DCA yay or nay

[dx100uk]

but who is saying the money is still owed?

 

CAG is not here to judge people on moral issues.

 

the debt is +6 yrs old

that means that in 6yrs no-one has been bothered to get the debt settled

the limitation act is there to protect the consumer

why should the debtor now pay?

 

whats the point of the act then?

 

ok the debtor gets a moral glow out of paying off the debt

but its not made any difference otherwise.

it wasnt on their cra

the judge was never going to enforce it

 

the only makers are the dca boosting their profits

or

those that claim to help the debtor getting fees.

it just lines the pockets of DCA's and those that charge fees to try and 'help'

 

if the OC wanted their money

they'd have already done something about it in the 6yrs to SB.

 

money for the boys to keep the myths alive me thinks.

 

dx

[theghost]

I would imagine that most creditors make an attempt to get their money back within 6 years - if they make no attempt at all then I would agree that they don't deserve to get their money.

 

Your wording of "in 6yrs no-one has been bothered to get the debt settled" implies that it is the creditors fault for not sorting thigns out in 6 years..

 

There are examples of people on here being told to string things out to make debts SB. There are even examples of people who admit debt but are advised not to pay as they will soon become SB - I am not sure how that is anything other than debt avoidance the Op is talking about...?

 

There are lots of reasons debts become SB - some the creditors causing and some the debtors.

[FightToTheEnd]

Are these the same wonderful banks who lend at 7 or 8% and then bang the rate up to 30/35% once they figure out you're struggling?

 

The same one's who "charge" £30 for paying a couple of days late.

 

The same ones who when you pay £180 off your card one month they stick £170 back on in interest?

 

The same ones who phone you day and night, even when you have a payment agreement in place?

 

The same ones who send a thug to your door if you haven't picked the phone up to them in a couple of days?

 

The same wonderful banks who trash your credit rating at the drop of a hat so you can't even get a mobile phone?

 

Those wonderful banks hey? Maybe we would be more inclined to play nice if they did?

 

How much of the £100 owed in your example is made up of unlawful charges and extortionate interest?

 

Still think this is a "simple" moral question?

[theghost]

Yes. The bank isn't my friend and never has been.

 

I know what to expect if I start defaulting on my loans.

[FightToTheEnd]

Yes. The bank isn't my friend and never has been.

 

I know what to expect if I start defaulting on my loans.

 

In your first post you suggested you already had?

[Lapchien66]

Are these the same wonderful banks who lend at 7 or 8% and then bang the rate up to 30/35% once they figure out you're struggling?

 

The same one's who "charge" £30 for paying a couple of days late.

 

The same ones who when you pay £180 off your card one month they stick £170 back on in interest?

 

The same ones who phone you day and night, even when you have a payment agreement in place?

 

The same ones who send a thug to your door if you haven't picked the phone up to them in a couple of days?

 

The same wonderful banks who trash your credit rating at the drop of a hat so you can't even get a mobile phone?

 

Those wonderful banks hey? Maybe we would be more inclined to play nice if they did?

 

How much of the £100 owed in your example is made up of unlawful charges and extortionate interest?

 

Still think this is a "simple" moral question?

 

 

Good points here - in reply to the OP, I would say that the original institution who lent the money has long since written off the debt and claimed full tax relief for it, yet the sharks who then buy it try to recover the full amount - surely that's wrong!

[unclebulgaria67]

I am convinced (apologies if wrong) that this was a Saturday afternoon wind up in a DCA office somewhere. When the OP posted it, there were about 15 guests all logged into the post straight after it was posted. I think they were hoping for people on here to start adding posts calling them a troll etc.

 

Hence the reason why I did not bite when I posted the first reply. But it has stirred up some good debate.

[gloryhunter]

Morning all funny how this post has ended up in the HFO forum i for one feel that this is a DCA fishing

however there are good points on the thread, but they way most of the DCA's go about there work is sly and underhand. In my case they got themselfs in a right mess even the OFT pointed out the mess they made of my case they sit on debts for years then go after the debt full on saying this and that will happen if you dont pay up, and thats a FACT. i have had a few debts in my time and have payed off 99% them but some DCA's just don't know how to conduct themselfs with in the law and thats where CAG helps people like myself who had no clue of the law in this murky pond, just pay up to the sharks.

[t_k]

When the banks are being bailed out with taxpayers money and refusing to repay what they owe then no one will accept any lectures on debt avoidance quite frankly with due respect.

Anyway another aspect of all this which i feel is over looked is that most people simply do not have the money to repay anymore.

Its all fine and well saying "you shouldn't have borrowed the money if you could not repay", but those people prob did take out the credit with the best intention of repaying. The money got spent, certain repayments were made and then as time moved on and things got worse with the recession they found themselves unable to make any more repayments.

It's worth noting that the overall cost of living has increased greatly in recent years which also has an effect.

No amounts of saying how naughty they were for obtaining that credit in the 1st place is going to change the here and now quite frankly.

I do feel that the OP could be a DCA troll. But even if they are the points raised are valid and i hope i have answered them myself as best i can.

Edited January 15, 2012 by t_k

[unclebulgaria67]

And remember that the banking crash was caused by banks selling and buying debts as assets. When they realised that the assets were worthless after being told they were AAA rated, then the crash happened. RBS shares were trading at over £7 per share prior to the crash and are now only worth about 20 pence. The UK taxpayer paid nearly 50 pence per share and are currently billions of pounds in debt as a result. Everyone who pays any form of tax is paying for the mistakes of the banks in treating debts as assets in the way that they did. If they are now paying banking charges/increased credit charges as a result of changed financial circumstances, due to the recession caused by the banks, then basically they are being done over by the same people that caused their problem in the first place.

 

This would make a great Monty Python sketch, if it could be made funny. But it is actually bordering on criminal in my opinion and I know that in the US, they intend to try to take forward prosecutions against some people. In the UK, I don't believe that we currently have laws that can be used.

 

I also read in the paper today that companies such as JPMorgan will be paying out bonuses to investment bankers averaging £200,000. How much of this money is generated from revenues that most people would see as being useful to society in general ? I should imagine it would be very interesting to see how companies like JPMorgan actually make their money and what risks are taken to earn these bonuses.

[t_k]

JP Morgan & Goldman Sachs rule the world...or so i've heard?

[Forandagainst]

Firstly, the reason I sound like I know a little about what I am talking about is because when I got into trouble with my finances I did a lot of research in order to try and understand my rights. I did work in a bank but that was over 6 years ago and seeing the things I did would hardly make me inclined to come down on their side however the points I raised have already had replies which to some degree proves the point I was making.

 

I agree that a lot of people are 'can't pay' as oppose to 'won't pay', I fall into the 'can't pay' and I was pointing out that peoples situations do change and the DCA's I have dealt with have actually listened to why I can't pay and set up arrangements for what I can pay.

 

In relation the SB, the responses on here prove my point. I find it difficult to believe that a creditor will fail to chase someone for payment for a full 6 years, what is more likely is they have tried and failed to get into contact with the debtor. I'm sure not everyone avoids on purpose but the response about 'not bothering to contact someone' therefore why should they pay is just bad advice.

 

I also can't understand why there is a debate over the moral aspect of chasing for the full debt owed when the DCA may have purchased it for a lot less. Correct me if I'm wrong but for a business to stay afloat don't they need to make money. How would they make money if they bought a debt for £20 and only collected £20? Where's the profit?

 

I don't think everyone on here gives bad advice and I'm sure that the main purpose of this site it to invite people to help each other, why do you think I visited?! I didn't read every thread and I won't pretend that I am some kind of expert but the responses to this thread alone prove to some degree the points I was making. It seems that some people on here hate banks and DCA's so much that they will tell people to not pay back what they owe almost as a form of revenge. Doesn't this just put people in a more difficult position?

 

I can assure you that this wasn't posted as a joke, I'm a little offended that people would think that. It just got to me that I was looking for help and a lot of what I saw was just ways to not pay. I won't apologise for having a moral standing on paying back money I borrowed. I will try to get them to reduce them a bit when I get my divorce settlement though because they put a lot of charges on at the start.

 

I know I may be on my own in this and perhaps it's because I won't be bullied over the phone that I don't have a problem ringing the DCA's that are dealing with my debts (and there are a considerable number of them!) but truthfully I don't have the same opinion as a lot of people on here. I'm sure that other people have a different view because of how they've been treated by some companies but I just don't think there is enough balance on here. They can't all be lying, cheating and underhand companies because I've actually had one person on the phone tell me that they didn't think what I was offering was realistic and agree to accept less because it was more affordable and wouldn't leave me struggling!

 

If I am honest I have been treated better by the DCA's then I ever was by the banks when I tried to sort things out at the start.

 

I know everyone has varied opinions and I know people will disagree with the points I make however if you are going to respond make your comment interesting and valid. Just putting DCA's are **** is hardly debate worthy and if you came to this conclusion because they sent you letters and called your home (BTW I completely agree with the ringing work, it's unacceptable) but you ignored them because you were trying to get out of paying or trying to wait it out till the debt was SB then I'm really not interested. Having said that there are some really good responses on here too.

[gloryhunter]

I dont understand why DCA sits on DEBT for 4 years without contact to the debtor (as in my case) i had not moved in 10 years !!! i will not go into the in's and out's of my case as OFT have asked me to say nothing (gagged) Lets just say the ammount they are claiming is 8x higher than the orgianl loan, there is making a profit and daylight robbery.If i broke the law in my job then not only would i lose my jobi would more than likely end up in court, the law is put in place to protect the consumer and some DCA's think that thay are above the law. As you say comanys need to make a profit but surely thay should do that within the law ?

oh and to answer the thread im a BIG NAY .

Edited January 15, 2012 by gloryhunter

[unclebulgaria67]

 

I also can't understand why there is a debate over the moral aspect of chasing for the full debt owed when the DCA may have purchased it for a lot less. Correct me if I'm wrong but for a business to stay afloat don't they need to make money. How would they make money if they bought a debt for £20 and only collected £20? Where's the profit? What actually happens is that the DCA either buys the rights to collect on a debt (takes a share of anything they collect) or they buy the debt as part of a package of debts e.g they may buy £1m of debts for say £50k and then try to collect as much as possible. Personally I don't mind them being able to make a reasonable return on any investment they make.

 

they will tell people to not pay back what they owe almost as a form of revenge. Doesn't this just put people in a more difficult position? Yes I am with you on this. They should try to deal with it head on, so that they don't dig themselves into a worse position. This may involve getting advice from CAB or CCCS. If the amount owed is mainly fees, they should try to negotiate or make use of any complaints process including the FOS if necessary.

 

I will try to get them to reduce them a bit when I get my divorce settlement though because they put a lot of charges on at the start. Do try to negotiate with everyone who you owe money to, as you will be quite surprised by the flexibility shown by some. It is not unknown for some creditors to accept as little as 10% as a full and final settlement for a debt, depending on your situation. See National debtline link here

 

If I am honest I have been treated better by the DCA's then I ever was by the banks when I tried to sort things out at the start. I think some may be better than others. My experience helping with a relatives debts, is that the older the debt gets, the worse the DCA gets. Some of the DCA's do employ tactics which are against OFT collection rules and some do appear to make up the debt amounts. One of the debts I dealt with was for about £400 and some how a DCA had changed the same debt to over £2500. This was probably (?) a mistake as information was passed between DCA's but there did appear to be a pattern of deceit with letters ignored.

 

See some answers in red. Your post was badly timed in terms of its content. It is not unknown for posts to be made on a Saturday afternoon which appear to be pro the debt collection industry, hence my comments in a previous post. I only contribute on here, because I had problems with DCA's when dealing with a relatives debts and I know how vital it is that people obtain appropriate help. If this includes some information about the tactics of DCA's and how to combat, then I see no harm in that. In my case, a relatives debts were being chased at my address even though they never lived here. Their tactics included sending letters on an almost daily basis, making repeated phone calls including some asking me to pay my relatives debts, sending around a doorstep collector, phoning neighbours to see who lived at my address and ignoring anything I sent to them, even recorded delivery. I did eventually receive barely adequate compensation for this, but the behaviour of some of the DCA's was very unprofessional.

 

When you do come to negotiate make sure you are armed with full information on your rights. How much of your divorce settlement do you have to make available to pay debts ?

[chattanooga]

If I am honest I have been treated better by the DCA's then I ever was by the banks when I tried to sort things out at the start.

 

Give it six months when they start calling your work asking to increase payments, calling your home at 10 o'clock at night, threatening 'doorstep' collectors, adding interest unlawfully to keep you in debt, whacking on charges for nothing just to keep you in debt...you may just change your tune over time, we'll see.

 

Just putting DCA's are **** is hardly debate worthy

 

You are right, the evidence is so overwhelming there is NO debate anymore.

[Forandagainst]

Its still in the process but they offer me settlements every time I ring them. In fairness my accounts are not that old so I was thinking of offering around 50% as this will take pretty much all the money. Three of them have already told me that it should be accepted because at the moment I'm making really small token payments.

 

What you were saying about the DCA's chasing relatives at your address is shocking so I can understand why people can feel the way they do but I got so irritated with all the things I was reading that basically said ignore them, they are pond **** etc....I just don't see how that is helpful. Thanks for the constructive and helpful response though, that was what I was looking for.

[Forandagainst]

Give it six months when they start calling your work asking to increase payments, calling your home at 10 o'clock at night, threatening 'doorstep' collectors, adding interest unlawfully to keep you in debt, whacking on charges for nothing just to keep you in debt...you may just change your tune over time, we'll see.

This is exactly what I was talking about! I have been paying really small token payments for 3 years. Yes they ring me and ask me if I can increase my payments every 6 months or so but when I tell them nothing has changed and I can't, that's it! They have never sent anyone to my home, never added interest, not applied any charges and they never call me any later than the OFCOM/OFT regs say they can (and I know because I checked when they rang at 8:20 because I assumed they couldn't call after 8:00). Perhaps the reason that I have a different view of them is because as small as my payments are, I pay every month on time. The people that seem to have the most hatred on here are the ones that don't pay at all (or that's how it seems).

[unclebulgaria67]

Its still in the process but they offer me settlements every time I ring them. In fairness my accounts are not that old so I was thinking of offering around 50% as this will take pretty much all the money.

 

Get some advice before you do that, as I don't think you should be a position where your divorce settlement is swallowed up to pay the debts. Discuss this with CAB or National Debtline or similar to make sure you are not prejudicing your future financial position. Nobody knows what is around the corner, with the current state of the economy, so you should really be putting some aside for a rainy day. Perhaps you should be looking at which ones you need to settle first and what others you can come to an arrangement with. There is also the issue of whether any of the debts were joint and what the legal position is with these, in terms of the divorce. If your OH is joint to any debts, if they don't pay or can't pay, they could still come after you, for the amount they can't get from them. Speak to your solicitor about this.

[chattanooga]

This is exactly what I was talking about! I have been paying really small token payments for 3 years. Yes they ring me and ask me if I can increase my payments every 6 months or so but when I tell them nothing has changed and I can't, that's it! They have never sent anyone to my home, never added interest, not applied any charges and they never call me any later than the OFCOM/OFT regs say they can (and I know because I checked when they rang at 8:20 because I assumed they couldn't call after 8:00)

 

Then you should revel in clearly being a special case. I too have been paying what I can afford (albeit to original creditors) and the DCA nonsense is relentness. Then again, have the DCA's got the balance right? (have you checked...carefully). Have you claimed back all the that's possible to reduce the balances?

 

Am I also right in assuming these DCA's that you are paying actually own the accounts? I certainly hope so.

[Geordie911]

WHAT DID I SAY AFTER HIS FIRST POST, HE WAS IN THE BANKING INDUSTRY Mmmmmmm

He Probably now does DCA part time LMFAO:lol:

 

 

Firstly, the reason I sound like I know a little about what I am talking about is because when I got into trouble with my finances I did a lot of research in order to try and understand my rights. I did work in a bank but that was over 6 years ago and seeing the things I did would hardly make me inclined to come down on their side however the points I raised have already had replies which to some degree proves the point I was making.

 

I agree that a lot of people are 'can't pay' as oppose to 'won't pay', I fall into the 'can't pay' and I was pointing out that peoples situations do change and the DCA's I have dealt with have actually listened to why I can't pay and set up arrangements for what I can pay.

 

In relation the SB, the responses on here prove my point. I find it difficult to believe that a creditor will fail to chase someone for payment for a full 6 years, what is more likely is they have tried and failed to get into contact with the debtor. I'm sure not everyone avoids on purpose but the response about 'not bothering to contact someone' therefore why should they pay is just bad advice.

 

I also can't understand why there is a debate over the moral aspect of chasing for the full debt owed when the DCA may have purchased it for a lot less. Correct me if I'm wrong but for a business to stay afloat don't they need to make money. How would they make money if they bought a debt for £20 and only collected £20? Where's the profit?

 

I don't think everyone on here gives bad advice and I'm sure that the main purpose of this site it to invite people to help each other, why do you think I visited?! I didn't read every thread and I won't pretend that I am some kind of expert but the responses to this thread alone prove to some degree the points I was making. It seems that some people on here hate banks and DCA's so much that they will tell people to not pay back what they owe almost as a form of revenge. Doesn't this just put people in a more difficult position?

 

I can assure you that this wasn't posted as a joke, I'm a little offended that people would think that. It just got to me that I was looking for help and a lot of what I saw was just ways to not pay. I won't apologise for having a moral standing on paying back money I borrowed. I will try to get them to reduce them a bit when I get my divorce settlement though because they put a lot of charges on at the start.

 

I know I may be on my own in this and perhaps it's because I won't be bullied over the phone that I don't have a problem ringing the DCA's that are dealing with my debts (and there are a considerable number of them!) but truthfully I don't have the same opinion as a lot of people on here. I'm sure that other people have a different view because of how they've been treated by some companies but I just don't think there is enough balance on here. They can't all be lying, cheating and underhand companies because I've actually had one person on the phone tell me that they didn't think what I was offering was realistic and agree to accept less because it was more affordable and wouldn't leave me struggling!

 

If I am honest I have been treated better by the DCA's then I ever was by the banks when I tried to sort things out at the start.

 

I know everyone has varied opinions and I know people will disagree with the points I make however if you are going to respond make your comment interesting and valid. Just putting DCA's are **** is hardly debate worthy and if you came to this conclusion because they sent you letters and called your home (BTW I completely agree with the ringing work, it's unacceptable) but you ignored them because you were trying to get out of paying or trying to wait it out till the debt was SB then I'm really not interested. Having said that there are some really good responses on here too.

[Bombaymix]

I actually applaud him/her for coming back. It's a well worded educated response.

 

Until he/she starts telling us to pay DCAs in full even if we don't have to - SB debts for example, and then goes on to say that a negotiation of f and f settlement of 50% of the debt is on the cards.

 

I'm not into calling people trolls. Maybe the op is genuinely concerned for the DCAs and maybe the OP hasn't been ever left stood in tears at their workplace when crapquest have called them constantly demanding money that I simply haven't got. And before you include me in the category of "If you couldn't pay back, you shouldn't have taken out the original credit" I was paying them - just not as much as they wanted, circumstance left me in sever financial hardship.

 

I'm glad that you have had pleasant experiences with DCAs... We haven't..

[theghost]

I am convinced (apologies if wrong) that this was a Saturday afternoon wind up in a DCA office somewhere. When the OP posted it, there were about 15 guests all logged into the post straight after it was posted. I think they were hoping for people on here to start adding posts calling them a troll etc.

 

Hence the reason why I did not bite when I posted the first reply. But it has stirred up some good debate.

 

Its all good discussion at the end of the day - either way.

 

I do think some people on here have a very clouded judgement of the debt collection market as a whole - they think what they see on CAG is a representation of the market as a whole - but I would disagree.

[t_k]

Further to my response earlier - i said that whilst banks are stealing billions of tax payers money and not repaying then no one will accept any lectures on the wrong's of debt avoidance.

To add to that, we have our MP's fiddling the system and trying to squirm out of repaying any of that.

We also have multi nationals evading billions in tax & so on.

Public are then told they have to suffer austerity = dont think so!

So whilst i agree that in principle any form of borrowing/obtaining money and not repaying it is wrong. whilst the bankers & mp's and the muti nationals are doing what they do then no-one in this country will be lectured to and told that trying to avoid repaying their debts is wrong.

Once those at the top and the powers that be start leading the way by example then the rest of the population may follow.

Edited January 15, 2012 by t_k

[t_k]

(BTW I completely agree with the ringing work, it's unacceptable) but you ignored them because you were trying to get out of paying or trying to wait it out till the debt was SB then I'm really not interested.

 

You (and the DCA industry overall) need to realize that it has absolutely no legal power over an individual whatsoever.

Yes they can ASK a person to repay a debt. But once the person has said no & go away then that is what it must do weather it likes it or not.

It is then up to a county court to decide the right and wrongs of the situation. Not the DCA industry.

DCA's mostly don't go anywhere near courts because of the cost involved and the debtor having loads of legal rights and protections.

So they rely on harassment instead in the hope that the debtor pays up.

It simply must leave a person alone when told to.

If it doesn't then the protection from harassment act 1997 is there to protect them and that's were the likes of the OFT,trading standards and even the police can step in to make it do so.

[chattanooga]

I do think some people on here have a very clouded judgement of the debt collection market as a whole - they think what they see on CAG is a representation of the market as a whole

 

Well, I think you will find yourself in a minority of one (two now I guess).

 

It's an entire 'industry' built on deceit, sharp practice, shady dealings and mean-spiritedness. The sooner the whole cesspit is made illegal the better.