Jump to content


If OC agree F&F with debitor, do they still get tax breaks they would had debt been sold to DCA?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5461 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

This has been skimmed over a few times and Ive still not found a definate answer anywhere.

 

Does the Original Creditor get the same tax breaks from the government for passing on the debt in F&F settlement to the debitor, as they would do if they sold it on to a DCA for the same amount?

 

I feel its pretty important, especially given the fact that most of our debts are going to be sold on for 5-10p in the £1 and if its of no benefit to the OC to sell to the DCA over the debitor, surely it makes better 'moral' sense (if they have any) to offer the same deal to the person in debt.

 

I know many suggest that making offers of 5-10% would be a max if there is no Credit Agreement produced, but given that the likes of BC are stating that dodgy T&C's are essentially a response to a CCA request, surely selling to the debitor in an attempt to help them resolve their current financial problems is the right and responsible way to go.

 

Also having read alot recently about F&F offers, is anyone actually getting the OC to agree to such low amounts as 5-10%? The lowest I have read about being accepted has been 15%, but thats only recently. Just wondering if anyone has, could they pass on some tactics about how things played out in getting to that stage.

 

Our own debts are pretty dire, but I know for sure we could get 5-10% together from family at a push, and failing all other avenues such as the CCA/ CPR route, at least that could be them all of our backs and being able to start afresh once again.

 

Ideas on this one folks would be great, thanks. Im going to bed now x.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, they can enter whatever notional loss they have made into their accounts and therefore set that against profits.

 

Whatever money the do get in, (from a DCA of from a F&F), contributes towards their balance sheet and is therefore subject to taxation. Only difference I can see is the ammount.

 

It would be in their interest to recover as much as possible; can't see it matters where it comes form. A larger figure would reduce the tax they can claim back but you don't make a profit from posting losses.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks David,

 

So it makes as much sense for them to accept 5% from us as it would to accept it from a DCA?

 

Should our MP's not be lobbying in parlament to ensure these banks offer us the same options as these DCA lowlife?

 

More thoughts on this appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it, if you look at it another way if a debtor knew at the end of the day that they could in effect buy their own debt at a fraction of its value it would hardly encourage anyone to actually pay any creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what benefit do the Creditors get to writing the debt off to any debtor at between 5-20% of the value, when they could get 3-10% from a DCA and the rest in Tax benefits?

 

Getting caught up in this now - having read my post about the parliament lobbying, it does sound stupid! Why would they do that if it makes it that obvious!

 

But they do write the debts off at low levels to ordinary people in F&F's, so it must be of equal benefit to them to do this, as to sell to the DCA, otherwise they wouldnt do it. They have no love for us good folk after all!

Edited by meerkatsmimm
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...