A call for sanity?

[Seahorse]

I'd link to the article normally, but as it's members only, and as Credit Today allows you to email the article, I'm sure they won't mind if I reproduce it here.

 

When reading it, please bear in mind that the author is attempting to strike an impartial balance. You may not agree with everything written. But please respect the author's right to his/her viewpoint. There is a hint that both sides should take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

Please don't simply rip the p1sh. Informed debate is what I'm looking for here.

 

Credit Today Articles

 

Call off the fightIssue Date: 01-Dec-07An issue that seems to creep into almost every page of Credit Today these days is that of the battle between the industry and consumer ‘activists’. This month, DBSG chairman Leigh Berkley tells us why he wants to stop misleading information being given to consumers online (News, p10) and in the Collections and Recovery supplement Harvey Jones examines industry attempts to redress the balance and change the image of debt collection.

 

In recent years numerous websites have sprung up where people in debt can swap advice and experiences and challenge the industry to do better. Those offering genuine advice to people in hardship should be supported. For example, sites such as IVA - Individual Voluntary Arrangement: IVA Help and Advice are used by industry figures and consumers alike. This month its credit professionals and consumers worked together to share information on a company urging people to stop paying their IVAs. However, the reputation of genuine sites is being tarnished by the activities of a few ‘vigilante debtors’ determined to avoid their debts even if they can and should pay.

 

Sadly, this has led to a stand off between industry and consumer, when in reality the beef should be with those looking for loopholes for the sake of loopholes, not those desperate for help.

 

In the past Credit Today has carried investigations of mis-tracing and poor collection practices and found the industry wanting in some instances. We’ve been accused of ‘acting like Watchdog’ and betraying our readers. I make no apology for holding a mirror up to the industry so you can see the practices – good and bad – in better light. Greater transparency is in everyone’s interest and we’ll always give you the right to reply.

 

What we won’t do, however, is give space to those who are out to avoid their debts. This month CT was called by a man who said he was a financial adviser seeking an appeal ruling against several large financial institutions for breaking the regulations in their credit card terms. When, intrigued, I asked him to explain what loss, hardship or inconvenience this caused, he became angry and argued that the technicality should mean he didn’t have to pay any money back. He refused to give his name.

 

Of course, any impropriety on the part of the bank should be punished and customers compensated for loss or hardship. However, if you borrow money, understand the terms and haven’t suffered any extra cost, why would you think it’s acceptable not to pay anything back?

 

It’s frustrating to watch sensible arguments – on both sides – ruined by people who are essentially stealing money. It’s also upsetting to uncover instances where vulnerable people have been treated badly. Unfortunately both behaviours reinforce the overall problem and pit industry against consumer. The cycle needs to be broken.

[volvodriver]

I'm impartial. I pay my debts, and in the ordinary scheme of things so should everyone else.

 

But I came here for advice, which thank you I received, and since reading lots of the posts have been appalled by the way some have been treated.

 

I think the problem is rather wider than the writer might suggest. Banks and building societies used to be hallowed institutions, respected and considered fair and impartial.

 

Its quite clear that driven by corporate greed this is no longer the case. Banks across the world have been guilty of corporate fraud, bad lending, poor administration and downright bad service.

 

I disagree with the writer - a two pronged approach is not required, first the institutions should clean up their act - lend sensibly and follow the rules by which they are regulated - thats not rocket science is it? Then they should administer properly - if every bad debt had a CCA attached to it, most of the posts on these forums would be redundant, and there would be no disputes, and debtors would have nowhere to stand back. Coupled with strategies to help people in genuine hardship, they might then regain their former status - and they would be more profitable.

 

And yes, for those who would evade what they owe - which eventually costs us the consumer, the banks and DCAs have laws and powers enabling them to collect effectively - and would have the overwhelming support and respect of their customers and shareholders were they able to do so with integrity.

[spamheed]

I know there are people out there who want something for nothing, but that isn't unique to Debt collection, it happens in all walks of life and the media is regularly full of them, rip off artists, conmen and downright thieving individuals. In the business of debt collection (and it is a BIG business) debtors want their worries and financial burdens to disappear, DCAs want the maximum return for a minimum cost and workload.

 

so trying to minimise ones outlay, or maximise ones return would seem to be a good tactic (depending on which side of the fence you sit)

 

Simply looking at a few of the threads on this forum and It's clearly not simply a case of paying back what is owed. or even trying hard not to pay it back

 

Its being dealt with in an honest and open manner, without being terrorised by a commission driven faceless individual, without having intimidating strangers turning up at your home to embarrass and threaten you in front of your family and neighbours. letters and phone calls and phantom parcels requiring premium rate phone calls to confirm your details

 

It's about taking out credit with an organisation and paying them, but when things take a down turn, and the situation changes, whether the reason be marital, medical, or a simple change in employment status, being attacked and swamped by a host of companies intent on deceiving and cajoling until monies are received.

 

What is wrong with saying "who are you and how do I owe you this money?"

what is wrong with saying "show me? prove to me that you are who you claim to be and you have a right to invade my privacy"

 

The simple answer is NOTHING, There is nothing wrong, or illegal in establishing the facts around your financial status, the law of the land says so!!

 

There are laws to protect the individual from companies who behave in the ways listed above, there are also laws to protect the creditor and their investment.

 

Use of the law of the land is a right, not a tool, or blunt object to be used to hammer the opposition into submission.

 

If these organisations adhered to the law, not just the principles, but to the letter, sites and forums such as this one would be obsolete and the mechanisms of debt collection would run a great deal smoother and more profitably, for both sides.

 

In my youth, I used to fight....a lot, perhaps a little too much, but that's another story

 

If the guy I fought stood toe to toe, then I would do the same and the better man would win

 

If the opponent relied on less straightforward tactics, then I would retaliate in the same manner.

 

What's so different? why is it that companies who regularly skirt around or even break the laws complain when their opponents do the same.

 

There's an old saying "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" it's never been more appropriate

[sosumi]

I know there are people out there who want something for nothing, but that isn't unique to Debt collection, it happens in all walks of life and the media is regularly full of them, rip off artists, conmen and downright thieving individuals. In the business of debt collection (and it is a BIG business) debtors want their worries and financial burdens to disappear, DCAs want the maximum return for a minimum cost and workload.

 

so trying to minimise ones outlay, or maximise ones return would seem to be a good tactic (depending on which side of the fence you sit)

 

Simply looking at a few of the threads on this forum and It's clearly not simply a case of paying back what is owed. or even trying hard not to pay it back

 

Its being dealt with in an honest and open manner, without being terrorised by a commission driven faceless individual, without having intimidating strangers turning up at your home to embarrass and threaten you in front of your family and neighbours. letters and phone calls and phantom parcels requiring premium rate phone calls to confirm your details

 

It's about taking out credit with an organisation and paying them, but when things take a down turn, and the situation changes, whether the reason be marital, medical, or a simple change in employment status, being attacked and swamped by a host of companies intent on deceiving and cajoling until monies are received.

 

What is wrong with saying "who are you and how do I owe you this money?"

what is wrong with saying "show me? prove to me that you are who you claim to be and you have a right to invade my privacy"

 

The simple answer is NOTHING, There is nothing wrong, or illegal in establishing the facts around your financial status, the law of the land says so!!

 

There are laws to protect the individual from companies who behave in the ways listed above, there are also laws to protect the creditor and their investment.

 

Use of the law of the land is a right, not a tool, or blunt object to be used to hammer the opposition into submission.

 

If these organisations adhered to the law, not just the principles, but to the letter, sites and forums such as this one would be obsolete and the mechanisms of debt collection would run a great deal smoother and more profitably, for both sides.

 

In my youth, I used to fight....a lot, perhaps a little too much, but that's another story

 

If the guy I fought stood toe to toe, then I would do the same and the better man would win

 

If the opponent relied on less straightforward tactics, then I would retaliate in the same manner.

 

What's so different? why is it that companies who regularly skirt around or even break the laws complain when their opponents do the same.

 

There's an old saying "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" it's never been more appropriate

What a great post, Spamheed! I completely agree.

[pelham9]

Lenders have no reason to complain if they have no CCA agreement and borrowers repudiate the loan. They took this risk when they made extra profits by

 

a) Not issuing a CCA agreement at all

b) Using a application type 'agreement'

c) 'losing' an agreement and thus saving on filing and storage.

d) employing cheaper but inadequate microfilm storage

 

If you put down £100 to win £5 from your bookmaker on an odds on favourite you would surely not complain if you lose your money when the horse does not win.

 

Every time banks takes any of the actions a-d above they are betting the value of the loan that the lack of agreement will never be queried so that they will win the savings made as a result. They can hardly complain if they start losing bets which they have been winning without challenge for over 30 years because punters have woken up to their rights.

 

Money 'loaned' under the CCA without a properly executed agreement is in law not an enforcible loan. If they do not wish to give money away the remedy is simple 'NEVER lend money without a CCA agreement and make absolutely sure that the paper agreement is STORED carefully'

 

Banks and DCAs do not act as gentlemen when they seek to recover defaulted debts. They cannot therefore expect to rely on a gentleman's agreement which is all they have without the correct paperwork.

[Newborn]

Be in no doubt, this reaction has been brought about by the success of entities like the CAG.

The whole debt industry is underpinned by commission based sales advisors selling debt in the form of loans, credit cards and mortgages.

These salespeople get a very small basic wage with promises of huge bonuses for securing these sales. Is it any wonder then that few questions of affordability are asked?

Further, is it a surprise that some advisors will lie or ask clients to lie in order to secure the loan in question?

The advisor will then try and bolt on some form of astronomically expensive insurance to cover the loan if anything unfortunate should happen.

All this is conducted under the lender’s harsh target driven umbrella. That is, not only with the lenders’ acceptance but with their total approval if not their command. Draw your own conclusions as to the eventual outcome.

Then, if the debtor experiences problems:

Firstly, the lender is not actually geared up to help, they are actually geared up for profit. A certain percentage of defaults are factored into their standard interest rates, so there is no real incentive to engage with the defaulter as the cost has already been met. Far easier to sell it on for a very small price and claim tax relief at the same time. This is where the problem should be addressed. What if creditors could not sell the debt on but were forced by law to settle the problem within 12 months. The result would be sensible lending with transparent debt recovery procedures. The argument that it affects other borrowers adversely is spurious. It’s already paid for by everybody!

Secondly, all those fancy insurances suddenly don’t apply to ‘your particular case’. Or you will be actively put off and lied to you about the policy terms. All because the provider has invoked the small print, is this ethical? So why shouldn’t the debtor do the same?

Thirdly, the debtor’s credit rating is trashed. Why? If they are suffering true unforeseen hardship, isn’t this a sort of ‘cruel and unusual punishment‘? The result is the same for the can’t pay and the won’t pay, this is not reflected in other areas of law (i.e. manslaughter/murder etc).

Fourthly, why don’t government bodies get actively involved? We all know why, because the ‘establishment’ requires a total terror of not repaying debt. It keeps the wheels of our country turning. Once people learn of the ways ‘around’ debt it would be the end of our civilisation. So it must be prevented. But if you’re rich and need a speeding or drink driving offence dealt with… ? Or if you’re a policeman caught speeding … ? Or if you’re a politician taking dodgy contributions … ? Or you’re ‘gifted’ and need a drug offence overlooked … ? Or you’re extremely rich and can afford a dodgy accountant/lawyer to reduce your tax bill to zero …. ?

I could go on ad infinitum but you get my point. The people who fall foul of debt need far more protection than is offered at present. The financial establishment is against them and the ruling establishment is against them! The only defence they have is in numbers and through forums like the excellent CAG!!

Please do not fall for their crocodile tears!!

Newborn

[pmhcfc]

I'd link to the article normally, but as it's members only, and as Credit Today allows you to email the article, I'm sure they won't mind if I reproduce it here.

 

When reading it, please bear in mind that the author is attempting to strike an impartial balance. You may not agree with everything written. But please respect the author's right to his/her viewpoint. There is a hint that both sides should take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

Please don't simply rip the p1sh. Informed debate is what I'm looking for here.

 

Perhaps the writer of the article should read my post here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/115403-cabots-methods-buying-debts.html Contained within are some of the many reasons why we get upset about these companies