Crudit Today: Limitation Act change proposal response

[Rhia]

Yes this is going to happen. I have no doubts. All those complaints via the OFT etc will have been noted - even though we don't think so. There is also the issue of when this recession and unemployment is over there will be so many people with impaired credit records facing a six year ban that no-one will be able to borrow very much at all and this will inhibit any recovery. Then, of course, there is the harmonisation with Europe angle.

 

We also have the thorny issue of MPs diddling their exes. They can hardly turn around to the people who vote for them and say it's your own fault for getting into debt after the even dodgier bankers have been chucking money at people for the best part of a decade.

 

I doubt the MoJ will take much heed of the grubby lot who make up the CSA and their nasty threats after all they are supposed to a) use mediation as much as possible and b) observe the pre-action protocols before litigating and we all know they don't do that.

 

A guess might be for MoJ to say the rule comes in with immediate effect but for any case that is between 3-6 years which has observed both of the above AND has the correct paperwork (ha!ha!)can still proceed - which will probably mean about 50,000 cases will be dropped overnight.

 

Can I also ask Kraken just which DCA do you actually work for? This move can only be good for the consumer and bad for the DCAs, so I am surmising that your remarks are those of someone with a vested interest in the 3-year limitation act NOT being introduced. Most odd.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Rhia

[angry cat]

by Rhia:

 

Can I also ask Kraken just which DCA do you actually work for? This move can only be good for the consumer and bad for the DCAs, so I am surmising that your remarks are those of someone with a vested interest in the 3-year limitation act NOT being introduced. Most odd."

 

Great Minds, think alike Rhia...AC Bursts Out Laughing!!!!

 

AC

[sillygirl1]

I believe the whole coincept orf "judgement by default" should be scrapped, the courts would then have time to focus on 'properly prepared' cases which would have a positive impact on the companies and solicitors involved in debt collection practices, ie they would know that to get a case heard the paperwork has to be correct and produced PRIOR to any court hearing, and at the time of serving the original writ rather than being pressed to produce it later.

[diddydicky]

I believe the whole coincept orf "judgement by default" should be scrapped, the courts would then have time to focus on 'properly prepared' cases which would have a positive impact on the companies and solicitors involved in debt collection practices, ie they would know that to get a case heard the paperwork has to be correct and produced PRIOR to any court hearing, and at the time of serving the original writ rather than being pressed to produce it later.

 

well its a thoought sillygirl but in reality there are hundreds of thousands of debts that are not disputed by the defendant and the defendant is happy and often WANTS a judgement to stop the interest and get the creditors off their backs

 

making it more expensive for them by defending, losing and paying the plaintiffs costs is not really helpful to them

 

get where you are coming from though

[sillygirl1]

diddydicky

With respect the interest doesn't necessarily stop once judgement is obtained, just 'capped' at 8% unless a rate is specified in the judgement (and you should see some of the proposed HFO judgements for instance...) It also doesn't get the creditors off their backs - just gives the creditors more powers to enforce if the judgement isn't paid.

[dannyboy660]

In reply to a question from Nick Clegg, the PM has stated in todays PMQ's that these "issues" will be dealt with within the next 12 months.

Not very specific, but given that Clegg and Huhne are/were both MEP's, it's obvious which direction this is going.

 

About 17 mins in plus BBC NEWS | Politics | The Full Story: PM's questions

[diddydicky]

diddydicky

With respect the interest doesn't necessarily stop once judgement is obtained, just 'capped' at 8% unless a rate is specified in the judgement (and you should see some of the proposed HFO judgements for instance...) It also doesn't get the creditors off their backs - just gives the creditors more powers to enforce if the judgement isn't paid.

 

thanks regulated agreements and many other debts do not attract interest after judgement

 

By the very nature of the procedings many defendants cannot bear the extra costs burden of being forced to defend the indefensible

 

My own experience is that many ccjs fall off the creditors radar as the cost of processing low payments is often more than the payment is worth

 

it is also my experience that a good deal of F & F's can be done on low repayment/high value CCJ's

 

i accept your comments but stick to my guns- overall it would be a bad idea

 

indeed many of my "clients" would stop paying them

[postggj]

will there be a labour pm in 12 months

[dannyboy660]

Gordon Brown or Nick Griffin??

 

Only joking....

 

 

I think 'GB' rules the waves, just needs to waive the rules from time to time....

[ScarletPimpernel]

I agree with Rhia - I think this is almost inevitable.

 

There are two other parts of the industry that needs to be brought into line. First is the CRAs; they present themselves as pseudo-official bodies, when the reality is that their files reflect not necessarily the truth, but whatever they are paid to put up. In my view ICO is largely responsible for letting them get away with it for so long; we are shortly going to have a new commissioner, who may well prove to be a new broom.

 

Secondly, the solicitors, especially those that prostitute their letterheads for use by DCAs. The SRA needs to grip some of them very firmly.

[Kraken1]

Can I also ask Kraken just which DCA do you actually work for? This move can only be good for the consumer and bad for the DCAs, so I am surmising that your remarks are those of someone with a vested interest in the 3-year limitation act NOT being introduced. Most odd.

 

I'm actually the Head of Consumerington Trading Standards.

 

I'm surmising that your comments have been made because you haven't understood my post or haven't read it properly.

 

I'm now used to the which dca do you work for comment. It appears to be generally used when posters are upset that I have challenged their traditionally held opinions.

 

I'd ask that you don't leap to (incorrect) conclusions and actually think for yourself.

 

This is not odd at all. Think through the likely consequences of this. It seems accepted that this won't be retrospective so this won't effect any current agreements.

 

What will this change mean then?

 

Firstly, the change will effect consumers too. We'[ll have less time to sue those folk that upset us. I've been involved in cases that were issued more than three years after the cause of action arose.

 

Secondly. creditors will have less time to pursue debts. I suggest that this will have the following effects:

 

Cases will be passed to DCAs more quickly

DCAs and creditors will be less willing to 'negotiate' and will be quicker to take legal action.

DCA and creditors, with less time, will get more aggressive and more unreasonable.

More people will need quicker help from the advice sector which will put these services under more pressure and so might not get it.

Claims management companies will use the change as an excuse to mislead and take advantage of more consumers.

With shorter enforcement time scales there is less likelihood that information, such as credit agreements will be lost. This will increase the number of successful claims against consumers.

With shorter enforcement periods financial affairs of consumers are unlikely to change much between default and action. This means that a consumer that might be able to make a decent payment offer if given a couple of years to sort things out, won't be given this chance. The effect of this might be to increase the use of immediate methods to recover the debt - charging orders and other intrusive enforcement methods, warrants of execution etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if this change extends to enforcement time frames as well. again, this will mean quicker enforcement and greater likelihood of aggressive enforcement. They'll be fewer forgotten ccjs.

 

I'd therefore ask that you refrain from hurling the 'you're a dca' insults at me - I find these offensive - and instead debate the issue or explain why you think that this will be a good thing for consumers? At best I think this is a neutral change, at worst it will be to our detriment.

[mr.ton]

I am one of the main instigators of the theory on here that Kraken either works for a DCA/or has a connection with the industry to some extent.

Why Kraken sees this as an insult im not sure?

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with that if he does work for/have a connection with the industry...but like i keep pointing out to him, his sympathising views do not go down well on here & simply do nothing but antagonize people.

So while he may see his views as just "putting the other side of the argument" etc....i & others respectfully ask that he shares his views elsewhere & not on this forum, which at the end of the day is full of people who hate DCA's & the industry as a whole with a venom.

[merlin100]

The 17th century Laws of Attainder forbid any legislation being made retrospective - but its still a nice move on behalf of the consumer!

[Kraken1]

With respect Mr Ton, the advice you give can be seen as so negligent in places that my only conclusion is that you are seeking to deliberately do consumers harm. Despite your 'I hate dcas' stance you are doing more to support them at the expense of the consumer than I.

 

I've never denied a connection with the industry - it is just that connection is that I advise and work with alot of advice agencies, not specifically on debt issues but in a significant number of cases related ones. I see the harm that poor advice, inaction and misunderstanding does everyday.

 

As for why I see this as an insult - why wouldn't I? It is designed as such to discredit my opinions and promote your own agenda.

 

In this instance I am not 'giving the other side' I am asking why this is a good thing for the consumer, as opposed to neutral or bad. Just because the dcas say they don't like something does not mean that it is automatically good for consumers. Don't be so naive as to fall for politics and spin.

 

Again I note that you are not able to argue the point, and can only continue your campaign against me. I can only assume that this is because you find it unsettling that I will not refrain from pointing out that you actually know very little, parrot opinions with little understanding and are not capable of giving sound, reasoned advice.

[mr.ton]

With respect Mr Ton, the advice you give can be seen as so negligent in places that my only conclusion is that you are seeking to deliberately do consumers harm. Despite your 'I hate dcas' stance you are doing more to support them at the expense of the consumer than I.

I've never denied a connection with the industry - it is just that connection is that I advise and work with alot of advice agencies, not specifically on debt issues but in a significant number of cases related ones. I see the harm that poor advice, inaction and misunderstanding does everyday.

As for why I see this as an insult - why wouldn't I? It is designed as such to discredit my opinions and promote your own agenda.

In this instance I am not 'giving the other side' I am asking why this is a good thing for the consumer, as opposed to neutral or bad. Just because the dcas say they don't like something does not mean that it is automatically good for consumers. Don't be so naive as to fall for politics and spin.

Again I note that you are not able to argue the point, and can only continue your campaign against me. I can only assume that this is because you find it unsettling that I will not refrain from pointing out that you actually know very little, parrot opinions with little understanding and are not capable of giving sound, reasoned advice.

 

Negligent in places? - do point out which bits of my advice is negligent

And im doing more to support the DCA's than the consumer am i?

Interesting theory that Kraken...

If you read near enough everyone of my posts in response to people, what i always say to them is.....DCA's have no legal authority whatsoever to obtain 1 single penny off anybody, only a county court has that power/authority.

That is the type of advice your industry never discloses to people...it is always says "Oh just pay what you can"/"work with them" etc...

Your industry would love nothing better than to deceive people into thinking that it had all these powers over the consumer.

It has built up that myth for years now - so to be fair, it will take just as long to dispel that myth as well.

As for me knowing very little Kraken....i sure know as much that im playing my part in watching & contributing towards your industry collapsing slowly but surely.

You seem you think that i have a "campaign against you" or i "have it in for you" etc...nothing could be furthur from the truth, i couldnt care less about you one way or the other with due respect.

But were i see people from the industry trying to deceive the consumers on here with their irresponsible information, then i will step in so to speak.

Edited June 18, 2009 by mr.ton

[diddydicky]

I am one of the main instigators of the theory on here that Kraken either works for a DCA/or has a connection with the industry to some extent.

Why Kraken sees this as an insult im not sure?

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with that if he does work for/have a connection with the industry...but like i keep pointing out to him, his sympathising views do not go down well on here & simply do nothing but antagonize people.

So while he may see his views as just "putting the other side of the argument" etc....i & others respectfully ask that he shares his views elsewhere & not on this forum, which at the end of the day is full of people who hate DCA's & the industry as a whole with a venom.

 

and i think, Mr Ton that you shouldn't assume that you are the spokesperson for all the other folk on here

 

Nor should you take it upon yourself to assume that because you "hate" dca's that everyone else on here does

 

 

if anything YOU seem to be acting more like a DCA- taking it upon yourself to be the sole arbiter of what is and is not allowed or wanted on this forum!

 

i do not HATE dca's i actually have half a brain and realise that they are doing a job (not particularly well- but then again if they were GOOD at their job it would make it harder for us)

 

in fact now i think about that statement i LOVE dca's!!

 

Nor do i think that you have the right to assume that we dont want to hear the "other side" of the argument

 

it would be all too easy for novices and nervous people coming onto this forum to get "carried away" with people "egging them on " and they may well believe (without any opposing views) that everything you or i say is gospel and then end up with egg on their faces in court

 

In short- please speak for yourself and not for me or others who have not given you their express authority to speak on their behalf

 

 

for what its worth kraken- whatever your background- keep posting your views i for one like to take in advice from all corners and then make my own decisions as to which to take and which not

[mr.ton]

Right...firstly i dont think im a spokesperson for anyone on here at all & i dont assume that everyone hates DCA's either.

I have been on here a couple of years now so i do think i have established the temperature of this forum & the people on it by now.

The amount of horror stories & stories i have read from people who are terrified/scared witless has been heartbreaking quite frankly.

They appreciate someone like me with my viewpoints more so than someone who has the DCA's best interests at heart.

I have had countless messages on my reputation section thanking me for what ive said & how much of a difference ive made to them etc.....

But im not here to have a "good reputation" etc..im here just to help them in whatever way i can.

Of course not all will like me...that comes with the territory weather on here or elsewhere.

But at end of the day, i am not here to be liked or disliked - i am on here to help people/give my viewpoints as i see it.

If that annoys certain individuals who sympathise more with the industry, then so be it.

The industry sympathises are entitled to their viewpoints & entitled to call me a this,that & the other all they want - but dont be suprised if we clash/conflict along the way.

[Rhia]

Dearie me. I stepped inadvertently into something. Kraken I did read your post properly and do enjoy a well rounded debate. I have no particular knowledge of you and all I was doing was reflecting on something that struck me as very obvious.

 

If you do work for a DCA don't be afraid to say so - a good thrash round with opinions eventually gets to the heart of a matter.

 

Although there will be difficulties with a change in legislation in this matter it wil be better for the consumer in the long run. Where is the justice in being prevented from getting a mortgage at decent rates because of a default for £200 four years ago(e.g.)?

 

Bankrupts, who may owe hundreds of thousands - even millions - are discharged after a year so to be put into a financial black hole for six years for a few hundred quid is against all notions of social justice.

 

Then as SP says the issue of the ridiculously self important CRAs peddling incorrect information alongside correct and denying all responsibility for their actions is something that needs addressing urgently.

 

Sorry for ruffling your feathers Kraken but I think good debate often does this- but do remember the Bard - "Methinks he doth protest too much!"

 

P.S. Mr Ton I do hate DCAs. But I hate the banks more for having absolved themselves of any responsibility to the customer over the past decade and for dumping them onto these questionable bodies when customers showed the first signs of difficulty - just months not years. I hope the new touchy feely banks will now be careful about their lending and ensure they support those who get into difficulties - by that I don't mean some airhead who maxed out on designer handbags - I mean those who become ill, unemployed etc etc.

[ODC]

and i think, Mr Ton that you shouldn't assume that you are the spokesperson for all the other folk on here

 

Nor should you take it upon yourself to assume that because you "hate" dca's that everyone else on here does

 

 

i do not HATE dca's i actually have half a brain and realise that they are doing a job (not particularly well- but then again if they were GOOD at their job it would make it harder for us)

 

in fact now i think about that statement i LOVE dca's!!

 

Nor do i think that you have the right to assume that we dont want to hear the "other side" of the argument

 

for what its worth kraken- whatever your background- keep posting your views i for one like to take in advice from all corners and then make my own decisions as to which to take and which not

 

I have tried to keep out of this argument but as you seem to keep going off topic and trading personal insults with Mr Ton I feel compelled to respond.

 

I would say Mr Ton is correct when he claims the majority of posters on here ''hate'' DCAs. I do with a passion. I have had to face abuse, lies and threats from them.

 

Unlike you I have a full brain and realise what sort of a job they are really doing. They purchase debts for pennies and try by whatever means they can to claim the full amount on them. These very debts that are written off by the original creditors who have claimed full tax relief on them. In my opinion

DCAs are parasites who prey on people's misfortune in the hope of making huge profits for their directors. Hardly an ethical profession.

 

I have read a lot of your posts and agree with some of what you have previously posted but I am disappointed that you have to resort to petty remarks about another member who you disagree with. As far as I was concerned the matter had been resolved with Mr Ton and Kraken agreeing to disagree and there was no need to reignite the argument.

[sosumi]

and i think, Mr Ton that you shouldn't assume that you are the spokesperson for all the other folk on here

Nor should you take it upon yourself to assume that because you "hate" dca's that everyone else on here does

Well I'm part of 'everybody else' here and I DO actually hate DCAs.

I think this forum has a fair cross-section of views, and it works because it helps 'lighten the load' for people who are desperate (and I mean desperate) for help - not merely through advice, but also by instilling the feeling that when DCAs appear, you don't just roll over and let yourself be terrorised by them.

I think Diddydicky most people here do actually hate DCAs. With very good reason.

[mr.ton]

Like i keep saying...weather certain individuals on here like it or not, the vast majority of people on here (not all) hate/loathe/despise the DCA's with a passion & some are driven to the brink of despair & even suicide by them.

They certainly dont appreciate seeing the sympathises on here trying to give them advice like "pay what you can" & "work with them" etc...

Thats exactly what most people have done & why they end up being driven to sites like this for goodness sake

[sosumi]

.. Last 3 posts, Rhia, ODC and Mr Ton - completely agree! xx

[diddydicky]

Right...firstly i dont think im a spokesperson for anyone on here at all & i dont assume that everyone hates DCA's either.

I have been on here a couple of years now so i do think i have established the temperature of this forum & the people on it by now.

The amount of horror stories & stories i have read from people who are terrified/scared witless has been heartbreaking quite frankly.

They appreciate someone like me with my viewpoints more so than someone who has the DCA's best interests at heart.

I have had countless messages on my reputation section thanking me for what ive said & how much of a difference ive made to them etc.....

But im not here to have a "good reputation" etc..im here just to help them in whatever way i can.

Of course not all will like me...that comes with the territory weather on here or elsewhere.

But at end of the day, i am not here to be liked or disliked - i am on here to help people/give my viewpoints as i see it.

If that annoys certain individuals who sympathise more with the industry, then so be it.

The industry sympathises are entitled to their viewpoints & entitled to call me a this,that & the other all they want - but dont be suprised if we clash/conflict along the way.

 

fine -points taken and i'm pleased to see that you are no longer suggesting that Kracken should go somewhere else and that they are entitled to their viewpoint

 

tha'ts all that i was railing against!

 

Ps i do not know kracken or anyone else on this forum

 

my view are my own and are intended to help others and to get feedback and learn if i am wrrong

[diddydicky]

and i dont think that kracken called you anything!! they were stating a view on the proposed legislation and for what its worth i think that his/her analysis of what it might mean is spot on

[mr.ton]

The DCA's are the instigators of their own downfall anyway.

If they didnt show such wretched greed & downright nastiness in how they treat debtors, then perhaps they may just actually get people to repay & keep them away from sites like this.

Instead what we get is threats of this,that,the other & an attitude of "what you are paying now is not good enough for us" etc..

They deserve every bit of anti DCA'ing (if thats a word?) that comes their way quite frankly

Edited June 18, 2009 by mr.ton