On the debt collectors side

[Halibutt]

Jordan,

 

I can understand the reasons for some of the things you have submitted to this thread. I do, however, think that you are sadly mistaken on many points.

 

People have given some very relevant examples of situations where they find it difficult to maintain payments of the levels demanded by DCAs.

 

Harrassed Senior's example was particularly pertinent and I do feel so bad for him/her in their current situation. Surely, when someone is suffering genuine hardship through no fault of their own, any reasonable organisation, DCA or not, would consider some kind of amicable agreement - even if only short-term? It benefits both parties in the long run as the debtor gets breathing space to be able to sort their finances out and the creditor eventually gets paid the sum that they assert is owed.

 

People's examples of income/expenditure here seem to have passed you by - especially the idea of £12.50 per child per week - you may now be in the privileged position of not having to cover expenses for dependents, however, one day you may be. I hope that when that day comes, you'll remember this thread and have slightly more sympathy for what people have said.

 

On the matter of income and expenditure, maybe you would be kind enough to give us your thoughts on the following:

 

Male, mid-40s on Disability Allowance after suffering two life-threatening illnesses. After 18 months, he is desperate to return to work and therefore goes to his GP and requests to be signed as being fit for work. The GP is concerned about this, but relents.

 

During this time, five DCAs are all demanding a minimum of £20 per month each - £100 out of a total income of £320. Nearly a third of income.

 

Question: Could you afford to pay 1/3 of your income each month, before bills, living costs, etc?

 

The Government, via the DWP states in all income correspondence with those on benefits: "You will receive £xx per week, which is the minimum amount that the government believes you need to live on."

 

So, out of that minimum, DCAs would expect a person on benefits to pay out 1/3 of it to all creditors?

 

That is the reason why, when many people are CCJ'd, that a magistrate or judge rules that a payment of between £1 and £5 per month is payable. It is a reasonable judgement and is quite simply unnafordable otherwise, no matter what your bosses may tell you.

 

Not everyone is out to "fiddle the system" - most of us would love to be able to work/earn enough to be able to pay back any and all monies owed. However, with the tactics used by most DCAs, this does become impossible. Sometimes people get 20 - 30 phone calls a day from the same company. Their employers are phoned, their family and sometimes even their neighbours. Do you not think that should be classed as harassment?

 

How about letters that purport to advise that court action is imminent, when the DCA has no legal right to assert such, nor to carry out that threat without a court ruling? Isn't that bending the truth at best? At worst, it's lying, bullying and scare-mongering.

 

How about threats of illegal doorstep visits that contain the thinly veiled threat that bailiffs will arrive, when bailiffs can only turn up as a result of a court order? Again, Isn't that bending the truth at best? At worst, it's lying, bullying and scare-mongering.

 

If you truly believe that your own company does not use any of these tactics, then presumably they'll be the one whose tender is accepted by a very cooperative lender. Unless, of course, they are found to be morally bankrupt - a condition far worse than being financially bankrupt.

 

I thought I was lucky when my brother got me a job in a violin factory in Bow - he pulled a few strings. I decided not to stay though, as it seemed that everyone was on the fiddle.

 

Flippant, I know, but my point is that to the average debtor, it seems like most DCAs are on the fiddle. If you were faced with being conned out of more money than you owed, wouldn't you seek advice?

 

That is what organisations such as CAG are for. It's genuine advice for those in need, and shouldn't be a platform for criticism of the vulnerable by DCAs or any other bodies.

 

I would hope that you'll take my points as being constructive and maybe think a while about how those who are genuinely suffering hardship should be treated in the future.