Debt management company telling me not to pay off mortgage arrears - advice please

[victoria_siempre]

Hi Nick

 

You are very welcome as long as you don't solicit rough trade; we love debate here.

 

Our line remains a preference for DIY; although there are occasions where one might prefer to pay for service.

 

love

 

vic

[sequenci]

if you're going to pay for debt advice go to a DEMSA member (preferably us!)

 

Would you say that DEMSA members have a stricter criteria than those who are a member of the DRF?

 

I've read a couple of interviews with David Mond, he seems quite an outspoken chap.

[victoria_siempre]

As is Michael Land seq

 

"

DEMSA chairman Michael Land told Insolvency News earlier this month that there could not be a merger between DRF and DEMSA as they were on different footings.

Land said: "The only way anybody can be part of DEMSA is if they pass the stringent audit and regulatory code, approved by the Office of Fair Trading."

 

He added: "It would be like nurses wanting to join the doctors' union; they could join, but it wouldn't make them doctors."

 

Our line remains a preference for DIY; although there are occasions where one might prefer to pay for service.

 

x

 

v

[Nick Pearson]

Hi I don't esp. want to get into a DRF v DEMSA debate but the bottom line is that DEMSA has the OFT Approved Code of Practice and the practical consequence of this is that members are expected by the OFT to operate to a standard in excess of the existing Debt Managment Guidance. As a DEMSA member we have to pass an OFT Approved Code audit, (site visit, website call listening etc etc), submit to annual auditing, DEMSA mystery shopping and customer feedback anaylsis (sent by DEMSA memebrs to customers but returned to customers direct to DEMSA). It is a robust process. At present DRF does not monitor members before allowing them to join. The are hoping to get OFT approved code status but that is likely to be some way off.

[Wintry]

Hi Nick

 

Thanks again for the reply

 

A few points if I may

 

I dont think you have addressed the issues of independence and impartiality with regard to referrals between mortgage lenders and debt solutions providers, IVAs etc and I stand by my opinions on this.

 

Nick if the 93% figure is difficult to prove to me then surely it has to be difficult for me (and the public really) to accept as basically what I was asking for was actual evidence and proof of 'your stated figures'

 

I would more or less have to say the same (no independent hard evidence) with regard to the 70% typical free debt advice provider claim.

 

In my opinion the above more or less applies to your explanation on the 2 months set up fee also.

 

Nick, it looks to me that basically you have little or no independent hard evidence or actual proof to back up your figures and claims.

 

Please forgive me for saying this - but it seems to me you are sailing close to a self marketing approach with your quotes and figures on here.

 

I would agree with you that no organisation is perfect though

 

You are right about this site they do allow an open debate and I have to give you credit for your participation in this one.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Wintry

[victoria_siempre]

Hi nick

 

I think your argument is entirely valid; but it would presumptuous to soothsay what is in OFT's mind.

 

I suppose our line is that one can't systemically and morally deal with duplicitous and corrupt OCs through intermediaries whose business model is contingent on the legitimacy of said practices:

 

"The story is probably apocryphal, but it is said that Wilde was at a dinner party seated next to a young woman. He said, “I’ve recently come into a small bequest of 40,000 pounds which I do not need. I have, alas, never had sex with a woman. If I were to give you the bequest, would you have sex with me?” She responded, “Yes, Mr. Wilde, I would.”

“Well, will you do it for 2 pounds?”

“Mr. Wilde, what do you take me for?”

“Oh, we know what you are. Now we are simply haggling over the price.”

 

sort of thing

 

 

x

 

v

[victoria_siempre]

Hi wintry

 

It has been fined £840,000 by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and will have to pay £1.5m in compensation to up to nearly 8,000 borrowers." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12536174

is worth a look.

 

The FSA said the bank had been guilty of "irresponsible lending practices and unfair treatment of customers in arrears".

The bank said it would contact the borrowers and arrange payments.

The FSA said that the bank's staff:

 

• failed to check if some customers would be able to afford their mortgage repayments if their loan lasted into retirement
  
• failed to offer cheaper mortgages to some customers who asked for self-certified mortgages
  
• failed to check if some customers had considered where they would live if they planned to sell their homes to pay off their interest-only mortgages.
  

x

 

v

[Nick Pearson]

Hi wintry

 

I'm enjoying this debate. I guess short of making available highly confidential data public I am not in a position to do anything other than give a statement of our analysis; I may ask an independent researcher to take a look to verify but they could only ever rely on the data we gave them or that lenders etc made available.

[victoria_siempre]

hi nick

 

Show me your's, and I'll show you mine?

 

x

 

v

[Wintry]

Hi wintry

 

I'm enjoying this debate. I guess short of making available highly confidential data public I am not in a position to do anything other than give a statement of our analysis; I may ask an independent researcher to take a look to verify but they could only ever rely on the data we gave them or that lenders etc made available.

 

Hi Nick

 

So am I

 

You could say we have got a lively one here, that I am quite sure comes as no surprise to you and me

 

Fair enough Nick, I take your points and have no intention of churning over the same issues, people can make up their own minds on what they read on here.

 

PS - Pity the DEMSA / DRF part of the debate did not take off though (nice one sequenci) I think I would have enjoyed sitting back and watching that (if the DRF guys are looking in, bet they are itching to press the keys)

[Wintry]

Hi wintry

 

It has been fined £840,000 by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and will have to pay £1.5m in compensation to up to nearly 8,000 borrowers." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12536174

is worth a look.

 

The FSA said the bank had been guilty of "irresponsible lending practices and unfair treatment of customers in arrears".

The bank said it would contact the borrowers and arrange payments.

The FSA said that the bank's staff:

 

• failed to check if some customers would be able to afford their mortgage repayments if their loan lasted into retirement
  
• failed to offer cheaper mortgages to some customers who asked for self-certified mortgages
  
• failed to check if some customers had considered where they would live if they planned to sell their homes to pay off their interest-only mortgages.
  

x

 

v

 

Hi victoria

 

Thank you for this -

 

Very interesting

[victoria_siempre]

Hi wintry

 

Though I am not a DRF guy, the debate can continue if you so wish; it is presumptive to assume, "it is understood that this is part of Government's wider strategy in respect of overindebtedness, with CFEB taking on responsibility for developing a more mainstreamed and sustainable funding programme for debt advice in the future with funding provided via the bank levy".

 

However, in CAG, our line is our line.

 

x

 

v

[victoria_siempre]

Soz w

 

Post crossed.

 

It has a general applicability that has not been widely recognised.

 

x

 

v