At the end of your tether? - an alternative debt management strategy

[silverfox1961]

A very good post DD but it raises a question in regard to I&E's

 

When a debtor is on benefits AND DLA, creditors and DCA's use the DLA as income where the Government say that money is for helping with day to day living.

 

When filling in forms, I think it's right not to include any disability benefits. Anyone disagree?

[sequenci]

When filling in forms, I think it's right not to include any disability benefits. Anyone disagree?

 

No.

 

The OFFICIAL line is that DLA is not regarded as income. It is an allowance that assists those that are unwell with the additional costs that they incur.

 

This means you do not have to include it within your I&E form. As an alternative you can list it within income and then remove it within your outgoings - so that it balances out. There isn't a right or wrong way of doing it. You are supposed to let your creditors know you receive it but it's used for your disability.

 

This is the same approach the court system takes.

 

Hope this answers your question sir

[silverfox1961]

Thankyou kind sir. Does anyone care to tell DCA's that

 

I tried and they (lowells) said something different

[sequenci]

You should complain about their actions. It's a massive social policy issue. The FOS are likely to be worth a complaint in this sort of situation.

[silverfox1961]

You should complain about their actions. It's a massive social policy issue. The FOS are likely to be worth a complaint in this sort of situation.

 

I think it's a little late now as it was almost 2 years ago.

 

This is a quote from Lowells

 

"Your comments concerning your personal income are duly noted and I would advise you that for the purpose of establishing a payment arrangement, all of your personal income can be considered and it is acceptable for you to provide documentary evidence of your income and expenditure."

 

 

Sorry for the minor hijacking

[sequenci]

It's relevant.

 

Remember DLA is not 'income', it's paid as an allowance to help with health costs.

[diddydicky]

the answers given are correct and personally i would not even include it in the I & E

 

in the UNLIKELY event that it was queeried/found by the creditor- one can always refer to govt guidelines that it need not be included to overcome any suggestion that you were trying to conceal the fact

 

truth is that the creditors will NOT go into so much detail

 

if you stick to the CCCS/Payplan forumla's- which are ones accepted by the courts- you wont go far wrong

 

indeed- if it could be shown that one was using DLA to pay for anything (like debts) other than the purpose for which it is intended- one could argue that it could be withdrawn/reeduced

 

so keeping it for the purpose it is intended is fine

[chattanooga]

Interesting about the benefits question. I would say there is a case for saying that ANY benefit is not 'income' as such and has a documented purpose. For example, as far as CCCS are concerned (a year ago admittedly), child benefit was to be declared as income but it doesn't seem a particular wild leap of faith to argue that it is to help provide for children in the family and therefore not actually income.

 

May I also pose another question/thought...

 

All my creditors have at some point sent me their own version of an I&E form, some are ludicrously complex. RBS for example had one that was 4 pages long and delved into every detail even differentiating between kitchen cleaners and bathroom cleaners. Is it prudent that we stick to a single form, perhaps that provided by nationaldebtline for example which seems pretty reasonable or should we indeed send back each creditors own form?

 

EDIT: just saw this...

if you stick to the CCCS/Payplan forumla's- which are ones accepted by the courts- you wont go far wrong

Edited January 10, 2011 by chattanooga
forgot how to read :)

[sequenci]

I would say there is a case for saying that ANY benefit is not 'income' as such and has a documented purpose. For example, as far as CCCS are concerned (a year ago admittedly), child benefit was to be declared as income but it doesn't seem a particular wild leap of faith to argue that it is to help provide for children in the family and therefore not actually income.

 

it's regarded as income as that is the sole reason is paid to people. It's there to help contribute towards the extra costs that having children may incur.

 

May I also pose another question/thought...

 

All my creditors have at some point sent me their own version of an I&E form, some are ludicrously complex. RBS for example had one that was 4 pages long and delved into every detail even differentiating between kitchen cleaners and bathroom cleaners. Is it prudent that we stick to a single form, perhaps that provided by nationaldebtline for example which seems pretty reasonable or should we indeed send back each creditors own form?

 

 

Use the NDL form for sure. It's been agreed by every major creditor as being acceptable (RBS included!)

[Tingy]

Many of you will know I'm a strong advocate of sensible voluntary use of IE sheets, contrary to the majority opinion on this site. I am in receipt of DLA and put it down as income and then exactly the same figure as Health Costs in Expenditure. I've never once had a query over it - good luck, or a sign of things changing for the better?

[chattanooga]

I'm not sure about the majority, it seems pretty 50/50 to me.

 

For me, sending creditors an I&E form is very much dependent on the individual's circumstances, using myself as an example, it would have been pointless sending I&E forms a few months ago because my income was fluctuating so much, it was impossible to commit to any particular amount and I told them exactly that. Now my income has stabilised I'm going to be sending in the forms and making offers I can reasonably keep.

[Tingy]

There's certainly been a healthy shift in recent months (I've not long been a member ) towards supplying them voluntarily, but as you quite rightly pointed out when warranted by the circumstances. I think I phrased it as something like sensible use of volunteering IE sheets. Sometimes it's helpful, sometimes it isn't. Equally I have on my computer 5 different IE sheets varying in detail. I'm also selective over which I send to whom depending on what outcome I want.

 

The ones I would rarely fill in are the ones they want you to!

[dx100uk]

a truly stunning thread

 

hats off and tipped - dd

 

dx

[chattanooga]

I think I phrased it as something like sensible use of volunteering IE sheets.

 

You did, and I see exactly what you mean now.

 

One crowd I definitely wouldn't send an I&E form to is some insidious DCA using underhand and borderline legal tactics to chase a debt in which there is doubt they even have the right to pursue. ***cough*** moorcroft ***cough***

[sequenci]

Many of you will know I'm a strong advocate of sensible voluntary use of IE sheets, contrary to the majority opinion on this site. I am in receipt of DLA and put it down as income and then exactly the same figure as Health Costs in Expenditure. I've never once had a query over it - good luck, or a sign of things changing for the better?

 

It has always been the case that DLA is not regarded as income for as long as I remember my good man. Any creditor that argues any different are ill-informed.

 

Pleased to learn it's not being challenged my good man. Certainly an excellent sign

[citizenB]

Excellent thread.

[Bigdebtor]

Just hit on this excellent thread when looking for some ideas.

 

Diddydicky does it again - excellent advice!

 

BD

[questioner]

What a fascinating thread, well done DD.

 

I do think that informing the sharks etc that you are only able to pay back tokens if they win is an excellent deterrent, meaning that even if they win in court they get back very little in return for all their filthy efforts to harass one into compliance.

 

About 18 to 24 months ago, following terrible advice from CAB, I was naively paying all mine quid tokens per month and worrying myself to death in the process.

 

I decided to sort things out for myself. I found CAG and before long inappropriate CCA attempts ensured that the token payments had been halted.

 

I then discovered that as well as the alleged agreements possessing basis flaws that 99% of them have PPI misselling issues.

 

Now some of this PPI has been returned yet the accounts are still in dispute over the figures.

 

I have therefore presented official complaints to FLA, FSA, FOS, OFT, ICO etc and it is a full time job keeping up with all the paperwork. I have 16 complaints alone with one bank in respect of.

 

Breaches of Consumer Credit Act 1974

Multiple mis selling of Payment Protection Insurance Policies

Breaches of Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidelines

Harassment by 3rd Party Agencies instructed by HBOS

Breaches of Data Protection Act 1998

 

I almost feel sorry for them yet they have brought in on via their own appalling actions.

 

And like I say – they stand to win back a quid per month as that is all I can afford out of the monthly dues.

 

However, my ambition is to expose them and the way they have profited via hidden commission on their dirty little PPI agenda in this most unfair relationship.

 

If I had a quid for all the times I had been threatened with legal action, home visits etc I would be doing quite nicely. On occasion I have hit them with counter action and most have paid up rather than press me further. I always let them know that I welcome the opportunity to place my dispute before a court – however, time and time again they just play pass the buck and give the file to a new shark.

 

My question then would be:

 

Do readers think that the creditors will still be aware of the fact that I previously paid them such small tokens (2 years ago) and if so how much bearing will this have had of their activities over this period?

 

Oh Yes, I am in a rented home too.

 

I only ask as I have NOT reminded them of this fact for a while.

 

Perhaps I should in view of the above?

 

Best wishes to all

[Tingy]

In answer to your first question - if they look at your repayment history, yes.

 

In terms of telling them you live in rented accommodation, I would not tell them. If they think you live in a house and want to try and get a charging order, let them waste your time. It is not your job to be helpful to them.

[diddydicky]

i am sure it will all be in your files unless they have already written off then debts (which they wont tell you)

[diddydicky]

In answer to your first question - if they look at your repayment history, yes.

 

In terms of telling them you live in rented accommodation, I would not tell them. If they think you live in a house and want to try and get a charging order, let them waste your time. It is not your job to be helpful to them.

 

they wont apply for a charging order-= they always check the address with the Land Registry first

[RedVixen]

Excellent thread and advice DD

 

I have one debt I am being chased for which technically doesn't exist I am being chased because Lloyds doesn't talk to itself. Those DCAs I am ignoring they can waste as much money as they like on letters etc they won't get anything

 

I have another overdraft where I have not heard anything from a DCA for months and 50% is made up of charges I am happy to pay the 50% I actually spent and will now contact them offering a token payment until I find work but also making a case for having the charges element removed

 

Thats about it really apart from one months sky bill and one credit card has gone away for the time being. The credit card I fully intend to challenge the balance if it comes back as it had PPI which they were never going to pay out on (student at the time) and they massively hiked the interest rate (nearly trebled it) If it never returns I don't feel guilty about that one.

 

The thing banks seem to miss is initially most of us intend to pay back what we owe. What makes us so militant is when the **** hits the fan and all the 'we will treat you sympathetically and reasonably' promises turn out to be crap and they engage in underhand, dishonest and bullying tactics it means many of us think sod you then... I am trying my best with what I have and you want me to starve. If they behaved better I suspect they would be getting alot more money on outstanding debts without resorting to DCA gutter crawlers

[victoria_siempre]

Hi RV

 

Like the Diamond CEO of Barclays, I think we should stop apologising.

 

Interestingly, he was flummoxed when asked, "Do you think bankers will go to heaven?".

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE70A1TG20110111?pageNumber=2

 

love

 

vic

Edited January 19, 2011 by victoria_siempre
citation

[Tingy]

I have no sympathy with the banks I'm afraid. When I was on a 55K salary they couldn't do enough for me. I then fell seriously ill and had to take early retirement aged just 40. Obviously it took a while to shed commitments hence my debts. The thing is, the banks were brilliant when I had money. As soon as I needed help and to be "cut a bit of slack" they were unbending.

 

Since then, I've seen them for what they are, and more importantly I know exactly how they view us as customers.

[minmoo]

Tingy, i think that is what hurts at the beginning. I (we) genuinely believed that because we have always been good with our accounts then should we hit a sticky patch they would try to help us a bit. Sadly its the reverse and we are viewed with utter contempt. My eyes have been well and truly opened as to how the whole stinking financial system is working.