Dodgeball and Davyly Discussion on DMPs and their ideas on DCAs

[fletch70]

Wow don't we all get frustrated when our point of view isn't correct. Of course you are all wrong as I am the one with the correct answers

 

For what it's worth....if they have your phone number no harm in confirming it, for example if they were to call on my mobile that would be the number I gave, if it was on my landline that would be the one

As generally agreed talking to them is not a good idea per se but sometimes it is necessary HOWEVER be prepared for the **** they through at you and how they try and manipulate you. There were times that if I had had any money I would have made a token payment. There was one occasion that a PDL offered me a 50% discount for F&F when I lost my job. This was discussed over the phone and split into two payments. I accepted and got it in writing...sorted.

 

DX I know you often show that link to demonstrate how much money DCA's make, I am afraid the phrase wake up and smell the coffee springs to mind. That is capitalism for you making money off the backs of others, paying minimum wage to people . There are lots of industries I have moral objections to alas all I can do is express myself as to why I dislike them but arguing that people make money out of them is not the best way .

 

Anyway , I know how I operate, I know my ideas have evolved just as some of the ideas of people on here have evolved.

 

If anyone will provide the petrol I will provide the match for MMF, minicredit and mucky Hall...my favourite 3

[Peterbard]

 

If anyone will provide the petrol I will provide the match for MMF, minicredit and mucky Hall...my favourite 3

 

And i will strike the match for you

 

The fact is that there is no one size fits all solution or advice, as I think has been said, and the mistake, is to think that there is.

[Peterbard]

we are CAG , we question, we don't assume.

 

if we didn't, then we might as well answer every post

with a list of debt advisors and not bother taking the pers approach.

 

dx

 

 

The 'personal' approach is foolhardy

 

 

 

:lol:

[sequenci]

The fact is that there is no one size fits all solution or advice, as I think has been said, and the mistake, is to think that there is.

 

I absolutely agree with this.

 

Whats fundamentally important is to approach debt in a broadly objective fashion. I often see threads here on CAG where the advice given is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There will always be differing opinions, of course, that's a nature of the beast when it comes to internet forums - and *that* can be very useful. From professional experience I would generally advocate written communication but it depends on the situation. For example, if someone has been sent a fishing letter out of the blue which is massively ambiguous in nature I would probably tell my client to ignore it - with a view to seeing if something comes along which is a bit more clear as to what it's all about. If someone has been sent a demand for a debt which is without doubt statute barred then a limitations letter SHOULD be sent as it would reverse the burden of proof. Over 99.5% people in debt simply want to repay their debts - so taking the usual approach (e.g. offers in writing supported by a CFS compliant financial statement) would be suggested. Out of the 20,000+ clients I've helped over the years only a handful have shown any concrete interest in wanting to challenge their liabilities. But doing such a thing can have its uses - but it depends on the bigger picture - for example why bother when insolvency is the only possible option for the individual?

[Peterbard]

yes they cannot be trusted

 

we see p'haps 1 in 10'000 DCA intercourse by phone call help posts here

 

the majority of those indicate at some point

the OP either got spoofed , paid them because they 'conned' the OP

then they came to cag.

 

or

 

they really didn't quite believe what they were told

and again

typed in the name of the dca

and got a cag hit.

 

they read , they go 'ah' yep that was me too.

 

standing back

doing careful investigation

checking what they are claiming is correct

and legal takes a few weeks

 

doesn't harm the debtor that whomever is waving their arms around

doesn't get payment for a while.

 

DCA's earn their money by 'intimating this and that' and thus create a 'fear'

and create a profit out of it to only themselves.

 

likewise, the only reason it seems others have a diff view to

speaking on the phone to a dca is that 'fear'

 

so what, let them go to court because

a debtor said, hold-on, I want to check a few things

please write to me ..goodbye.

 

if saves just one debtor from lining the likes of Mr Links pockets

or any other fleecing DCA then CAG is doing its job.

 

we are CAG , we question, we don't assume.

 

if we didn't, then we might as well answer every post

with a list of debt advisors and not bother taking the pers approach.

 

dx

 

 

 

I would totally agree with that Sequenci. It is the attitude that there is a 'one size fits all' solution that makes some of us argumentative.

 

I too have dealt with loads of cases. I have never had a major problem with any of them. As you say, most want to pay their debts, learn their lesson and move on from a horrible time in their lives.

 

I've said it previously on here that UE is pretty much dead on its feet now. Usually there is little point in sending CCA requests etc... for debts post 2007.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Dodgeball

[Peterbard]

Indeed,the various cases over the years and the removal of sanctions to creditors have pretty much sealed the fate for technical challenges to agreements.

It is good to see however the things that Govian Law are doing using the pre contractual requirements to challenge PDL agreements, people should be fully aware and the creditor has a responsibility to ensure that the debtor has capacity before lending, this I believe is the new thing in consumer protection.

[fletch70]

I fully agree that it is wrong to give credit without any sort of affordability check. Ok so maybe I was wrong in applying for an OD when on benefits and even more stupid for using it. To be honest I was kinda having a laugh when I applied...just seeing if they would.

I will be honest and didn't expect to be in circulation to have to deal with it

I am not a bad person , just bad with money always have been and suspect however hard I try , always will be

[sequenci]

I hear that! I'm not great with money either - certainly a lot better than I used to be, but I still seem to live beyond my means too often.

[Peterbard]

One good thing about the new Eu directive is that they have introduced stricter rules about pre-contractual checks. With the new type of instant lending that has come on the market over the last five years, I think the rules are going to have to get stiffer still if we are to avoid a massive crisis in debt.

 

The British conception of consumer protection has always been slightly different than that of our continental cousins, especially so after the Crowther report and the CCA. Emphasis was placed on giving the customer all the information about the bargain. This is why all the strictest sanctions included within the act are for none compliance with information critera in agreements at execution.

 

Now we are beginning to understand that people sometimes need to be protected from themselves, if we are going to reduce our collective debt we are going to have to accept that sometimes we are going to be refused credit.

 

Credit unions are an answer but they are slow and do not meet the need of people who are after a quick monetary fix.

This could be remedied with a little government intervention , further relaxation of the law and some cash perhaps, it will happen, one day.

[Guest]

I fully agree that it is wrong to give credit without any sort of affordability check....

 

indeed, the oft irresponsible lending guide etc that they often don't seem to comply with. eg, as they have since been told off for (and now don't do/or have reduced), increasing credit limits freely on credit cards.

if the eu is all to apply, then defaults should last for 3 years? good or bad?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Is it not equal irresponsible to apply for credit that you cannot afford to service?

[Guest]

it should work both ways. but, it doesn't work like that, and the guide etc are there, which they should follow. and, often the initial credit is serviceable, but then as said gets extended without checks. there's more money to be had from someone who is in debt. and they have have been held to account for such practices numerous eg's. as said above, sometimes consumer protection is needed, hence the legislation, codes, guides, etc. nice try though.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Ford

[Peterbard]

Most OFT guidance is based around post contractual issues, closing the gate after the horse has bolted. The new procedures concentrate on pre-contractual affordability checks, which with modern technology should be entirely possible.

 

The problem is that when someone does get a clear credit record they go mad and take on multiple credit, cards loans make purchases etc, there is very little protection against this, and really there is no reason now why there should not be.

 

In america and Canada they have a specialized data base for instance for payday loans, granters must register when the issue a loan and if someone makes multiple application from different companies it flags up.

[sequenci]

Is it not equal irresponsible to apply for credit that you cannot afford to service?

 

Probably, but it's down to why such an application might be made. What I'm seeing in the day job is people making applications for payday loans so that they can service priority debts such as rent, council tax, fuel arrears OR they're being badgered by a bailiff. It's vital that these individuals address the root cause of their situation rather than paper over the cracks although I do appreciate taking out a PDL to pay these would essentially turn the debt from being a priority to a non-priority.

[Guest]

re #113. it is indeed in everyones interest to ensure good credit. eg the results of the banks bad lending crisis. its ironic. if only they were more responsible (and legal). hence the need for consumer protection

not all guidance is post. and those that are post, are relevant. as you say re consumers applying for more credit, banks freely giving increased limits, change in circumstances, etc

Edited July 24, 2013 by Ford

[Peterbard]

Is it not equal irresponsible to apply for credit that you cannot afford to service?

 

It is, but what do you do when you have literally no money, not because you have squandered it, but because you're just plain poor due to, say, a change in circumstances? There are still priority bills to be paid (and demands for non-priority), food to be put on the table etc......

 

Have you ever been in that situation? I have, and it is truly horrendous. I've had bailiffs hammering on my door and had no money to give them. It is very difficult, and there's plenty in that position. Quite often it is these people who then get drawn into subprime borrowing, PDL's etc.....

[Peterbard]

f. It's vital that these individuals address the root cause of their situation rather than paper over the cracks although I do appreciate taking out a PDL to pay these would essentially turn the debt from being a priority to a non-priority.

 

Yes as you say papering over the cracks, the following month brings the same bill only this time the debtor has to find interest on the loan as well.

 

This is the section that was used so effectively by Govian

 

55BAssessment of creditworthinessE+W+S+N.I.

 

(1)Before making a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, the creditor must undertake an assessment of the creditworthiness of the debtor.

(2)Before significantly increasing—

(a)the amount of credit to be provided under a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, or

(b)a credit limit for running-account credit under a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement,the creditor must undertake an assessment of the debtor's creditworthiness.

(3)A creditworthiness assessment must be based on sufficient information obtained from—

(a)the debtor, where appropriate, and

(b)a credit reference agency, where necessary.

[Guest]

yes, they (banks) were supposed to do that 'assessment' under their own regulation, and oft guides etc, prior to statute (eu). nothing new. except now though, it is statutory:)

Edited July 24, 2013 by Ford

[sequenci]

I think between that and the unfair relationship provisions we have a strong case against many PDLs - How can the relationship be anything but unfair if the lender breaches s55b?

[Peterbard]

Yes looking at the information, I gather that the argument goes that the rollover is a modified agreement under section 82, and as such should be treated as a new agreement, this means that section 55b should apply, since they already have a commitment under the old loan , are they capable of servicing the new extra credit, and if not should the creditor not offer a repayment deal instead.

[Guest]

I think between that and the unfair relationship provisions we have a strong case against many PDLs - How can the relationship be anything but unfair if the lender breaches s55b?

 

now that it is set in 'stone' (albeit was there before though in a different guise) maybe more of a case?

Edited July 24, 2013 by Ford

[fletch70]

Is it not equal irresponsible to apply for credit that you cannot afford to service?

 

On one hand I agree with you and think we have a responsibility to ourselves, on the other hand they also have the responsibility to ensure we do not overstretch ourselves. Often we can be too optimistic in our budgeted expenditure.

If someone asked you if you could lend them £100 , ultimately it is down to you to decide if you want to take that risk. If it is family, you may lend it in the full knowledge that you may never get it back but it is your decision.

[Peterbard]

Is it not equal irresponsible to apply for credit that you cannot afford to service?

 

This is all very moral and upstanding brigadier does the same morality apply to repaying the loan, or are you just being "disingenuous"