Debt Assignment

[Jamesx81x]

Hi

 

It is common for DCA's to purchase debts from creditors for a fraction of the amount owed to which you will recevie or should receive a letter from them stating the outstanding balance has now been legally assigned to ..... you now owe them the money.

 

They pay next to nothing to purchase these debts yet are allowed to claim the full balance from you. Why??

 

For example they purchase a debt of £1000 for £200 yet are allowed to chase you for the full £1000. It is just a way for DCA's to make massive profits.

 

Furthermore if a creditor is willing to sell a debt for a fraction of what is owed, why is this offer not offered to the debtor first? If they are willing to take a smaller amount from a DCA and then close the account why is this opportunity not given to the debtor allowing them to then discharge their debts??

 

The current sytem of debt collection needs a serious overhaul and more protection given to consumers.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It all comes down to costs, saving on staff and admin costs

and of course the tax benefits and ''tidier' books keeps the

share holders happy.

[dadofholly]

A loan agreement is a company asset and can be sold in just the same manner as any other company asset.

[Jamesx81x]

Yep well thats just the way everything is these days.

 

Doesnt get away from the question of how the DCA's are allowed to profit in this way and why the debtor is not first given the offfer before they sell.

 

All wrong!!

[Conniff]

This is how business is done. A car dealer buys a car for a price that is a lot less than he sells it for, same difference.

[dadofholly]

because dca's and creditors are all financed by the same people who create our money supply - the high street banks.

 

It is in their interest to keep the merry go round running - which is why they spend millions on lobbying governments.

[sleepingdog]

Hi James, good post ,and yes it is all wrong.

The banks seem to forget that people get in debt mostly due to a big unexpected change in their circumstances ,yet they add fees and sell debts on making it hard for the individual to recover from the mess even when their fiances change for the better.

Also the banks forget that by relying on information held by CRAs for 6 years to decide on loans / mortgages the individual has a even harder task to climb out of debt after the unexpected circumstance has ceased.

Banks seem able to reduce debt owed by foreign countries to help them, but fail to help customers at home that have supported them for up to 50 years ,all due to greed and the fact that all polititcal parties are not bothered at the way banks and other financial instituations in this country operate.

sleepingdog

[Fred Bassett]

You're preaching to the converted here mate. I tend to disagree with the idea that 'this is how it works', i.e. one organisation buys something then sells it at a higher price. This is different. Nobody goes to a debt buying group for a loan or credit card, yet they end up owning these accounts because the original creditor can't be bothered to deal with them. I too think this practice ought to be outlawed.

[Conniff]

Personally I feel it is time to end this 'compulsory' paying of salaries and wages into banks which are just a private company like the newsagent around the corner.

[sleepingdog]

Hi Conniff, fully agree .It always felt better when you got paid real money and then you went around paying those you needed to and you had money left to spend. Now all you get is a print out of what you had and where its all gone.

On another note ,I find it soo frustrating when a payment leaves your account only to be returned a few hours later due to being a few pence short and then to find both parties want £12 to £35 for the transation .Fair ,I think not.

sleepingdog

[Jamesx81x]

I understand they are sold as part of a companies business thats not what im getting at. I know what you mean by the car sales point but this is peoples lifes and mental well being in question not a second hand car.

 

My biggest point is if a creditor is willing to accept a greatly reduced fee from a DCA then they should be prepared to offer the debtor the chance to pay off their debts at that price first.

 

Maybe if purchasing of debts was banned then it would encourage creditors to negoitate more with their consumers.

 

For example some creditors will reject propsals to pay off debts by installments in which case they would eventually receive the full amount, some will reject full and final officers yet so many months/ year or two down line they will sell it to these leaches for less than they would have got dealing direct with.

 

We all know what DCA's are like and they can make peoples life hell even more so when they own the debt.

[intend]

Just a thought - could the selling of debt be considered unfair treatment under BCOBS?

[sleepingdog]

Hi James ,I fully understand what you are saying. I offered 40% as a full and final recently only to have it rejected ,debt was sold 1 month later probably for less than 40% ,wheres the sense in that.

Also as creditors seem to like giving negative info to CRAs which is held for 6 years no lender will touch you for 6 years thereby missing the opertunity to make money from you when your financial troubles are over ,I call it shooting themselves in the foot.

sleepingdog

[reginald perrin]

Evening James,

I don't know but hypothetically I suppose one could go a bit further and demand the exact amount the debt was bought for. I am not sure but

if it is specifically your debt the DCA should allow you that information. We all know roughly how much their making out of us.

You can bet your life they would not disclose the amount or you might not want to go on supporting your payments or other offers to them.

Now, surely, if your personal debt is bought by a DCA it must then become further personal information to you and qualify for enforcement under the ICO rules

just to see how much they did purchase it for. If the OC sold your debt for an amount it would appear they would have settled the debt for that amount.

The more information that is gathered about the amount and publicised people higher up will see just how much these companies are causing so much

distress to debtors and do something to make the system at least fair.

Anyway all hypothetical as stated but you know your right as confirmed by the response already!

[Conniff]

I don't think you would get a response to a demand for how much they paid for it, that would be commercial in confidence.

 

I understand what is being said here and fully agree, if a creditor is prepared to take a drop in the revenue he receives for a debt, he should give the debtor first chance to cough up a reduced settlement which would probably be more than he would make from a dca.

 

I would further suggest that if there was an entitlement to know how much a debt was purchased for, then it would leave the gates wide open for people to take out loans for xxxx pounds and then default knowing eventually if they wait long enough, they will only have to pay back xxx.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Conniff

[Old Cogger]

They would say business confidential then ICO would say it was under No 6 data protection principle (non disclosure basically).

[reginald perrin]

Quite right connif,

But now it opens the big can of worms that these companies do not disclose all of personal details held about personal records.

They do not use your commercial getout but would rather use the excuse that the debt was bought at the same

time as many others and it would be difficult to place an amount on it.

This still leaves the point that the personal debt details relate to a specific person and should be made available to them.

As stated all hypothetical but logical if there is personal data held by companies.

[sleepingdog]

Hi all, on another note:-

dealing with these companies takes its toll on debtors, firstly there is the stress of dealing with the change in circumstances, next the stress of dealing with uncaring collection companies, all of which can lead to needing support from other services ( cab ,debtline as well as councilling services for stress and sleeping problems ).

Then there is the actions that stress can bring on (marrige break ups etc)and in my case 3 car accidents which I am sure was directly related to the money worries I had at the time distracting my otherwise good attention.

All of the above have hidden financial costs which seem to be forgotten about .

I don't think that people would take out loans just to default then pay a reduced amount as this has such a dramatic effect on ones life now that CRA files are king and the computor would always say NO to so many applications that are taken for granted .

Anyway that is just my thoughts on life being in debt and the changes it has forced on me due to a otherwise unforeseen change in circumstance that is now in my past but debt it seems will be my future for many years to come.

sleepingdog

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

In all the years I've been dealing with debt only once have I seen

a deed of assignment made available and that was only the for

a senior judge to see and not made available to the defendant and

their defence lawyer.

It really is commercialy sensitive data and has no particular part

to play in a debtors defence or dispute of a debt.

[phaitun]

interesting thread, does anyone know under what laws these assignments are protected?

 

It is not subject to Public Interest Immunity, so it SHOULD be disclosed under freedom of information act, in any case the human rights laws of privacy of an indivudual (debtor) takes a higher precedence than any commercial interest.

 

It seems that the banks and Financial Industry are yet again hiding behind peoples ignorance of the law.

 

There are only certain circumstances where personal data is not to be disclosed to an individual under data protection laws and 'commercial secrecy' is not one of these. IMO

[phaitun]

Interstingly if a debtor used this argument in Court, i would hope a judge would see 'common sense' in the spirit of the small claims court principles.

 

My simplified example.

A owes money to B, he pays every month the agreed amount

A loses his job so cant pay the agreed amount but offers a lower amount

B refuses and tries to put uneccessary pressure on A to pay as agreed, or adds extra interest due to a longer time scale

A more into debt with B plus others

A eventually cannot pay anyone, A can just about survive, B gets impatient sells the debt toa DCA then claims Tax relief to cover his loss

The DCA pays 10% for the debt, then tries to profit from A by more pressure added charges and interest for the whole amount of the original debt- it increases in value over time

 

The sale price of the debt is apparently none of the business of the debtor? This is not right, the price of harrassment is everything to do with the debtor.

 

The DCA then engages the right of privacy of the debtor by searching his private information of telephone numbers, CRA files, Voters checks, calling neighbours, calling and visiting the work place, sending agents to previous and current addresses to check up on the finances, vehicles, housing and financial status of the debtor.

 

All with No obligation to disclose the price they paid for this right to intrude so deeply into A's privacy. There is nobody ensuring these privacy rights are protected in the case of debt.

If the Police or other investigatory agency wanted to intrude so deeply into the affairs of a criminal they have all sorts of authorities that need to be obtained.

 

IMO the price paid for the debt, which is the obvious VALUE the OC placed upon it should be offerred to the debtor 'prior' to the infringments/engagemnts of A's human rights being considered.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If you have bought something a low price for

example an antique to sell on as business person

would you want to be forced to disclose what

you had paid for the item to a prospective purchaser,

what you paid for it is totally irelevant to anyone else.

[alangee]

This is how business is done. A car dealer buys a car for a price that is a lot less than he sells it for, same difference.

 

Not quite the same thing, the car dealer does not charge you the price of a new car for the one he bought at auction.

 

Alan

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Maybe not but any business is there to

make as much profit as possible.

[intend]

Proift before people - a nasty principle but the basis of our capitalist system.