Jump to content


Debt Collection, CCA Requests and Paying What You Owe :-)


katpuss
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5278 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

Hi guys,

 

Some questions have been bothering me......

 

1. Why is it that even though a person knows that they owe a debt, they will CCA and if the original agreement isn't produced they don't have to pay the debt and the majority of the time they won't?

 

If you can't pay due to severe financial problems then that is a different story.

 

Surely if someone owes the money they should take ownership?

 

2. Why is it that some people think it's acceptable to be rude to a DCA that telephones? Now I understand the reasoning if the DCA in question is rude and aggressive to the debtor but if the DCA is trying to reach a mutually agreeable payment plan then what is the problem?

 

3. How do some DCA companies manage to stay in business even though they break OFT and FSA guidelines? Some of them have even sent out official looking court documents even though they have nothing to do with the court!

 

4. With Pay Day Loans why do people take out numerous ones at the same time even though they know that they won't be able to pay them back at the end of the month?

 

Before anyone thinks I am judging people I am not:

 

I am 10k in debt and am on a CCCS DMP

 

I have CCA'ed a company before and didn't due to the fact that the debt wasn't even mine and they couldn't produce an agreement.

 

I've been on the end of some nasty debt collection phonecalls and letters and have had to deal with them.

 

My financial problems have been so bad in the past that I was living on £10 per week for food, couldn't heat my flat, couldn't go out and I had bailiffs knocking at my door.

 

I am just curious to hear other peoples opinions.

 

Thanks

Katpuss

:!: Activ Kapital 2009 - £316 debt cancelled due to no credit agreement

 

:!: TNC Legal Collections (Swinton) - £61 written off due to complaint being upheld with the FOS

 

:D Be Happy and treat people exactly how you would like to be treated

 

:mad: Don't let people take advantage of you and stand up for your rights and beliefs

 

:p You only live once so don't take things so seriously

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the company is unable to provide a signed contract that complies with legislation then there is no debt. The company was kind enough to give you a gift. ;)

 

And since its mostly vicious debt collection agencys who buy that debt for 9p or less for every pound, and who will lie, cheat, bully and harras, to the point of causing several suicides, Its fair to say one owes a DCA with no legal way of enforcement absolutely nothing.

 

If I make an investment in a company, and that company hits bad times and my investment dissapears, I cannot complain, its the risk I took in full knowledge when investing that money. The same applies to DCA's they take a risk in order to make a profit, but it is a risk, and no investment is cast iron.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the company is unable to provide a signed contract that complies with legislation then there is no debt. The company was kind enough to give you a gift. ;)

 

They didn't really give me a gift actually, the debt wasn't even mine and I had never held the account ever.

 

And since its mostly vicious debt collection agencys who buy that debt for 9p or less for every pound, and who will lie, cheat, bully and harras, to the point of causing several suicides, Its fair to say one owes a DCA with no legal way of enforcement absolutely nothing.

 

I agree that that some DCA's are really nasty and that driving anyone to suicide is really bad and just evil. But if you have run up the debt then you should deal with it, you spent the money etc etc so pay it back. Whether this means paying £1 per month, disputing unlawful charges, getting advice from an independent service then do it.

 

If I make an investment in a company, and that company hits bad times and my investment dissapears, I cannot complain, its the risk I took in full knowledge when investing that money. The same applies to DCA's they take a risk in order to make a profit, but it is a risk, and no investment is cast iron.

 

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

:!: Activ Kapital 2009 - £316 debt cancelled due to no credit agreement

 

:!: TNC Legal Collections (Swinton) - £61 written off due to complaint being upheld with the FOS

 

:D Be Happy and treat people exactly how you would like to be treated

 

:mad: Don't let people take advantage of you and stand up for your rights and beliefs

 

:p You only live once so don't take things so seriously

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

 

Debt purchasing is a risk. Especially if you are buying debts, but not checking that the paperwork is in order, so that if the debtor tells you to bugger off, you cannot actually take them to court anyway.

 

Remember, when you have defaulted, the bank claws back every penny from the tax man, so they do not actually make any financial loss.

 

They then sell the debt, they have been paid for by the taxman to a debt collection agency.

 

The DCA is then attempting to collect on a debt that has been compensated for via the tax man. Its legalised Tax fraud at the very least.

 

Take a look at some of the threads, at the threats, and actions that some of these DCA's make and do on a daily basis, including paperwork made to look like court paperwork, abuse of the insolvency processes, attempting to secure default CCJ judgements by intentionally using older addresses..... If you experienced that would you REALLY pay up if you discovered they had no way to legally make you pay?

 

One has a moral obligation to pay back a family member or friend. A bank? they took a risk and lost, just like they have done with our money, and triggered a world wide credit crisis........... Our actions cause a bank to erm, not actually lose anything. Their actions have put millions out of work, and destroyed entire companies.

 

So they cannot really take the moral high ground

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debt purchasing is a risk. Especially if you are buying debts, but not checking that the paperwork is in order, so that if the debtor tells you to bugger off, you cannot actually take them to court anyway.

 

Remember, when you have defaulted, the bank claws back every penny from the tax man, so they do not actually make any financial loss.

 

They then sell the debt, they have been paid for by the taxman to a debt collection agency.

 

The DCA is then attempting to collect on a debt that has been compensated for via the tax man. Its legalised Tax fraud at the very least.

 

Take a look at some of the threads, at the threats, and actions that some of these DCA's make and do on a daily basis, including paperwork made to look like court paperwork, abuse of the insolvency processes, attempting to secure default CCJ judgements by intentionally using older addresses..... If you experienced that would you REALLY pay up if you discovered they had no way to legally make you pay?

 

I've been threatened and sent dodgy paperwork by some of my DCA companies but because I owe the money I am paying them through my DMP.

 

One has a moral obligation to pay back a family member or friend. A bank? they took a risk and lost, just like they have done with our money, and triggered a world wide credit crisis........... Our actions cause a bank to erm, not actually lose anything. Their actions have put millions out of work, and destroyed entire companies.

 

Surely unpaid debts means rising costs for the consumer such as interest, bank charges etc?

 

So they cannot really take the moral high ground

 

Some do try to take the moral highground but surely if they try to work with you to obtain a payment solution isn't this the best way?

:!: Activ Kapital 2009 - £316 debt cancelled due to no credit agreement

 

:!: TNC Legal Collections (Swinton) - £61 written off due to complaint being upheld with the FOS

 

:D Be Happy and treat people exactly how you would like to be treated

 

:mad: Don't let people take advantage of you and stand up for your rights and beliefs

 

:p You only live once so don't take things so seriously

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. In very few cases does anyone actually owe a debt. They may owe part of a debt, even most of a debt, but you show me one single case where somebody genuinely owes the whole amount that they are being asked for (If "asked for" is the right word). Show me one case where some kind of preposterous charge or exorbitant interest hasn't been added.

 

Also, I think you will find that the majority of people have some degree of moral indignation. Once they have been subjected to harassment and abuse over a certain length of time, they believe that morally the alleged debt has been wiped out. If they can "wipe it out" in the real world, they will do.

 

Again, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is a loathsome piece of legislation which gives the borrower very few rights. Debt collection leeches only exist because Parliament gave creditors the right to sell off the accounts that THEY made a bad lending choice on, to some unknown pond **** that the debtor has never voluntarily entered into any relationship with. I think once an alleged debt has been sold on to a third party with whom the borrower has no voluntary relationship, any sense of "ownership" or "responsibility" goes out of the window.

 

Why don't the lenders "take ownership" for their lending choices, and work with borrowers to try to solve the problem in the best way possible like grown adults, instead of behaving like savages and making the taxpayer pay for their mistakes?

 

Of course, if the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was an obscenity, the 2006 amendments have taken this to the most ridiculous of extremes. Anyone who borrows any money for any reason now is a lunatic. Whatever minuscule rights the consumer had three years ago are long gone now.

 

2. Who gave these sick idiots the right to interfere with someone's private telephone line? I PAY MONEY for the right to use a telephone line to make and receive PRIVATE telephone calls. If a commercial organization of any kind violates that right, they are being rather more than "rude", and deserve everything they get in return.

 

If the idiots who administer the law in this country had the slightest concern for the populace which elected them, it would be a criminal offence to make ANY commercial telephone call to a private number unless the registered owner of that number has given written permission. That is exactly what happens with email, and often we don't even pay for email accounts.

 

3. Because the so called regulatory authorities are run by a government which is 100% corrupt, cares absolutely nothing for the populace which elected it and to which it owes a responsibility, and because it rather likes the back-handers it takes from corporate finance to skew the law in its favour.

 

4. Because they are idiots or because they just don't care, probably both.

 

SH

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some do try to take the moral highground but surely if they try to work with you to obtain a payment solution isn't this the best way?

 

By paying a company who may not even be authorised to collect (you say they have sent dodgy paperwork)

 

What do you do in 12 months time, if another company appears and says, oh, but they were not authorised, its OUR debt, now pay up?

 

You are better off using your limited resources to pay those who can prove they own the debt, and who can prove, via lawful paperwork that they can take you to court and enforce that debt.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. In very few cases does anyone actually owe a debt. They may owe part of a debt, even most of a debt, but you show me one single case where somebody genuinely owes the whole amount that they are being asked for (If "asked for" is the right word). Show me one case where some kind of preposterous charge or exorbitant interest hasn't been added.

 

Okay, so let's rephrase the question. Why don't they pay the part of the debt that they owe?

 

Also, I think you will find that the majority of people have some degree of moral indignation. Once they have been subjected to harassment and abuse over a certain length of time, they believe that morally the alleged debt has been wiped out. If they can "wipe it out" in the real world, they will do.

 

I agree that the majority so have moral indignation. I have morals and even though I've been abused by some of my DCA companies I still pay what I owe so that morally I don't feel guilty for not paying up.

 

Again, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is a loathsome piece of legislation which gives the borrower very few rights. Debt collection leeches only exist because Parliament gave creditors the right to sell off the accounts that THEY made a bad lending choice on, to some unknown pond **** that the debtor has never voluntarily entered into any relationship with. I think once an alleged debt has been sold on to a third party with whom the borrower has no voluntary relationship, any sense of "ownership" or "responsibility" goes out of the window.

 

Again I don't see why people shouldn'y pay what they owe. You wouldn't go into a shop and take something without paying, that would be theft. So why spend the money, say, on a credit card and then not pay it back?

 

Why don't the lenders "take ownership" for their lending choices, and work with borrowers to try to solve the problem in the best way possible like grown adults, instead of behaving like savages and making the taxpayer pay for their mistakes?

 

What I am commenting on especially are the people who stick their heads in the sand and hope that the debts will go away. Communication with the companies is the best thing to do. The CCCS advise debtors to communicated to ensure that the creditor/DCA knows what is happening.

I also believe that the taxpayer (me included) is paying for mistakes becauses debts aren't paid and costs are going up.

 

Of course, if the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was an obscenity, the 2006 amendments have taken this to the most ridiculous of extremes. Anyone who borrows any money for any reason now is a lunatic. Whatever minuscule rights the consumer had three years ago are long gone now.

 

I do agree on this one.

 

2. Who gave these sick idiots the right to interfere with someone's private telephone line? I PAY MONEY for the right to use a telephone line to make and receive PRIVATE telephone calls. If a commercial organization of any kind violates that right, they are being rather more than "rude", and deserve everything they get in return.

 

Why lower yourself to be rude responding to a DCA/creditor?

 

If the idiots who administer the law in this country had the slightest concern for the populace which elected them, it would be a criminal offence to make ANY commercial telephone call to a private number unless the registered owner of that number has given written permission. That is exactly what happens with email, and often we don't even pay for email accounts.

 

In the real world would this ever happen? Commercial organisations make marketing calls, calls to customers etc etc

 

3. Because the so called regulatory authorities are run by a government which is 100% corrupt, cares absolutely nothing for the populace which elected it and to which it owes a responsibility, and because it rather likes the back-handers it takes from corporate finance to skew the law in its favour.

 

4. Because they are idiots or because they just don't care, probably both.

 

Lol! :D:lol:

 

SH

 

Some good points.

:!: Activ Kapital 2009 - £316 debt cancelled due to no credit agreement

 

:!: TNC Legal Collections (Swinton) - £61 written off due to complaint being upheld with the FOS

 

:D Be Happy and treat people exactly how you would like to be treated

 

:mad: Don't let people take advantage of you and stand up for your rights and beliefs

 

:p You only live once so don't take things so seriously

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of us here would have gladly worked with the credit card companies, with regards to our 'alleged' debt, when I had to finish work, my small credit card bill which I dutifully paid every month, it had a 200 quid limit, I rang them told them I couldnt work, and attempted to work out a repayment plan with them...they wouldnt even listen, that 200 is now at 700..and I can assure you I havent spent the extra 500.. I have no way of paying that amount and have gone down the unenforceable credit agreement route, not with pleasure, but with a sense of indignation at the way I have been treated both by them and the obnoxious people they have sold/transferred this so called debt to

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be an attitude with some people, and DCAs in particular, that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is some legal loophole that debtors are worming through. In fact it was the express will of parliament that creditors had to comply with certain requirements, and that if they did not, then they should not be able to collect any money at all. The banks knew that, and chose not to comply with their legal requirements. I find it hard to have a lot of sympathy for institutions that wilfully chose to ignore their obligations under the law.

 

And, there is the matter of the vast amount of interest that most of us have paid over the years - I would venture to suggest that the banks have actually made a loss on very few debts that have defaulted, they just haven't made quite as much profit as they had hoped. Given half a chance, they'd be more than happy to take all my disability benefits in order to try and recoup those lost profits though :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, the "villan" of the piece is the banks and other who issued debts, and not with the intention of keeping on their books, but just securitising them and passing them on, freeing up the banks' baance sheets to originate more loans.

 

Instead of holding the loans on their own books, knowing their customers and WORKING WITH THOSE CUSTOMERS IN A SYMPATHETIC MANNER if they get into trouble, the banks just do not care. They do NOT want a relationship with the borrower - and hece sell debts (if they have not already syndicated them) to DCAs.

 

Why did the bank not come to me and offer ME the opportunity to buy the debt at 10p or 15p? But they will happily sell to a DCA for 9p. If I am such a "good customer" why throw me to the wolves - when they could get the same, or more, money by letting me buy the debt.

 

I will make every effort to pay off an ORIGINAL LENDER who has acted reasonably and sympathetically during my time of financial distress. For a DCA, who bought a debt for pennies (a debt purchase speculator, is perhaps a more accurate term) I have no "sympathy or obligation" and it is a straightforward "battle" of the documents. If they have them, they are in a better position. If they do not, then too bad for them.

 

Frankly, the whole industry of consumer debt purase should NOT exist. I fbanks had to deal themselves with the "aftermath" of their lending decisions then they would have lent much more repsonsibly.

 

In the commercial world, corporate debt is routinely bought and sold. company whose bonds are trading at a big discount, will often go and buy those bonds back, then cancel. Effectively settling the debt at a discount. Something like that would really work in the consumer sector (assuming we cannot stop banks selling debt) and allow for a "debt clearance market". Why is consumer debt a "market" from which those most interested (the consumer debtor) is excluded.

 

To the basic point raised about a "moral obligation", my view when a debt is "sold" it is all up for grabs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the bank not come to me and offer ME the opportunity to buy the debt at 10p or 15p? But they will happily sell to a DCA for 9p. If I am such a "good customer" why throw me to the wolves - when they could get the same, or more, money by letting me buy the debt.

 

That's a very good point indeed. Why don't creditors do that? They wouldn't be any worse off and it would do wonders for their public image (which could certainly do with some help at the moment :rolleyes: ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

Some questions have been bothering me......

 

1. Why is it that even though a person knows that they owe a debt, they will CCA and if the original agreement isn't produced they don't have to pay the debt and the majority of the time they won't?

 

If you can't pay due to severe financial problems then that is a different story.

 

Surely if someone owes the money they should take ownership?

 

And if the 'creditor' owed you money would you not expect them to make full use of legislation available to them?

 

2. Why is it that some people think it's acceptable to be rude to a DCA that telephones? Now I understand the reasoning if the DCA in question is rude and aggressive to the debtor but if the DCA is trying to reach a mutually agreeable payment plan then what is the problem?

 

All, in my experience, are rude, deceitful and so full of sh** I'm surprised they can stand the smell of their own stench

 

3. How do some DCA companies manage to stay in business even though they break OFT and FSA guidelines? Some of them have even sent out official looking court documents even though they have nothing to do with the court!

 

Simple......Lack of complaints

 

4. With Pay Day Loans why do people take out numerous ones at the same time even though they know that they won't be able to pay them back at the end of the month?

 

Pressure from Creditors/DCA's force some people into making unwise decisions :mad:

 

Before anyone thinks I am judging people I am not:

 

I am 10k in debt and am on a CCCS DMP

 

Beat ya.....130k - CCCS sh** a brick when I tried going on a DMP with them at 60 quid a month :grin:

 

I have CCA'ed a company before and didn't due to the fact that the debt wasn't even mine and they couldn't produce an agreement.

 

I've been on the end of some nasty debt collection phonecalls and letters and have had to deal with them.

 

My financial problems have been so bad in the past that I was living on £10 per week for food, couldn't heat my flat, couldn't go out and I had bailiffs knocking at my door.

 

I am just curious to hear other peoples opinions.

 

Thanks

Katpuss

 

 

In all honesty, the aggro I've had and tricks I've seen corporate companies play with my money since redundancy earlier in the year I'm more than happy to play them at their own game.

 

10 years redundancy.....minimum payout from the RPO, still waiting to go to tribunal to see if any salary is recoverable.

 

Pension fund.....wound up last year, 78k in the pot for an annuity and still waiting to hear if its worth a bean this year!

 

Meant to add.......largest creditor also wound up the pension that was going to be used to clear the loan that the same creditor is now chasing........arghhhhhh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, if an original creditor decides for whatever reason they, and I quote here. "No longer have any interest in the account or any debt relating to the account, we have closed our files and the debt is written off",then that should, in fairness be the end.

But no.

A company comes along buys the remaining balance on the debt for a fraction of the cost, and proceeds to harris and lie to the debtor in an attempt not to collect on the debt from a point of morality, but to make profit, from the debtor,not to mention personal employee based commision.

Sorry, but no way is that right. If the original creditor cannot be bothered to collect on there own debt, then why should some unrelated third party be allowed to step in, its plain wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an additional point I forgot to make in my earlier posts. And that is is the issue of PPI.

 

While this was missold and it is great people are getting refunds, the FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM with PPI was that it was a "fraudulent product".

I never took it out as, reading the fine print, I worked out there were so many exclusions that there was no way they would ever pay out.

 

That said, why did not the banks design and sell PPI that was "fit for purpose"? Many of us wou be very glad right now to have PPI "paying up" to cover our debts when we got into financial difficulty. The banks could have produced PPI that did not have exclusions and essentialy paid up if the cardholder got into financial difficulty. Personally, I would have paid for that.

 

This would have been a real winner for banks as, essentially, cardholders would be paying to "insure" debts. And who benefits if those debts are paioff - why the banks!

 

Instead, banks sold PPI that was a total ripoff - high premiums, no cover etc. If all the debtors who are in trouble today had PROPER PPI insurance, then this whole debt issue would go away!

 

Additionally, many people relied on PPI thinking that, if they got into financial problems, they would not need to worry - as PPI would kick in. They then realise (too late) that PPI is worthless. While they may get the money back they paid for their premiums, they also "suffered harm" by relying on PPI (which is effectively insurance) that did not do what it was supposed to.

 

The banks have a LOT to answer for - and any pretence to moral highground is misplaced, to put it mildly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

Some questions have been bothering me......

 

1. Why is it that even though a person knows that they owe a debt, they will CCA and if the original agreement isn't produced they don't have to pay the debt and the majority of the time they won't?

 

From my point of view, it is a question of affordability. If you become unemployed, having paid your debts for years without a problem, you generally expect that OC's will try to assist over a short term. They do not, which pushes some to defend their corner. When you ask for your agreement, you are checking that the creditor has kept to his side of the bargin. If he cannot supply the agreement, then i suppose some will stop paying. Maybee if the creditors helped more in the beginning, then this action of questioning agreements, would not happen so often, but it is wrong to assume that everyone is just trying to get out of their obligations.

 

If you can't pay due to severe financial problems then that is a different story.

 

Surely if someone owes the money they should take ownership?

 

2. Why is it that some people think it's acceptable to be rude to a DCA that telephones? Now I understand the reasoning if the DCA in question is rude and aggressive to the debtor but if the DCA is trying to reach a mutually agreeable payment plan then what is the problem?

 

It appears to be part of modern life that we are all rude to eachother. If people are reasonable with you, I think in general that should be returned.

 

3. How do some DCA companies manage to stay in business even though they break OFT and FSA guidelines? Some of them have even sent out official looking court documents even though they have nothing to do with the court!

 

No body is willing to regulate them, or complain enough.

 

4. With Pay Day Loans why do people take out numerous ones at the same time even though they know that they won't be able to pay them back at the end of the month?

 

Before anyone thinks I am judging people I am not:

 

I am 10k in debt and am on a CCCS DMP

 

I have CCA'ed a company before and didn't due to the fact that the debt wasn't even mine and they couldn't produce an agreement.

 

I've been on the end of some nasty debt collection phonecalls and letters and have had to deal with them.

 

My financial problems have been so bad in the past that I was living on £10 per week for food, couldn't heat my flat, couldn't go out and I had bailiffs knocking at my door.

 

I am just curious to hear other peoples opinions.

 

Thanks

Katpuss

Vint

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times have consumers ben told 'it's in the small print' while they were ripped off by financial instituitions and the like'. With the uneforceable CCA's, it's not any different , just for once perhaps the boot is on the side of the consumer coz in their haste to get everyone into debt for fast profits, thse greedy companies forgot to properly legally execute their agreements.

 

And a word of warning about CCCS, you may find them helpful but wait until you get a creditor like 1stCredit who buys one of the accounts you've been making your reduced CCCS payments to.

 

Having browbeaten you (before CAG days) into informing them you have mortgage they instantly refuse all CCCS repayment offers and try their luck at roping you into one of their remortgage loans with an affiliated company.

If that doesn't work their next action is to take you court and ask for a forth judgement and charge order on your house. CCCS will be of no help to you then. and in the words of one of 1stCredit's advisors which I have recorded, ' the reaosn why we want the charging order is so we can ask for interest at 8% to be added to your debt. And all this when they 've only paid 10p in the pound for it.

 

I've no time now for giving any of these companies sympathy or adding to the fat cat profits of the individuals and private equity firms behind them.

The UK public doesn't benefit from any of this only the miniscule select few, most of whom don't even live in the UK and whose accountants work it so they pay less tax than their cleaners on minimum wage.

 

Rant over :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

What choice is there other than to grasp at every piece of legislation and turn it to our advantage and use it for what it is there for.

 

You can only negotiate with a creditor so far before they call in the solicitors and are quite happy to see it through until you lose the roof over your head for, what was, a minor unsecured loan.

 

Anything a DCA has to say should be put in writing as even though they may not be rude they will mislead you into paying the max. regardless of affordability.

 

Think yourself lucky that you had a flat and £10 a week to live on. Some people have lost their homes, jobs and possessions then found themselves on the streets with their children and without a penny in their pockets just because of a small, unsecured debt that spiralled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 14 creditors 8 of whom are being paid a monthly token payment because they have either come up with a correct CCA or been fair with me.

All 14 debts were covered by PPI when I had a major health problem in 2003 and could not work again. These companies used every clause they could not to pay out on these PPI policies. Out of the 14, 1 actually paid for twelve months. Over the next couple of years after receiving no sympathy or help from these companies I used all my savings making repayments. Not one of them stopped adding interest and as soon as the money ran out and I could not pay the defaults came. Every creditor except one have passed the accounts to DCAs, Some of these have been fair and get paid others have been total ar**holes and get nowt.

I don’t have any problem at all with this as over the years any debt I had with them they have received much more in return in interest. Didn’t really notice as I just paid what they wanted as I had the money, once I got into trouble and paid the minimum and noticed how little the actual debt was reducing as opposed to what the interest being paid was made me take notice.

Also all the PPI I had paid to which no claims were ever paid except the one, but was still profitable to them even after they paid for 12 months.

I had many, many sleepless nights over the first few years I lost all my savings paying what I owed. Also before I learned how to deal with DCAs suffered much abuse.

So basically no I have no problem in not paying what I owe them, they used contractual clauses not to pay me I think it is only fair that I can do the same. Even after writing to them all with written confirmation from my doctor not one would consider stopping or reducing interest or stop adding charges.

I can now sleep at night I don’t worry about them at all, my conscience is clear I covered my ar*e! I played fair! I tried to negotiate. They just wanted more, and give me a good kicking but they don’t now!!!!!! And if I can kick them then I will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just say thankyou to all that have responded to my questions. It was good to hear comments for different posters and I have learnt a bit more about debts and debt collection.

 

Whilst I don't agree with all I appreciate the time people have taken to respond and there are some good points that people have made.

 

Thanks

Katpuss

:!: Activ Kapital 2009 - £316 debt cancelled due to no credit agreement

 

:!: TNC Legal Collections (Swinton) - £61 written off due to complaint being upheld with the FOS

 

:D Be Happy and treat people exactly how you would like to be treated

 

:mad: Don't let people take advantage of you and stand up for your rights and beliefs

 

:p You only live once so don't take things so seriously

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

when i was made redundunt i thougght that the ppi that i was paying would have covered it. i paid that ppi for 9 years without claiming once. they declined and said they im not covered. then i tried to arrange a payment plan until i found another job. they declined that too. kept adding interest and charges. i found another job and then at some point had a second job. they passed the debt onto to a dca.

 

how an they justify chargeing ppi, charges and interest on that. you would never actully get out of debt. the money you 'owe' on the card isn't legally justifiable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in regard to the banks reclaiming their losses from the taxman therefore incurring higher tax for other people: the same argument to go towards the fact that I don't have children and will never have them so why should I pay for other peoples kids education? I'm not complaining about this but just using it as an example when people bleat on about 'increasing their tax/insurance bill.' It is just one example of many also.

 

People fall on bad times, through their own fault or maybe someone elses, it doesn't matter, this is no reason to slaughter them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks charge higher rates of interest on people they realise are a risk of non / late payment

 

They have there recognised that risk and made extra profit out of those people to cover those that don't pay. It's almost like insurance.

 

Then as soon as people have difficulty paying, they add on massive extra charges & if possible they get a CCJ then a charging order, if they can't they write off against tax, then farm out or sell to DCAs who harass to obtain the full balance.

 

The banks want their cake & to eat it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...