Can't pay, won't pay debate

[Stephan56]

I think it is fine to be a WILL PAY, and I accept all the moral arguments AS IN RESPECT OF AN ORIGINAL CREDITOR. What about a DCA? Do you feel the same way? they probably bought the debt for 10% of the amount claimed? They never lent you the money in the first place. What MORAL claim do they have?

[Bigdebtor]

Stephan - agreed provided you "will pay" only what is morally due to the OC - i.e minus all unfair charges and associated interest appropriately compounded. However the Banks' recent conduct in the Supreme Court and over Bonuses - and the credit cards continuing to charge the maximum £12 now allowed by OFT shows they don't understand what a moral obligation is.

 

I totally agree the DCA's take a calculated risk in buying up dodgy debt, then harass vulnerable debtors mercilessly and so do not deserve what is not LEGALLY enforceable.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Bigdebtor
typos

[diddydicky]

I think it is fine to be a WILL PAY, and I accept all the moral arguments AS IN RESPECT OF AN ORIGINAL CREDITOR. What about a DCA? Do you feel the same way? they probably bought the debt for 10% of the amount claimed? They never lent you the money in the first place. What MORAL claim do they have?

 

If i may say so I dont understand why people get so "het up" about what people pay for debts

 

debts are a commodity just like oil cars cans of coke etc

 

no one moans about coca cola selling a can of coke which literally (with the can) costs no more than 1.5p to produce- to a service station that then sells it for 1.15

 

 

no one complains that ford build a focus for 3500 and a garage sells it for 9500

 

we live in a capitalistic society which is founded on PROFIT

 

the people who buy these debts do not buy them SINGLY

 

they buy them in batches- they have to pay a price which allows for the fact that many of them will be binned

 

if you buy batch of 10 widgets- which are worth a pound each, but you know from experience that 5 of them may be faulty- how much are you going to pay for a batch of 10? not the full price are you?

 

Many of these credit card companies sell off the debt in this way either to protect their image or because they are not geared up as bad debt collectors they also get certain tax reliefs which they are not allowed to claim if they discounted the debt to the debtor

 

the reason that credit card companies charge 18 -21 -28% apr when the interbank rate is 3% is because their business is run on the predication of a certain percentage of bad debt (apart from wanting a profit margin)

 

In other words we are all shafting each other - because we all having to pay inflated interest rates to cover the fact that many of us (for whatever reason) will not in fact repay out debts.

 

- thats real life

[militantconsumer]

Hi diddydicky

 

Without wishing to fill up smt's excellent thread with this kind of argument, the issue I personally have is that:

- banks get into debt and are bailed out by the taxpayer (us) so they can keep paying themselves more ludicrous bonuses

- we get into debt and the banks sell our debt onto total scumbags, who engage in highly dubious practices and hound us to the end of the earth.

 

Yes we live in a capitalist society, but we have to have laws to protect the evil abuses that can be brought about by relying on market forces.

 

Or perhaps I should be allowed to buy some of RBS's debts for 1p in the pound and then ring Fred Goodwin up 20 times day or call round his mansion and threaten to take his grandchildren's toys away.

[Scrapper]

Well said MC

 

I've been thinking the same thing for a while now.

 

As the National Audit Department reckons that each household in this country has bailed out industry to the tune of around 40k per household then why can't we turn the tables on the banks and tell them to get f*cked.

 

Government was quick enough to bail out there mates, (and I mean mates. We regularly had members of parliament at my building for lunches etc) but how about some bail out for us consumers and revoking the credit licences of most of these underhand Credit Card Companies & DCA's??

 

I'm sure Alistair (The Badger) Darling made some sort of threat (credit licence revoked) to these companies, but as per the norm it was just all talk until the next thing came along. So most likely all forgotten about now.

 

Like many others in this country if it wasn't for the banks I'd still have my job I had for 24yrs (started at 16 and YES it's was a bank) and wouldn't be in this bloody mess now.

 

My only saving grace is that I have PPI on most things which have come in very handy indeed.

 

But let’s not forget the real issue here. As long as the big boys (who in effect bankrupted England) get there bonus all will be ok for the next round of f*ck ups.

 

How many other jobs can you so monumentally f*ck up at and still keep your position and still demand a bonus?? The world’s gone f*cking mad I tell you.

 

And to top it off we the consumer get treated like we are the criminals cause we can't pay this month as we have kids to feed and roof to keep over our heads. Didn't see the Government coming to my or your rescue at the drop of a hat.

 

If that was me or you we'd be up on all sorts of charges and jailed and the drop of a hat.

 

I’m sure the Government has acted illegally in the way they have dealt with all this (my personal opinion and not the opinion of others) I didn’t agree to having to repay our national debt with my taxes for the next 25yrs or more. Did you?

 

Anyway rant over

 

Scrapper Coco

[exchange]

I am not in the least bit surprised people get het up, dd. This banking 'crises' really is a farce, with the banks now hanging on to the money given to them to bail them out, as 'reserves', with the excuse they are being prudent (whose favourite word was that?) and not lending to business or individuals even when they have perfect credit records.

Another scandal to add which is barely publicised is the bonus system within the FSA, a government old boys network (largely ex-bankers) quango.

Having awarded themselves handsome bonuses earlier this year and pay rises way above inflation, (they also have a far superior pension scheme to most) they are hardly in a position to crticise with the financial chaos developing under there noses and doing nothing.

Sorry smt37 for hijacking as well, but the FSA are out of control and this needs to be highlighted.

[SkemDosser]

I think it is fine to be a WILL PAY, and I accept all the moral arguments AS IN RESPECT OF AN ORIGINAL CREDITOR. What about a DCA? Do you feel the same way? they probably bought the debt for 10% of the amount claimed? They never lent you the money in the first place. What MORAL claim do they have?

I don't believe there are any 'moral' arguments in favour of even the original creditor, if there is not a valid, legal contract between you and it.

 

When it come to loaning money with interest attached by a regulated body, there are no 'morals' involved, only the law. Companies try to bully you into not thinking like this and Judges try to conveniently forget about it where consumers are concerned, but that is the cold hard facts and consumers need to put aside vague notions of 'honour' and 'morals' when dealing with defective contracts. Businesses- and particularly banks- do not consider morals in their operation, and neither should the consumer.

 

No legally binding contract between you and a creditor, means they've cocked up and you are absolved. Businesses do it all the time to get out of sticky situations, which is why corporate lawyers in The City make a fortune.

 

Consumers need to harden up and think the same way too. Forget the establishment smokescreen of 'morals.'

[SkemDosser]

Diddydick: If i may say so I dont understand why people get so "het up" about what people pay for debts

 

debts are a commodity just like oil cars cans of coke etc

 

Very true and it is all part of the process over the past twenty years where money itself has become a commodity, rather than a means to buy/transfer commodities.

 

The banks are entirely responsible for this, and it can be seen in the language they applied to their practises; loans, mortgages etc became' products' leading banks [and their customers] to see it as quick money and the banks as one off sales, and a way to turn over a buck for the bank quickly before it moves on. Loans secured on property where the owners never had a hope of ever paying it off, became 'sub-prime' mortgages. Another way for the bank to make quick money before the banks would eventually [in theory] cash in the golden goose of the resale value of the property when things went wrong for the poor mortgagee. Then 'toxic assets,' which really means 'stupid, incompetent loans and purchases by banks'. There's loads more.

 

The banks are reaping what they've sown now by comodifying money; it's all come round to bite them on the bum. They are squealing and howling about it, and now the b****ds want to take as many cordinary consumers down with them as they can to boot, but this time I suspect, their goose is cooked.

Edited December 7, 2009 by SkemDosser

[slick132]

Above posts taken off smt37's thread to avoid further hijack.

 

[diddydicky]

Diddydick: If i may say so I dont understand why people get so "het up" about what people pay for debts

 

debts are a commodity just like oil cars cans of coke etc

 

Very true and it is all part of the process over the past twenty years where money itself has become a commodity, rather than a means to buy/transfer commodities.

 

The banks are entirely responsible for this, and it can be seen in the language they applied to their practises; loans, mortgages etc became' products' leading banks [and their customers] to see it as quick money and the banks as one off sales, and a way to turn over a buck for the bank quickly before it moves on. Loans secured on property where the owners never had a hope of ever paying it off, became 'sub-prime' mortgages. Another way for the bank to make quick money before the banks would eventually [in theory] cash in the golden goose of the resale value of the property when things went wrong for the poor mortgagee. Then 'toxic assets,' which really means 'stupid, incompetent loans and purchases by banks'. There's loads more.

 

The banks are reaping what they've sown now by comodifying money; it's all come round to bite them on the bum. They are squealing and howling about it, and now the b****ds want to take as many cordinary consumers down with them as they can to boot, but this time I suspect, their goose is cooked.

 

i agree, i wasnt taking the banks side- just pointing out the facts!

[SkemDosser]

Diddydick: i agree, i wasnt taking the banks side- just pointing out the facts!

 

Hi Diddy, didn't think you were, I was just having a general grumble lol

[diddydicky]

Diddydick: i agree, i wasnt taking the banks side- just pointing out the facts!

 

Hi Diddy, didn't think you were, I was just having a general grumble lol

[BiGaD09]

I am of the opinion that the majority do feel a moral obligation to pay what they owe. The issue, from a personal viewpoint, is that I am forced to comply with the lender within the rules to protect them and their profits. Therefore if the lender doesn't comply with rules to protect me (CCA etc) why should I continue to entertain them? Furthermore they are quick to flog the account to the DCA **** who harrass innocent and often vulnerable consumers for hours and days on end. It is also worth mentioning that the banks/lenders don't lose out like you expect by selling the debt off as they reclaim a tax rebate for lost profit from HMRC thus making their real loss on the original capital very small. The biggest loss that the banks take is in the interest and charges that they could've potentially levied on the account.

[angry cat]

Well DD,

 

I can see exactly why some consumers do get; het up!

 

:

 

"debts are a commodity just like oil cars cans of coke etc"

 

The ingedients of Coca-Cola does not include; 'Irresponsible Lending'...

 

AC

[pompeyfaith]

Anyone know just what these tax breaks on bad debt amounts too ?

 

PF

[diddydicky]

I am of the opinion that the majority do feel a moral obligation to pay what they owe. The issue, from a personal viewpoint, is that I am forced to comply with the lender within the rules to protect them and their profits. Therefore if the lender doesn't comply with rules to protect me (CCA etc) why should I continue to entertain them? Furthermore they are quick to flog the account to the DCA **** who harrass innocent and often vulnerable consumers for hours and days on end. It is also worth mentioning that the banks/lenders don't lose out like you expect by selling the debt off as they reclaim a tax rebate for lost profit from HMRC thus making their real loss on the original capital very small. The biggest loss that the banks take is in the interest and charges that they could've potentially levied on the account.

 

no reason at all;"!

[diddydicky]

Anyone know just what these tax breaks on bad debt amounts too ?

 

PF

 

well if they can write them off against pre tax profits then 40% i would think but i'm no accountant

[diddydicky]

Well DD,

 

I can see exactly why some consumers do get; het up!

 

:

 

"debts are a commodity just like oil cars cans of coke etc"

 

The ingedients of Coca-Cola does not include; 'Irresponsible Lending'...

 

AC

 

says india rubber on my tyres - but i haven't been there and i haven't rubbed her

[noogie]

Hi Diddy dicky

 

Forgive me for being suspicious but you sound like a debt collector to me using the same argument ad DCA did to me and still are

No enforcable agreement means no enforcable agreement

I am aware we have visitors on site but that post did not resemble advice but a guilt trip

 

Sorry not guilty

[angry cat]

Well DD,

 

I can see exactly why some consumers do get; het up!

 

 

 

says india rubber on my tyres - but i haven't been there and i haven't rubbed her

 

Huh?

 

Ridiculous, frivolous comment:(

[pompeyfaith]

Diddydicky a DCA

 

:lol:

[angry cat]

For the avoidance of doubt DD:

 

"frivolous adj. referring to a legal move in a lawsuit clearly intended merely to harass, delay, or embarrass the opposition. Frivolous acts can include filing the lawsuit itself, a baseless motion for a legal ruling, an answer of a defendant to a complaint which does not deny, contest, prove, or controvert anything, or an appeal which contains not a single arguable basis (by any stretch of the imagination) for the appeal. A frivolous lawsuit, motion or appeal can result in a successful claim by the other party for payment by the frivolous suer of their attorneys fees for defending the case. Judges are reluctant to find an action frivolous, based on the desire not to discourage people from using the courts to resolve disputes."

 

One takes an extremely dim view...!

 

AC

[angry cat]

Diddydicky a DCA

 

:lol:

 

[sosumi]

If i may say so I dont understand why people get so "het up" about what people pay for debts

 

debts are a commodity just like oil cars cans of coke etc

 

no one moans about coca cola selling a can of coke which literally (with the can) costs no more than 1.5p to produce- to a service station that then sells it for 1.15

 

 

no one complains that ford build a focus for 3500 and a garage sells it for 9500

 

... etc...

- thats real life

What kind of 'real life' do you live in DD?

The 'debts' relate directly to people, and - very angry moment here:

 

PEOPLE ARE NOT COMMODITIES

[angry cat]

surprised at your words DD or, am I?