to enforce the debt but what would happen now if I defaulted on a credit card or unsecured personal loan.

My credit card debt was passed to a DCA

but as they were powerless to enforce payment

- does the same apply with new credit cards and loans?

What would be my options if I had to default and would there be any obligation to make payments if the debt was passed to a DCA?

I know I may be able to take an IVA if I had more than £15k across 3 lenders or go bankrupt (but bankruptcy can rule me out of certain jobs).

Thanks in advance.

All depends on the circumstances of the debt. 2007 only applies to paperwork. Such as the original. Pre apr 2007 they need the original to enforce in court. Post, they just need a compliant reconstituted copy.

I'd stay well away from an IVA tbh.

passed or sold is the more important issue.

passed

you ignore them

sold,

well why would an original creditor sell a debt rather than hound and prosecute you themselves

speaks volumes upon how legit all the debt might well be.

dx

Could you be a bit more specific?

If I took an unsecured persona loan and credit card out now and defaulted what would happen? Did you really mean to say I could be prosecuted by the lender???!

they probably wouldn't want the bad publicity

but they'd sell it to a DCA and they most likely would and win.

How do you prosecute someone over a defaulted debt? They can't wring money out of you that you haven't got and if you had it you wouldn't have defaulted in the first place. Sounds like an IVA or bankruptcy would be best in order to protect oneself.

I'm not getting a clear picture of the process once you've defaulted. It gets sold to a DCA - they ask you to pay the full amount or try to incentivise you with a reduction in the balance - then what? What are your options, what are their options, when and why would it go to prosecution, what are the potential outcomes if they prosecuted?

Thanks

You can't prosecute. As debt isn't illegal

you'll get a CCJ that's the end result.

you have some weird ideas....

go read up 1000's of debt threads here

sound like a FOTL sayings

I'm just going off what you said: 'well why would an original creditor sell a debt rather than hound and prosecute you themselves'.

I assumed you get a CCJ and that's the end of it

but the fixing of the pre-2006 CCA made me wonder if creditors had more power now

- otherwise what was the point in doing away with the need to provide a true copy of your signature?

By that I mean if you had a credit card debt from 2001 and they couldn't provide a true copy of your signature then the debt was unenforceable, you were credit blacklisted for 6 years and that was the end of it

- whereas if you have a card debt from 2016,

they don't have to provide a true copy but the end result is the same:

they can't force you to pay and you're black listed for 6 years via a CCJ.

End result is the same in both scenarios.

I assumed the creditors and DCAs now have the legal right to force you to pay rather than ignoring them.

there is no change as you note.

other than post apr 2007 agreements are very much harder to wriggle out of.

I'm just going off what you said: 'well why would an original creditor sell a debt rather than hound and prosecute you themselves'.

 

I assumed you get a CCJ and that's the end of it

but the fixing of the pre-2006 CCA made me wonder if creditors had more power now

- otherwise what was the point in doing away with the need to provide a true copy of your signature?

 

 

By that I mean if you had a credit card debt from 2001 and they couldn't provide a true copy of your signature then the debt was unenforceable, you were credit blacklisted for 6 years and that was the end of it

 

 

- whereas if you have a card debt from 2016,

they don't have to provide a true copy but the end result is the same:

they can't force you to pay and you're black listed for 6 years via a CCJ.

End result is the same in both scenarios.

 

I assumed the creditors and DCAs now have the legal right to force you to pay rather than ignoring them.

In a nutshellthe Original Creditor will get fed up of sending letters, so will write it off against tax, then sell say a £1,000 debt for 50 quid, and let the DCA take a chance. If post 2007 a reconstituted agreement can stand, so more chance of that CCJ.

there is no change as you note.

other than post apr 2007 agreements are very much harder to wriggle out of.

And what is there to wiggle out of? Pre or post 2006 you're gonna be black listed for 6 years.

In a nutshellthe Original Creditor will get fed up of sending letters, so will write it off against tax, then sell say a £1,000 debt for 50 quid, and let the DCA take a chance. If post 2007 a reconstituted agreement can stand, so more chance of that CCJ.

What difference does a CCJ make as with or without a CCJ you're not getting credit for 6 years?

Blacklisted? If it was pre 2006 or even pre 2011 the debt would be long gone off your credit file. Theres no actual blacklist. Just a mark on y our credit file

Blacklisted? If it was pre 2006 or even pre 2011 the debt would be long gone off your credit file. Theres no actual blacklist. Just a mark on y our credit file

You're splitting hairs now. If you default on a credit agreement it goes on your file for 6 years, your credit rating drops, and you're deeply unlikely to get credit beyond a mobile phone contact.

I'm just trying to find answers to my last post - about what is there to wiggle out of and what difference does a CCJ make to a standard default as they both result in the same effect on your credit file.

pre 2007 paperwork was very sketchy post its not.

ccj's are normally attained toward the end of the defaulted period before the debt goes sb'd

so fleecers can gander as much s69 int as they can on top

so extends the debt harming your file to 11/12yrs in effect

You're splitting hairs now. If you default on a credit agreement it goes on your file for 6 years, your credit rating drops, and you're deeply unlikely to get credit beyond a mobile phone contact.

 

I'm just trying to find answers to my last post - about what is there to wiggle out of and what difference does a CCJ make to a standard default as they both result in the same effect on your credit file.

Armed with a CCJ, creditors can send bailiffs to see you to see what goods they can take to sell. They can't break into a house, but can seize a car you might own outside.

Also with a CCJ, if you refused to settle the debt, there are other ways to enforce it. For example, you could receive a court order to attend a court to be questioned about non payment. Failure to attend the court might lead to your arrest for contempt of court.

So a CCJ is more of a problem than a default.

I think you need to read through the CAG financial legal page and see what is happening. DCA's are issuing thousands of court claims every week and they don't always have any paoerwork from original creditors. Quite often if court claims are defended, the claim is discontinued. They issue more claims than they have resources to deal with them, if they have to send someone to a court.

cant always send bailiffs on a cca regulated judgement UB

very rare

Jeez! I never knew that! Thanks for the info. I'll check out the link but a couple of quick questions:

1) If they can seize your car, assess what you can offer towards payback and take you to court to enforce payment then does that mean everyone on a CCJ ends up paying back what they owe?

2) As a CCJ is so powerful - what stops a DCA from applying for one? Or do they - and everyone ends up paying instead of sitting out 6 years of no credit?