DCA yay or nay

[Forandagainst]

I am new to posting on this forum

but given what I have read from others I doubt this will be liked.

 

I keep seeing people posting on here about receiving letters from DCA's and what to do about them

and all the replies quote OFT guidelines and Statute Barred legislation.

 

Now I am in the position of owing a lot of money and have different DCA's chasing me for payment,

the biggest difference is that I contact them, explain my situation and agree payments I can manage.

To be fair there have been some companies that I wasn't entirely happy with but a quick phone call sorted it out.

 

What I don't understand about a lot of people on here is that they are constantly looking for ways to not pay back what they have borrowed.

Why does everyone think it's fine to borrow money and then not pay it back?

Surely that's nothing short of theft!

Hiding behind SB legislation and waiting until it's no longer enforcable through the courts won't make it go away,

it just means that they won't take the case to court.

The DCA's are still within their rights to call and write.

 

I'm not for one minute suggesting that people should pay for debts that they don't owe

but just because the credit agreement for a credit card that was taken out in 1999 but didn't default until 2007

is no longer available does not mean that the debt does not exist or that the account wasn't used.

 

I accept that some banks lent money is a very irresponsible fashion but by the same token no one put a gun to peoples heads and made them take the money and spend it.

The fact that so many people defaulted on their credit agreements is in part why the country is in the mess that it is.

 

The country relies on banks lending to keep the economy buoyant and people now using the fact that we are in a recession

as yet another excuse for not paying back money they owe is just foolish.

We, as debtors have to accept some responsibilty for irresponsible spending too.

 

I know that some DCA's, and banks for that matter, have been known in the past to use underhand tactics to get people to pay but the large majority of them

now adhere to all the OFT guidelines as much as possible and try to make reasonable arrangements with debtors.

 

There are still some companies that don't but from my experience with quite a few the majority of them are improving.

 

The main reason I'm posting this is because it seems that everyone on here is completely against DCA's and will try anything to get out of paying money back.

I'll bet that 95% of these people actually owe it as well.

 

Just like any industry people are so quick to complain but never to compliment and whilst I wouldn't go that far

I believe there are two sides to every story so letting everyone know that you can have a reasonable conversation

with some DCA's seemed only fair because my experience is nothing like the majority of everyone else on here.

 

I borrowed the money at a time when I could pay and a marital split caused this to change.

I still want to pay back my liability unlike most.

 

DCA's have a business to run and they are doing nothing wrong with asking you to pay what you owe!

The OFT guidence is to stop them bullying you, not ringing or writing to you.

 

I have nothing against people helping each other out if there are are unfair practices going on but advising each other on how to avoid paying what you owe is just wrong.

It's the reason the country is in such a state and the sooner people realise it the better.

 

Get help from companies like the CCCS (I did and they were free and fantastic)

not people on here who advise you to ignore the creditors because when the CCJ paperwork arrives there's not much you can do!

[unclebulgaria67]

Yes many people share your views and from what I have seen CAG does not encourage any avoidance of debts. What it does encourage is awareness of the laws that have been passed by our parliament to protect people and awareness of the rights that people have to a fair process of collection.

 

My own experience of DCA's is from helping a relative with some debts and from what I could see many were not following the OFT debt collection rules. One of the largest admitted that they had ignored correspondence on several occasions and another had simply made the debt amount up. Yes you would not believe that some DCA's appear to make mistakes in adding on extra amounts, that when they are queried get quickly removed.

 

So as with all issues people face, people have different experiences. I agree with you that if there is a fair transparent process for debt collection and people do their best to pay back what they owe, then that is the best option. Unfortunately not all banks/loan companies or DCA's behave in a fair way and people will then perhaps seek ways to avoid repayment which are not ideal. The use of Citizens Advice and CCCS should be encouraged, with advice sought at the earliest opportunity when debts become a problem.

[Geordie911]

.

 

What I don't understand about a lot of people on here is that they are constantly looking for ways to not pay back what they have borrowed. Why does everyone think it's fine to borrow money and then not pay it back? Surely that's nothing short of theft! Hiding behind SB legislation and waiting until it's no longer enforcable through the courts won't make it go away, it just means that they won't take the case to court. The DCA's are still within their rights to call and write.

!

 

Basic definition of theft.

 

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

 

 

So there debts are NOT a form of theft are they SIR:mad2:

[Geordie911]

If I was a betting person which I am not, I would say that you were either a in the banking industry or a

DCA SPY from reading your post...................

[Geordie911]

The main reason I'm posting this is because it seems that everyone on here is completely against DCA's and will try anything to get out of paying money back. I'll bet that 95% of these people actually owe it as well. Just like any industry people are so quick to complain but never to compliment and whilst I wouldn't go that far I believe there are two sides to every story so letting everyone know that you can have a reasonable conversation with some DCA's seemed only fair because my experience is nothing like the majority of everyone else on here. I borrowed the money at a time when I could pay and a marital split caused this to change. I still want to pay back my liability unlike most. DCA's have a business to run and they are doing nothing wrong with asking you to pay what you owe! The OFT guidance is to stop them bullying you, not ringing or writing to you.

 

It would have been better for you to say which :mad2:Bank or DCA your from.........

 

I've read this four times now and each time I'm LMAO..

 

cant wait to see other replies from our Site team Guy's

[sillygirl1]

Exactly, and I am not aware of posts on here which advise to do nothing when you get CCJ paperwork, I for one have helped loads of people fend off CCJs.

 

CCCS is not veyr good with some types of debt, ie payday loans and do not help people reorganise their finances and pay the more expensive ones off.

 

I have never been a fan of pro-rata-ing your debt, it is sometimes better to pay off a couple of smaller debts completely and then work on the larger ones, I got rid of 7 debts in 5 months doing this... but that was a coupleof years ago now.

 

I agree with the other posters that you are a DCA/Bank troll... certainly you cannot have read the HFO posts, nor some of the payday loan threads properly.

[park1]

if banks are so worried about getting there loans and credit cards paid back to them, why dont they give you free ppi when you take out the loan and just put a little more on there interest, win win.

[Geordie911]

if banks are so worried about getting there loans and credit cards paid back to them, why dont they give you free ppi when you take out the loan and just put a little more on there interest, win win.

 

 

Here Here:-)

[Fred Bassett]

You will find that the usual advice on here is to make sure that you only deal with DCA's in writing, not to simply withhold payment. That is because most people have found, through experience, that DCAs are lying, cheating, underhanded scumbags who can't be trusted. It's your choice, if you think they are so wonderful, go ahead and do it your way.

 

Personally, I'm intrigued as to why you posted that. You've gone to the trouble of finding this site and reading some of the threads, but you have then ignored the advice. Like others, I don't trust your motives.

[Stigman]

DCA's have a business to run and they are doing nothing wrong with asking you to pay what you owe!

 

I have no issue with people paying back what they owe, I am not against debt evasion nor do I support and condone it. I do however have an issue with the way in which DCA's go about their business.

 

To lie, cheat, bully, harass & intimidate people is not a proper way in which to collect debts nor do any DCA take anyone's individual circumstances into consideration.

 

Not forgetting phoning the debtor at work to embarress them in-front of work colleagues.

 

Have I advised people into not paying, yes, but this has been through various factors and in keeping within the law.

If you do not like it, you can always campaign at the next election to become an MP.

 

Wake up, open your eyes and have a read around the various forums, HFO, IND and Payday loans to really see how these DCA's work.

 

Stigman

[twofoot]

If you are genuine which I doubt, time will move you over to the popular side of the fence. DCA's are **** and you will one day find that out.

[ScarletPimpernel]

There are a number of points that are worth making.

 

Just like the financial industry and DCAs, the OP has conveniently assumed that everyone in debt is a 'won't pay' rather than a 'can't pay'. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people are in debt because of unforeseen events that have happened - bereavement, unemployment, illness, divorce, separation and so on. Debt is often a consequence of these bad things that happen to good people.

 

Once in debt, most people make every effort to get out of it. Where they fail, very often, is in trying to get creditors to understand the situation and treat them fairly. Our self-righteous OP might ask why creditors should help - the simple answer is because they have to; COBS and BCOBS, for example, place an obligation upon lenders to treat their customers fairly. Remember that lending is all about risk, and lenders know this when they set up in business. Many creditors, of course, can't be bothered to pursue debts - they simply sell them on, writing off the loss against tax. We could look at the way in which banks create money to lend out of nothing, but that's probably going too far here - the information can easily be Googled.

 

Which brings us to the deeply unsavoury world of debt buyers, and DCAs, often one and the same. Perhaps our OP would consider the morality of businesses that sell debts for a fraction of their original value, and that of buying them and then pursuing people for the whole amount. Why, our OP might ask, are DCAs so heavily regulated? Why does the OFT keep bringing out ever stricter guidance? Simple; because the debt industry has demonstrated, time and again, that it cannot properly without such regulation. DCAs are parasites on the financial sector, and would be unnecessary if lenders acted properly themselves.

 

The business model of all DCAs relies upon debtors' ignorance of the law and their rights, bullying, harassment and non-compliant behaviour. I am not aware of one DCA that does not incentivise staff with commissions - a recipe for rule-bending.

[Bombaymix]

*sighs... I actually thought that was a serious post at first!

 

I see little debt avoidance here.. And where it does exist, it's quickly discouraged.

 

As for your desire to pay statue barred debts. You're an inspiration!! I'm so glad that you've got enough money to throw down the drain and donate good money to the DCAs!! The original creditor will be seeing little or no money... So you're just funding the bottom feeders with free money. Well done!!!

 

How's the weather in Kilmarnock?

[Geordie911]

Very well said Stigman.....

 

 

I have no issue with people paying back what they owe, I am not against debt evasion nor do I support and condone it. I do however have an issue with the way in which DCA's go about their business.

 

To lie, cheat, bully, harass & intimidate people is not a proper way in which to collect debts nor do any DCA take anyone's individual circumstances into consideration.

 

Not forgetting phoning the debtor at work to embarress them in-front of work colleagues.

 

Have I advised people into not paying, yes, but this has been through various factors and in keeping within the law.

If you do not like it, you can always campaign at the next election to become an MP.

 

Wake up, open your eyes and have a read around the various forums, HFO, IND and Payday loans to really see how these DCA's work.

 

Stigman

[Geordie911]

*sighs... I actually thought that was a serious post at first!

 

I see little debt avoidance here.. And where it does exist, it's quickly discouraged.

 

As for your desire to pay statue barred debts. You're an inspiration!! I'm so glad that you've got enough money to throw down the drain and donate good money to the DCAs!! The original creditor will be seeing little or no money... So you're just funding the bottom feeders with free money. Well done!!!

 

How's the weather in Kilmarnock?

 

Bombaymix "bottom feeders"

 

Don't you mean **** SUCKING POND LIFE Society's rejects

[theghost]

Whilst I think the official line from the forum is that debt avoidance is not encouraged - I have seen posts on here where people have admitted owing the debt, admitted having ability to make payments but have been told to ignore the DCA or given advice to string things out to make the debt SB.

[spots1]

Where is ...forandagainst..?..sulking at the bottom of the pond for being found out !!!

[Fred Bassett]

Perhaps our OP would consider the morality of businesses that sell debts for a fraction of their original value, and that of buying them and then pursuing people for the whole amount.

 

You forgot to add interest at the rate of 12%

[dx100uk]

Hiding behind SB legislation and waiting until it's no longer enforcable through the courts won't make it go away, it just means that they won't take the case to court. The DCA's are still within their rights to call and write.

 

strange logic here............

 

if a debt is SB'ed not even a judge can makr you pay it so........

 

the money should be paid to the DCA anyway you say...

 

but where does it go then?

what is that money the DCA now has used for?

Is it not now clear profit that is used to harrass other debtors?

shows you how the debt collection business is the most profitable industry there is in this sector.

 

lets hope too many newbies dont follow this logic and cough up.

 

dx

[theghost]

I am not sure there is a moral issue with a DCA buying a £100 debt for £30 and then chasing for the full £100.

 

Qutite clearly £100 was taken out as credit in the first place so it is not like the debtor is being screwed out of extra money (though the interest argument is a seperate one, I think).

 

Also worth bearing in mind by that stage the creditor will have spent time and money chasing the debt and will basically have to write off a significant amounts on money.

 

It also ignores the fact (business wise) that out of all the debt that is bought not all of it will be recovered.

 

Of all the reasons not to pay a debt, its a weak one IMO.

[dx100uk]

ok so we do that ghost

 

but WHERE does the money go?

 

it DOESNT go off the debt thats for sure.

 

business wise, it makes no diff if the dca gets the money or not!!

 

if a DCA wants to buy a lemon and get nothing for it THATS THEIR POOR BUSINESS decision.

 

not one that should be passed on to another debtor being chased on a lemon

 

it seems to me that this business is rather self floating

 

lets chase a mug on a debt he does not have to actually pay.

 

let make him employ a solicitor to defend himself...

 

so these solicitors that we see here and elsewhere that TOUT secretly in PM's

or refer people to OTHER WEBSITES where they are allowed to be approached by these solicitors...

 

are actually PART of the big...hey pay this debt because we can make money out of you too.

 

it REALLY interesting what some people post in order to keep their income going

 

rather than what CAG is HERE FOR - TO HELP.

 

dx

[theghost]

Not sure I get your point DX...

 

Clearly not every debt that is being chased (infact I would suggest most) is in question or is being chased unfairly.

 

There are lots of different scenarios in debt collecting so it is difficult to give a blanket answer, but..

 

If a consumer took out £100 and they eventually repay £100 I am usnure why it matters to them where the money goes. There will be many cases where DCAs are involved due to the consumers own fault - let me give you an example I know of.

 

Jim has a mobile phone contract. He has 6 months left but goes on holiday for a year cancelling his direct debit. When he returns he is chased by a DCA for the full amount.

 

Now the creditor will lose some of the money - for exmaple if the total owed is £300 which is fully recovered the DCA, the DCA might keep £100.

 

Is there not a case that because Jim has caused this problem he should be liable for the £300 PLUS the costs of getting a DCA involved?

 

Luckily we don't have this situation (can imagine it causing a lot of problems).

 

On the other hand, I don't doubt there are situations where a DCA is called in unnessarily and rightly so the debtor shouldn't have to fit the bill (i.e they were willing to go on a payment plan but the creditor called in a DCA). - but as I say there is no blanket answer as there are so many different scenarios.

 

"if a DCA wants to buy a lemon and get nothing for it THATS THEIR POOR BUSINESS decision."

 

Indeed, I would imagine that the total amount recovered is small in comaprison to what DCAs buy - hence they are more likely to pay a small amount for a debt than its face value - that is just market forces at work. If Mrs Smith owes £100 and repays £100 then the DCA may get £50 out of that - but that will balance up the fact Mrs Jones down the street owes £100 and doesn't pay back a penny.

 

But at the end of the day - what is legitimatley owed is legitimatley owed -I don't really see what concern it is to the end consumer how much the DCA gets and it is not a valid excuse to withold payment - IMO.

[dx100uk]

stop skirting the questions.........

 

mine were asked in relation too....

 

if a debt is SB'ed not even a judge can make you pay it so........

 

you say we pay a DCA ...

 

WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?

 

the judge cannot enforce it , its dead.

 

but you say we should still pay the dca

 

it cant go to the original creditor as the debt is dead, is of no consequence too them

they've reclaimed off-set on tax ...its dead.

 

but you say we should pay the DCA ..why?

 

where does the money go?

 

i really sometimes think that some people

are just introducing 'doubts'

so that their mates that are solicitors get a cut of this vile industry

so keep the myths going.

 

lets send a PM

lets refer them to another site

 

that way we can approach then

and say

hey request a CCA

doesn't matter what they send back

we'll defend you in court....or from now for a fee.

 

money for mates ...........

[theghost]

In answer to your specific question.

 

As to where the money will go - it depends on whether its a DCA bought debt or an agency relationship.

 

If it is just an agency relationship then clearly the DCA will get some and the creditor will get some - or alternativley the DCA may get all of it if its a bought debt.

 

I think the overriding point is that money is still owed, just because it is statute barred doesnt mean that a loss hasn't been incurred by the creditor if it is not paid - so I have no issue with the debtor paying back a SB debt because the creditor will get some of it back. Its not a LEGAL issue but a MORAL one perhaps. I can see the motivation of the creditor trying to get that money.

 

As to a DCA buying a SB debt and keeping all the proceeds - well thats a business decision and risk for them. At the end of the day whether the debt is SB or not, it is still owed - so even if a consumer pays some money on it - it is not like they are paying money they do not owe (even if it is SB).

 

SB does not = no legitimate right to chase a debt. SB debts can and no doubt are recovered and paid back to creditors.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I am not sure there is a moral issue with a DCA buying a £100 debt for £30 and then chasing for the full £100.

 

Qutite clearly £100 was taken out as credit in the first place so it is not like the debtor is being screwed out of extra money (though the interest argument is a seperate one, I think).

 

Also worth bearing in mind by that stage the creditor will have spent time and money chasing the debt and will basically have to write off a significant amounts on money.

 

It also ignores the fact (business wise) that out of all the debt that is bought not all of it will be recovered.

 

Of all the reasons not to pay a debt, its a weak one IMO.

 

In many cases the original creditor spends very little time and money chasing a debt prior to sale. The OC also claims the amount of the whole debt against tax, and then gets money for the sale. In addition, lenders will have factored in bad debt to their overall strategy, so that their exposure to actual loss is very low - one only has to look at the profits lenders make to see that they are generally on the winning side by a significant margin.

 

No one forces debt buyers to be in the grubby business they are in; if they do not wish to take the risk of not recovering all the debt they buy they need only stop buying debts.

 

The principal reason why I find debt sale morally repugnant is that in the majority of cases the debtor will be willing to pay, albeit more slowly than originally planned, and almost certainly due to circumstances beyond their control. If a creditor is not prepared to deal fairly and accept, in such circumstances, reduced payments over a period of time, why should they be allowed to sell a debt for what may well be less than they would otherwise have received? The sale of debt should simply be unnecessary, but it is done because it provides a short term tax advantage and because many lenders do not want to be seen as soft on those unable to pay. Secondly, I cannot think of one debt buyer that acts in a manner compliant with all their legal and regulatory obligations.

 

I do not suggest that the fact that a debt has been sold is a reason for non-payment, but I do think that it is not unreasonable to make creditors act properly and fairly.

 

Is it acceptable, for example, for debt to be sold without any documentation that proves the existence of the debt? Is it acceptable for debt buyers to send phishing letters to everyone with the same name and initial as they have on a list of bought debt, and forthem subsequently pursue those who owe nothing?