Fairness Gene's opinion

[FairnessGene]

I started browsing CAG to find out how best to defend a debt recovery claim against me by Coward Hohen, who seemed a little too eager to add outrageous costs to the orginal debt. And my fairness gene found it extremely hard to accept their tactics of intimidation and bullying. Anyway, firstly, thanks to all the people who freely give up their time and expertise to explaining all the intricacies involved in defending a claim, and giving specific and useful advice to their fellows - such as me - in misfortune.

 

One thing I do find a bit disturbing, though, is the tendency to discuss cases on CAG as if somehow the creditor (or his DCA) is evil in principle for demanding repayment of the debt! Of course I understand that there are right ways and wrong ways to lend money, and right ways and wrong ways to demand repayment, but let's not lose sight of the fact that in most cases, we do owe the money, fair and square.

 

It sickened me a bit to see people gloating (often in their sigs) about how much money they have weaselled out of repaying - sometimes repeatedly -, as if somehow the occasionally corrupt and unfair tactics of the banks and DCAs makes that ok. It seems like a badge of honour to have borrowed money and got away without paying it back. Surely if justice (I see this word a lot) is what we are after, we have to act in good faith, and make an honest attempt to pay back what we have borrowed, along with reasonable interest?

 

(I realise that some people have been genuinely tricked into a debt, or treated in a way that has made it harder to repay honestly, and of course those people should fight by whatever means they can to have the unfair debt voided, but it takes a bit of soul-searching to make sure we're not rationalising away the unpleasantness of repayment, by over-stating the evilness of the lender).

 

I know this isn't strictly on topic, but I believe that thinking through one's own ethical position is a useful starting point in any negotiation or litigation.

[pumpytums]

Hi FG,

most people start off thinking as a good customer that creditors will treat them fairly and with respect. Unfortunately in most cases this fails after about a month. You offer the company what you can they are "Unable to accept reduced payments" this is a fact I have had it said to me on multiple occasions.

 

Once you get to the DCA stage the lies, harassment and mental torture start. You started out wanting to do the right thing this moral quickly gets eroded by repeat calls letters threatening "visits" " sale of your home" "bailiffs" etc. So you can see why people sometimes show their victory's in their signature.

 

Yes people do owe money but a creditors actions and their means and ways of trying to get it sometimes in my opinion removes their entitlement to it.

 

If the creditor won't accept reduced payments, the DCA won't accept payments you can afford, what else can you do? Let them get a charging order on your family home?

 

Everyone's story is different please don't judge anyone until you have heard it.

 

 

Pumpytums

Edited May 25, 2011 by citizenB
Title amended on moved posts

[uptoeyeballs]

Welcome FairnessGene!

 

You will likely find that the vast majority of caggers felt like you at the begining, then found out quite quickly if you try to be fair and negotiate they will take you to pieces. I tried it and have been stitched up big time. No more.

 

You may not believe it yet, but certain creditors would happily make you work all hours to pay them, add fees and interest and then go after you home....

 

Some DCA's will harass, cheat and lie to get what they want then go for more. Be warned!

 

uteb.

Edited May 25, 2011 by citizenB

[pumpytums]

Sorry one more thing at the end of the day it's money numbers on a screen no one should be driven to certain lengths over this. Money is money it's not like you have committed a crime against another person, which unfortunately some companies try to make out.

 

One thing that will empower you DCA's are in the business to make money nothing more nothing less they are not some kind of moral guardians.

 

Pumpytums

Edited May 25, 2011 by citizenB
Titile amended on moved posts

[Undercover-Elsa]

What a nice tidy world it would be if all were fair. Nice caring people would lend you money at a fair interest rate, and we would be morally bound to pay it back.

Sadly the banks overstepped a vital mark many years ago. From slapping our wrists with charges for our misdemeanors, they cynically began to engineer further indebtedness in order to make more money. Good honest consumers keeping their accounts in credit with no charges are their worst nightmare.

 

Typical scenario:

Hard working widow in full time employment with a regular income and an overdraft (arisen because she'd put her two kids through uni).

Sudden ill health leads to job loss. Struggles to pay bills, asks bank for help, none forthcoming. Nonetheless she steadfastly pays in what she can to reduce the overdraft each month. The bank then decides to increase monthly charges, so her payment no longer has any effect and the OD starts to rise.

Bank write to nice lady and say, we've reviewed your account and decided to cancel your overdraft.

Bank write to nice lady and say "Because you now have an unarranged overdraft, fees of £5 per day will be now debited to your account. (That's £150 a month for a dormant account.)

Bank write to nice lady and say "Pay £3000 immediately-or else"

 

They engineered it into being an unauthorised od in order that they could charge her £5 a day.

 

THAT'S what sickens ME.

 

And that's why I'm here.

 

 

Elsa x

Edited May 25, 2011 by citizenB
Title amended on moved posts

[duckwaddler]

Most creditors don't want their customers to ever pay their debts off, if they did they wouldn't make any money. FG? Have you ever attempted to pay more than the minimum payment on a credit card? The creditors make it near on impossible.

Edited May 25, 2011 by citizenB
Title amended on moved posts

[DonkeyB]

Please do not impugn CAG and its motives, FG.

 

I understand and agree with some of your sentiments, but you should know by now that when someone comes on here hell bent on debt evasion, they are quickly drummed off. CAG helps people with problems stand up for themselves, and helps them fight back when creditors act unreasonably.

 

Do not confuse people’s victories against creditors with debt evasion – a fight was entered, nearly always instigated by a DCA or debt buyer, and sometimes Caggers win because we play by the rules. Unlike some of the financial institutions, DCAs and debt buyers I could name.

 

Please point us at the supposed debt evasion threads and CAG will act.

 

CAG’s job is to level the playing field.

Edited May 25, 2011 by citizenB

[pumpytums]

If you want any more evidence have a read of the following this is taken from a well known DCA's website.

 

http://www.expertocredite.com/about_press.htm

 

Makes interesting reading doesn't it. If you want to read something that made me laugh out loud at the fake sympathy read the following from the same page.

 

http://www.expertocredite.com/pdfs/29-30.pdf

 

The end of the article sums it up "Three months later, I lost my best collector Jo, who took up a career in teaching"

 

Pathetic.

 

Pumptums

[cerberusalert]

One thing I do find a bit disturbing, though, is the tendency to discuss cases on CAG as if somehow the creditor (or his DCA) is evil in principle for demanding repayment of the debt!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484772/Grandmother-terrorised-death-bank-wrongly-hounded-16-000.html and there are many many more horror stories. When DCAs & their puppet masters begin to treat people fairly then maybe they will be seen in a different light, but at the moment there is a hard-core of licensed thugs terrorizing debtors.

[FairnessGene]

Hi to both of you, and thanks for the welcome!

 

Just to make it clear, I wasn't judging anyone in particular, especially as I don't know anyone's specific circumstances or their specific attitudes. But in general I am seeing a lot of people seemingly forget that they borrowed money, and that creditors have to put some significant pressure on defaulting debtors to pay! I'm not excusing the out and out bullying that sometimes happens, but what would you have them do? Just ask politely and leave it at that? I have been on both sides of the fence, and I know how some people (me included) bury their heads in the sand when they owe money, or make endless excuses why they can't pay, while still driving a nice car and spending money in the pub. The need for justice cuts both ways.

 

My point was just that it's easy to demonize the guy who's nagging one for money, and to exaggerate his wrong-doings, and then to use that to rationalise writing off thousands of pounds of debt because the lender has been unfair in some way. And then maybe even borrow money again, if one got away with it the first time. Sometimes it's hard to know what is fair, but self deception gets easier with practice!

 

I trust that my point isn't seen as a criticism of those who genuinely do have a case for having debt written off!

 

Cheers,

 

FG

[cymruambyth]

Another point regarding ethics ..... DCAs buy debts for fraction of their value and add vast quantities of interest. In these cases it becomes a case of us v them and yes they are victories due to persecution and unreasonableness that follows.

I was made to feel like a criminal and suicidal after contact from 1 DCA.

How many people are having problems due to the greed of the financial institutions who fail to carry out basic checks before throwing money at people.

Edited May 25, 2011 by cymruambyth

[citizenB]

Hi to both of you, and thanks for the welcome!

 

Just to make it clear, I wasn't judging anyone in particular, especially as I don't know anyone's specific circumstances or their specific attitudes. But in general I am seeing a lot of people seemingly forget that they borrowed money, and that creditors have to put some significant pressure on defaulting debtors to pay! I'm not excusing the out and out bullying that sometimes happens, but what would you have them do? Just ask politely and leave it at that? I have been on both sides of the fence, and I know how some people (me included) bury their heads in the sand when they owe money, or make endless excuses why they can't pay, while still driving a nice car and spending money in the pub. The need for justice cuts both ways.

 

My point was just that it's easy to demonize the guy who's nagging one for money, and to exaggerate his wrong-doings, and then to use that to rationalise writing off thousands of pounds of debt because the lender has been unfair in some way. And then maybe even borrow money again, if one got away with it the first time. Sometimes it's hard to know what is fair, but self deception gets easier with practice!

 

I trust that my point isn't seen as a criticism of those who genuinely do have a case for having debt written off!

 

Cheers,

 

FG

 

I think you will almost certainly see that most caggers have tried to come to some arrangement with their creditors and their actions after being rejected and then thoroughly intimidated are purely in response to further actions taken by the Creditor/DCA.

[FairnessGene]

If you want any more evidence have a read of the following this is taken from a well known DCA's website.

 

 

Makes interesting reading doesn't it. If you want to read something that made me laugh out loud at the fake sympathy read the following from the same page.

 

 

 

The end of the article sums it up "Three months later, I lost my best collector Jo, who took up a career in teaching"

 

Pathetic.

 

Pumptums

 

I'm not sure what point you are making here. Are we assuming that all DCAs are corrupt? If so, is it the practice or just the concept of debt collection that's anathema to some people?

[FairnessGene]

Another point regarding ethics ..... DCAs buy debts for fraction of their value and add vast quantities of interest. In these cases it becomes a case of us v them and yes they are victories due to persecution and unreasonableness that follows.

 

They buy debts for a fraction of the value because the original lender realises the chance of collecting all the debt is pretty small. How much the DCA pays for the debt is really not any of the concern of the borrower. (Although I do, of course, accpet that they have no right to add usurious interest charges to the amount owing!

 

I was made to feel like a criminal and suicidal after contact from 1 DCA.

How many people are having problems due to the greed of the financial institutions who fail to carry out basic checks before throwing money at people.

Let's all agree that the people who borrow the money are just as much to blame for taking it as the people who "throw it" at them!

[cerberusalert]

Moved to the Bear Garden.

[DonkeyB]

Let's all agree that the people who borrow the money are just as much to blame for taking it as the people who "throw it" at them!

 

Er, no. There are guidelines on responsible lending. It is regulated.

[FairnessGene]

Moved to the Bear Garden.

Fair enough, considering what it's turned into! I actually just meant it as something that is relevant to the process of being sued and defending, and that is that it's for each person to consider their own moral/ethical position, and what they think is fair to repay, rather than simply aiming to have any and all debt called off. (I wasn't intending it to be a debate about the ethical practices of lenders and DCAs, per se, although obviously each individual's own experience of their lender would bae factored in to what they consequently think is fair.)

[FairnessGene]

Oh well, that definitely takes responsibility away from us!

[DonkeyB]

Are you saying that lenders – who take risks with lending, let’s be frank, to make money – should be allowed to lend money willy nilly, without proper checks to see if the person can repay? Because that is all I can infer from your comment. And that’s exactly what happened throughout the 90s and early noughties, and that’s why the responsible lending consumer credit directives were introduced, as much to protect daft consumers as daft banks.

[duckwaddler]

[locutus]

This site is dedicated to help regular people with problems with large companies. You'll generally find posts by me in the telecoms forum or in the "retail" section when people have faulty goods and a retailer is trying to run roughshod over their rights, however I do wander around the debt forums from time to time, and a lot of the time things get crossed over... People mis sold a mobile package turns into debt collectors phoning at all times.

 

The problem we have is that in telling people how to challenge a company effectively, you will get some people that use this information to escape legitimate debts.

 

For example, if you escalate a complaint through a telecoms company's complaints procedure, once you reach a deadlock situation, you can complain to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Now, these are independent from the telecoms company, and are paid by the telecoms company to arbitrate disputes even if the customer is completely in the wrong. (I've heard figures ranging from £50 to £500. I'm not sure which is correct, I believe it is somewhere between both figures) So, If you make a complaint and request £40 from them or you want to escalate the complaint, there is a good chance the mobile company will say "Hey, we'll let you have that... it'll cost us more to take the dispute further..." If the person uses this to sort their dispute when a mobile company does something wrong then all well and good. If someone decides to get the last bit of their bill wiped off using this information, I agree it leaves a bitter taste.

 

So does this site help people dodge paying bills that they owe? I guess in helping those in need, sometimes we inadvertently do.

[FairnessGene]

Please do not impugn CAG and its motives, FG.

 

I understand and agree with some of your sentiments, but you should know by now that when someone comes on here hell bent on debt evasion, they are quickly drummed off. CAG helps people with problems stand up for themselves, and helps them fight back when creditors act unreasonably.

 

Do not confuse people’s victories against creditors with debt evasion – a fight was entered, nearly always instigated by a DCA or debt buyer, and sometimes Caggers win because we play by the rules. Unlike some of the financial institutions, DCAs and debt buyers I could name.

 

Please point us at the supposed debt evasion threads and CAG will act.

 

CAG’s job is to level the playing field.

 

 

I wasn't impugning CAG at all, nor defending shady lender/DCA tactics. I was just pointing out that most often, the creditor has a valid claim, at least at its root. It's incredibly hard for a creditor to chase a debt effectively and "nicely", because people would rather not pay, so they ignore, disappear, resist, make false promises etc.

 

The big screen telly or overseas holiday that gave rise to the debt is money spent; gone, and unless the person who borrowed it pays it back, someone else loses (the little old lady who has her pension fund in the bank's shares, or the other consumers whose interest rate goes up, or the staff at the bank who lose their jobs when the bank folds). I could of course describe that the other way around: the fees the single mother borrowed to put her child through uni is now spent; gone, and unless she pays it back, someone else loses (the greedy fatcat shareholdersof the bank, the rich buisness man whos interest rate goes up, or the manager at the bank who has to take shorter lunch breaks. Both those descriptions have some validity - nothing is ever one-sided. But then, that was really my point in the first place.

 

It would be interesting to know what people here think should be the process for debt recovery.

[FairnessGene]

Are you saying that lenders – who take risks with lending, let’s be frank, to make money – should be allowed to lend money willy nilly, without proper checks to see if the person can repay? Because that is all I can infer from your comment. And that’s exactly what happened throughout the 90s and early noughties, and that’s why the responsible lending consumer credit directives were introduced, as much to protect daft consumers as daft banks.

 

No. Are you saying people should borrow as much money as they want to (or are allowed to) without being reasonably certain they can repay it?

 

I said quite clearly that I believe it's a shared responsibility.

[FairnessGene]

This site is dedicated to help regular people with problems with large companies.

 

 

So does this site help people dodge paying bills that they owe? I guess in helping those in need, sometimes we inadvertently do.

 

Thank you locutus, for a measured reply. I admire and appreciate the work everyone does here, to help people defend themselves against unmanageable debts and unethical companies. I do not for one moment hold anyone else responsible for how someone uses the information provided - that's a matter for their own conscience!

[locutus]

It would be interesting to know what people here think should be the process for debt recovery.

 

It is impossible to find a truly fair balance, as there is always someone who doesn't like to cause a fuss, even if it means them paying something they don't owe, and there will always be someone who will argue black is white if it suits them and will try to get away with as much as they can.

 

Debt collection is a business, and they need to get as much cash out of every "customer" that they can. Until the government qangos that watch over them get some teeth, they're going to sail as close to the wind as they can.