Devils advocate time - Using a CCA Request to "Get out of paying a debt"

[sequenci]

I’m asking this as we’ve been discussing it at work and I think it’s a relevant question to ask, as some of you know I work within this field and we're always keeping an eye on this forum as it helps us gauge what is happening in the real world!

 

We’re all fully aware that many creditors and dcas are pretty slack when it comes to keeping hold of paperwork, due to their incompetence would it be fair for a debtor to use a cca request to try and get out of paying a debt they know they owe?

 

 

I can fully appreciate people who are disputing their liability for a debt if they are being chased for a debt they know nothing of, but what about people who try to get out of agreements they know they took out and agreed to? Is it the creditor's fault for being slack? What do you think the future holds?

 

Any help with this would be gratefully appreciated!

 

Thanks

[gizmo111]

Bet this turns into an emotional thread.

 

We’re all fully aware that many creditors and dcas are pretty slack when it comes to keeping hold of paperwork, due to their incompetence would it be fair for a debtor to use a cca request to try and get out of paying a debt they know they owe?

 

PErsonally I think you have a moral responsibility to repay your debts - however I think once a debt has got to a DCA who cannot produce the paperwork you are in a perfect position to negotiate a full and final reduced settlement.

Debt evasion is not the ethos of this site.

 

I can fully appreciate people who are disputing their liability for a debt if they are being chased for a debt they know nothing of, but what about people who try to get out of agreements they know they took out and agreed to? Is it the creditor's fault for being slack? What do you think the future holds?

 

As above, and not producing the agreeement only makes the debt uneneforceable it dosen't eliminate it - the debt still exists.

As for the future I think the creditors will be more careful with their paperwork when making new agreements.

[sequenci]

Bet this turns into an emotional thread.

 

i hope it doesn't go ott as it would be really useful to get some decent subjective opinions!

[Bookworm]

Gizmo beat me to my answer, virtually word for word.

[Seahorse]

If it was as simple as that, I might agree that nobody should be trying to evade a debt in this way. Indeed, in my case, I'm trying to find out exactly what I do owe, so I can pay the correct amount.

 

But where I tend to draw the line is, DCAs who BUY debts for a mere fraction of their total value are worthy of nothing but contempt. If the original creditor was prepared to accept around 10% from these parasites, why then were they never prepared to accept a similar figure from the debtor? Doesn't seem very moral on the part of the creditor. And as we all know, DCAs' morals appear to be non existent anyway.

 

No, I don't feel that anyone should have any second thoughts about using the system to dodge a debt buying DCA. Just my own personal opinion, and obviously NOT a view supported by this site, just in case you're watching MIB.

[Duffers Mum]

I believe people should pay their debts, however when its a joint debt the lenders always seem to only go after one of the parties. My hubby has had problems with a very old joint debt (with his ex wife) when we were apart I paid token amounts of £10 just because I was sick and tired of getting letters. However it was passed from one DCA to another and each time it meant setting up new standing orders from my account. The last time they passed it on I just didn't bother setting up a new standing order. However when MH suddenly contacted my address and I offered the token £10 per month which the others were happy enough to accept, they refused, in theory the account is statute barred because my hubby has never accepted responsibility and he has never made any payments, however they appear to have made no attempt to contact his ex wife and why should the responsiblity to pay be all his? Most of these DCA's buy the debt for peanuts they should therefore only expect to receive back what they paid for it and should not be using bully boy tactics. If they were more fair and reasonable I'm sure they would get better results!

[sequenci]

But where I tend to draw the line is, DCAs who BUY debts for a mere fraction of their total value are worthy of nothing but contempt. If the original creditor was prepared to accept around 10% from these parasites, why then were they never prepared to accept a similar figure from the debtor? Doesn't seem very moral on the part of the creditor. And as we all know, DCAs' morals appear to be non existent anyway.

 

 

excellent point, by the way i've been following your quest! keep at it

[ODC]

I'm with Seahorse on this one. Most if not all off us have tried in vain to come to some sort of agreement with the banks where we have offered a reasonable compromise when we got into debt. Had they agreed with us then they would probably have got most of the debt paid back (albeit over a longer period). Instead they sell it on to these DCAs for a mere fraction of what is owed to them. Doesnt appear to make sense to me. Of course I want to pay my just and lawful debts but like most ordinary folk my back gets up when people like the DCAs harrass me and my family and make threats. They threaten the law so they should be prepared to accept the consumer has rights under the law also.

[Glenn UK]

its an interesting point i have debated with myself.

 

clearly if you borrow money then you enter into an agreement to repay that moeny so why shouldnt you repay it?

 

It seems to me that the lender has responsibilities as much as the borrower and why should either party be able to impose their terms on the one without the other being able to impose their terms back?

 

If a lender makes errors in their procedure then it is a matter for them and if the loan then becomes unlawful as a result then its thier look out imho.

 

In coming to this decision it is based on the premise that they have set up their busienss to lend moeny, they have the responsibility to ensure their contracts are in accordance with the law and that they protect themselves from this issue. They are supposed to be the experts.

 

As far as i can tell many, if not most do not and have not, so who is to blame, not the borrower imho?

 

It seems to me that if the borrower were to default on the contract the lender is likley to enforce the terms of that contract using the full force of the law, I cannot see why they should benifit from the protection of the law when it comes to enforcing the debt but not when lending the moeny in the first place.

 

IMHO it makes no difference if the debt is bought by a DCA, this is a nicety and convenient let out for borrower, if you owe the debt then the fact that a DCA is enforicng it doesnt remove your obligation to pay imho.

 

If the DCAs paid less moeny for the debt but used more pleasant tactis would this change the views of the debtor?

 

And whilst the DCA may pay a fraction of the total debt owed thats because they are perceived to have higher risks in terms of successful collection of that debt.

 

These comments re DCAs are not made to support the unlawful techniques some of them use to colect debts, but in experience if you owe the debt and pay it then they dont have to resort to these tactics. I have had a number of debts passed to DCAs and have always managed to arrange reasonable payments without any bother, perhaps im just lucky. I shold add that many of these DCAs get regular mentions on here for their bad practice so i know they do in some cirucmnstances behave unlawfully.

 

I think for me the bottom line is that if a lender wants to lend moeny then they should make sure their contracts are within the law and ensure so far as is reasonable that people have to repay.

 

One thing is certain in my mind, when the boot is on the other foot there are no scruples, if you can legititmately get out of a debt then many organisations do.

 

I am not arguing that this is right, but it does seem to be common occurance for some larger comapnies when dealing with teh consumer.

 

In conclusin no i dont see it as a problem if the lender has an unlawful contract to get out of it. If the lenders and DCAs carrie don their business in a more humane way then i might take a different view.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[sequenci]

They threaten the law so they should be prepared to accept the consumer has rights under the law also.

 

quality soundbite right there!

[dannyboy660]

If you borrow money, whoever is the creditor, you have a moral and legal obligation to repay. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

 

If you find yourself with difficulty in meeting your repayments on time and in full, perhaps through a change of circumstances, you have a duty to inform your creditor(s) with a view to making arrangements that won't leave you penniless, and in danger of falling into that downward spiral which eventually leads to Poop Alley.

 

At this point of contact to inform of difficulties, the creditor needs to recognise the difficulty the debtor may be in and 'play ball' by not inflating the outstanding balance with ridiculously unrealistic 'late payment' and 'administration' charges. Completely unnecessary, and often the cause of the spiral to Poop Alley - robbing Peter to pay Paul is the expression. However, all too often, if there is more than one creditor involved it becomes a race to squeeze as much out of the debtor before the debt can be charged off, and some/most of the balance recouped.

 

By the time the debt goes out for purchase or to a DCA, there's a pretty good chance the debtor will be quite some way along Poop Alley, and ready to turn left into GetMeOutOfThis Avenue, with balances blown out of all proportion to what is the real and actual debt. "Compound interest is the most powerful force in the Universe" (Einstein?)

 

When you become aware there may be a way to bring it to an end, or at the very least give some breathing space without paying :-? for bankruptcy etc, then why not???........ it's perfectly legal and there to protect the small fish from the incompetence and aggression of sharks and bottom feeders. After all, debt purchasers by their very nature, must be the kind of people who would rnug their own disabled grannies if they thought they could make a few quid out of it.

 

Why on Earth don't the big lenders do what the rest of Europe does, and ask people to sign an 'attachment of earnings' as part of the agreement for credit in the first place?? This could be regulated so only a percentage of income could be taken in time of difficulty, and a return to the lender is guaranteed. No need for scummy purchaser, and just a few reputable collections, but mainly 'in-house' and easier to deal with. The courts need only get involved if the debtor gets into extreme difficulty, but when you know you could automatically lose, say 10% of your income to one creditor alone, who would risk overstretching their finances??

[Seahorse]

Changing the scenario slightly, and a different industry anyway. BUT. Imagine taking out an insurance policy, happy in the belief that if the worst should happen, you'll be covered. won't lose your house/car/whatever.

 

But then, how many insurance companies refuse to pay out on a technicality, and claim it's our fault BECAUSE WE SHOULD HAVE READ THE SMALL PRINT.

 

Well, excuse me for believing that insurance should mean exactly that!!!

 

Now, transfer that thought to people taking out the WORST kind of insurance possible, in many cases - PPI. Sold by these very same institutions we are supposed to feel duty bound to repay. And how many of those policies turn out to be worse than useless?

 

But I suppose the point I'm trying to make is, Corporate Greed has no conscience. Should they be surprised if we start biting back?

[ODC]

its an interesting point i have debated with myself.

 

clearly if you borrow money then you enter into an agreement to repay that moeny so why shouldnt you repay it?

 

It seems to me that the lender has responsibilities as much as the borrower and why should either party be able to impose their terms on the one without the other being able to impose their terms back?

 

If a lender makes errors in their procedure then it is a matter for them and if the loan then becomes unlawful as a result then its thier look out imho.

 

In coming to this decision it is based on the premise that they have set up their busienss to lend moeny, they have the responsibility to ensure their contracts are in accordance with the law and that they protect themselves from this issue. They are supposed to be the experts.

 

As far as i can tell many, if not most do not and have not, so who is to blame, not the borrower imho?

 

It seems to me that if the borrower were to default on the contract the lender is likley to enforce the terms of that contract using the full force of the law, I cannot see why they should benifit from the protection of the law when it comes to enforcing the debt but not when lending the moeny in the first place.

 

IMHO it makes no difference if the debt is bought by a DCA, this is a nicety and convenient let out for borrower, if you owe the debt then the fact that a DCA is enforicng it doesnt remove your obligation to pay imho.

 

If the DCAs paid less moeny for the debt but used more pleasant tactis would this change the views of the debtor?

 

And whilst the DCA may pay a fraction of the total debt owed thats because they are perceived to have higher risks in terms of successful collection of that debt.

 

These comments re DCAs are not made to support the unlawful techniques some of them use to colect debts, but in experience if you owe the debt and pay it then they dont have to resort to these tactics. I have had a number of debts passed to DCAs and have always managed to arrange reasonable payments without any bother, perhaps im just lucky. I shold add that many of these DCAs get regular mentions on here for their bad practice so i know they do in some cirucmnstances behave unlawfully.

 

I think for me the bottom line is that if a lender wants to lend moeny then they should make sure their contracts are within the law and ensure so far as is reasonable that people have to repay.

 

One thing is certain in my mind, when the boot is on the other foot there are no scruples, if you can legititmately get out of a debt then many organisations do.

 

I am not arguing that this is right, but it does seem to be common occurance for some larger comapnies when dealing with teh consumer.

 

In conclusin no i dont see it as a problem if the lender has an unlawful contract to get out of it. If the lenders and DCAs carrie don their business in a more humane way then i might take a different view.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

You must have been very lucky in all your dealings with the DCa's. Most (with one notable exception) start off with threats and bullying right from the start. Naturally that gets most peoples backs up right away and in extreme cases causes distress and alarm.

 

However I had one DCA who rang me to say they were acting on behalf of XXX Bank and they were wanting to come to an arrangement with me about paying back the money. At my request she gave me a few days to think things over and in the meantime she sent me statements outlining the debt. A few days later she contacted me to see if I had got the details and what I proposed to do to pay it off. I offered X per month and she said that would be fine but she would be prepared to take £10 less so as I didnt overstretch myself. She gave me a personal number to contact her on if some month I was unable to make the payment. Result Bank got their money, I paid my debt and everyone was happy.

[Glenn UK]

ODC

 

I am not sure if i am lucky or not, all i can report is my experience. I guess that to some extent their reactions are based on the response they get from the debtor.

 

in that sense i have always been in a position to make some sort of arrangement to pay which satisfied them i suppose.

 

This arises mainly because my debts begun through divorce and not from redundancy or similar, in that sense perhaps i am luckier than many on here in that i am in a well paid job and can make payments regularly. The biggest problem i had was debt accumulation initiated by divorce.

 

I wold make the point again i am not trying to support the DCAs or lenders when they use harassment or other unlawful behaviours to enforce debts.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[rippedoffagain]

There are different issues involved here, an evolutionary change has taken place over the last 20 to 30 years, and involve changing attitudes to borrowing.

 

When I first married, if you wished to make a major purchase, say for a car, furniture etc, you would apply for a loan, and your circumstances would be examined, more carefully than is the case today.

 

Overdrafts were usually very short term, say to see you OK until your salary was paid.

 

Credit cards were designed for short term usage, ie petrol and so forth, with quite low credit limits.

 

Lenders did not apply extortionate charges for bounced cheques etc, indeed you were invited to see your bank manager to sort out the situation.

 

However it must have become apparent to the lenders, that there were huge profits to be made from credit card lending, lets not forget that retailers are charged commission on card usage, sometimes as much as 6% per transaction.

 

With this in mind, and human nature being what it is, I feel the lenders take a deliberate decision to induce borrowers, in particular, credit card users, to overspend. The end result is almost inevitably that the borrower defaults.

 

By this time the lenders have harvested all the likely profits from the borrowers, then simply throw them to the wolves, or in the worst cases pressure the borrowers to take secured loans, in order to consolidate unsecured debts, with the obviously harrowing results that can and do follow.

 

So in my opinion, the lenders are very much aware of the risks they take and the profit they make, and by the time an individual gets into difficulty, the lenders have already made huge profits from that individual, and are quite happy to accept a very small amount from DCA's, to wipe their hands of the issue.

[ODC]

Now, transfer that thought to people taking out the WORST kind of insurance possible, in many cases - PPI. Sold by these very same institutions we are supposed to feel duty bound to repay. And how many of those policies turn out to be worse than useless?

 

Sorry Seahorse I have to disagree with you on that one. I took out a PPI on a loan. Earlier this year I was struck by serious illness. Completed claim form posted it Thursday - received cheque on Saturday no arguments. 2nd monthly cheque received a month later and If I'm still off sick next month and get another cheque then I will have got more out of it than the policy cost. Result!!!

[ODC]

ODC

 

I am not sure if i am lucky or not, all i can report is my experience. I guess that to some extent their reactions are based on the response they get from the debtor.

 

in that sense i have always been in a position to make some sort of arrangement to pay which satisfied them i suppose.

 

This arises mainly because my debts begun through divorce and not from redundancy or similar, in that sense perhaps i am luckier than many on here in that i am in a well paid job and can make payments regularly. The biggest problem i had was debt accumulation initiated by divorce.

 

I wold make the point again i am not trying to support the DCAs or lenders when they use harassment or other unlawful behaviours to enforce debts.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

 

LOL I know the feeling. Not easy trying to keep two houses and two women:eek:

[Seahorse]

Only speaking from personal experience ODC. Took out a policy on a car a few years back, got sick, had to take 6 months off work, and the bloody insurance wouldn't pay up because they said the details from the car dealer's finance company didn't correspond with the details I'd supplied. Took MONTHS to sort out, and in the meantime, the finance company defaulted me on my payments because I couldn't afford to pay them, despite it being THEIR fault the PPI refused to pay out.

 

If only I knew then just exactly what my rights were.

[nearlyoldwoman]

i'm so glad you posted this thread! like others i believe if you owe money you should pay it back (charges/interest etc is another matter) but i have noticed CCA requests are flying out 'willy nilly' - which is great if you dont owe the money and are genuinely trying to get the DCA to understand this/put their fi;les right etc, but if you do owe money and are using it as a way out well ???

[tiglet]

I wouldn't advocate using this as a way to get out of paying money HOWEVER, if a DCA or other institution is harrassing you, causing you sleepless nights and refusing to respond to reasonable requests, this is one way to get them to comply with the law. If they can't comply with the law, then why should someone pay?

 

The tactics some of these companise are both immoral and IMO sometimes illegal. People have been driven to nervous breakdowns and even suicide by being so scared by these people.

 

These practices clearly have to stop. If a DCA contacted me and was reasonable, polite etc. then I would not even think about requesting my CCA unless I did not acknowledge the debt. However, if they are acting outside of their industries and OFT guidelines (for which there is currently very little recourse) I would not hesitate to make them comply with every law I could think of in order to make their lives difficult. If this ended up with "getting away" with a debt, then so be it.

 

If the industry cannot police itself, then I think the only option is consumer vigilantism to make the DCA's realise that until they do, people are going to make them jump through hoops. If they can't prove the debt ... tough.

[sequenci]

OFT guidelines (for which there is currently very little recourse)

 

 

our organisation are currently working within a focus group with the OFT to look at the guidelines and how they are enforced, hopefully things will change in the future. I firmly beleive that they *have* to.

[Glenn UK]

Its interesting to see that some posters seem to be saying that if the creoditor behaves badly then its a legitimate tactic to either avoid paying the debt or to somehow to get them to comply with the law by threateing to do so.

 

I cannot see that.

 

If you legitimately owe the monney then morally does it matter who you pay it to, assumning of course that the recipeint of the payment is legally entitled to it?

 

If the creditor is behaving outside of the law, not paying the debt is not morally right if you accept you have borrowed the oeny and are therefore liable to repay it.

 

If you ensure you follow the law and your moral obligations whilst at the same time using your rights to prevent the creditor form abusing thier position would be the correct route. Not paying is not an option in this sense imho.

 

It seems to be a convenince to the debtor that they choose to make some distinctions based on the behaviour of the creditor, it doesnt seem to me to be a good moral distrinciotn if you legitimately owe the debt.

 

in a nutshell if you legitiamtely owe the debt and you follow the logic that is being espoused here, then you should pay it regardless of whether the creditor sells the debt on.

 

The behaviour of the new creditor may be unlawful but two wrongs dont make a right as they say, you would still owe the debt.

 

For my part i believe broadly in the term caveat emptor which is broadly interpreted as buyer beware (im sure theres probalby a latin phrase which means seller beware) and as professionlas running a business if they dont make their contracts lawful then its their problem not the borrowers.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[tiglet]

I think the point is whether they are legitimaetly entitled to it - CCA's force DCA's to prove that they are legitimately entitled to collect on a debt and, IMO, should not be paid unless they can prove this.

 

For example,you borrow £50 from a friend and you pay him £25 back within a week. A week later, his girlfriend then starts demanding £50, being paid to her. You have heard nothing from your friend stating he his happy for the girlfriend to get the money, ahve heard nothinga bout where the additional £25 has come from and is non-contactable. Wouldn't you then ask the girlfriend for some proof that they should get the cash? Wouldn't you ask for some proof of where the additional £25 has come from? If not, wouldn't you hang onto it until your friend was willing/able to make contact?

 

Slightly spurious argument to some perhaps, but it comes down to right and wrong ways of acting and, to be fair, morality is a subjective rather than an objective value so what is moral for one person will not necessarily be moral for another.

 

My personal morality is do as you would be done by - i.e. act in fair and civilised manner, then I will do the same. Don't act in this way, I'll force you to through the law or will lose out if you don't comply with the law.

 

Obviously, not everyone would agree with this and I'm not actually advocating this as a route to get out of debt - simply to get DCA's to act in a correct manner. I also have to say i disagree with your "two wrongs don't make a right argument" - if a DCA is "wrong" by not acting correctly (including not supplying the CCA) I do not believe it is then "wrong" to refuse to pay money when the account has been defaulted by the DCA's "wrong" and therefore there is a legal entitlement not to pay the money until such time as the legalities of the act have been complied with. In this case, would three wrongs make a right?

 

Legality versus morality is always an interesting argument which is why the law is there to give clear guidelines of what actually constitutes "wrong" in legal terms which can (in theory) be faily applied to all. Morality is too personal an issue and cannot be used as a prescribed term to every individual as there are too many factors within someone's persona, upringing, environment, religion and many other variables to be able to use morality as a blanket term.

 

Gosh, this thread is interesting, isn't it? Perhaps we should get together outside a cafe in Paris, drink some merlot, smoke some sexy french ciagrettes and debate into the night

[tiglet]

Hi sequenci, I firmly believe (perhaps naively) that if DCA's and banks are forced to act in a fair manner, the amount of written off debt in this country would substantially decrease.

 

I hope the OFT starts to use their teeth soon.

[Glenn UK]

 

Gosh, this thread is interesting, isn't it? Perhaps we should get together outside a cafe in Paris, drink some merlot, smoke some sexy french ciagrettes and debate into the night

 

ill see if i can get a pass for a couple of days!! 9edit i have another thought, equally civilised and perhaps more att4ractive this time of year, lets go to dubia or any other arabic counrt y you feel safe in and smoke shisha (often referred to as hubbly bubbly by westerners) and drink mint tea. A very civilised pastitme i can confrim.

 

i find this kind of debate interesting since for me the oraility argument that if you borrow you pay seems oeverpowering in one sense. And yet some people seems to draw disitnctions on the basis of the bhaviour of the creditor, which i cannt find reasonable.

 

i agree if the creidtor doesnt have a lwaful contract then why shold they be able to enforce that contract? if the boot was on the other foot we could not enforce our 'contract' on them.

 

I dont see it has anyhting to do with whether you borroed the moeny, if you adopt the lawful approach. it seems entirley moral to me that a consumer should enjoy the protection of the law and be able to exercise the rights conferred by law.

 

whereas a business can also enjoy the rights conferred by law, but i would dem them as having special knowledge and able to fend for themselves. if they fail to do that then i dont see it as a problem.

 

Glenn