Vampyra -v- Various DCA's

[PriorityOne]

Rameses has posted a number of responses in a similar vein on several threads.... he/she seems to have an issue with debt evasion...

 

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG

[dannyboy660]

But it's incredibly valuable to have a DCA employee, or someone who thinks with that mentality among us.

 

Too often people don't have the answers simply because they can't think with the "grab" mentality, or kick when people are down.

 

Rameses could be a very valuable sounding board. The fact there's been no rebuttal of any the legal issues raised speaks volumes.

[PriorityOne]

I have an issue about debt evasion... I prefer debt avoidance, and getting the DCA to pay me compensation:)

 

Yes... that sounds much better !

[rory32]

Good point dannyboy

[debt_mountain]

Try reading the Law Of Property Act. No need for a DCA to produce a deed of assignment. If you owe the money, PAY IT.

 

Rameses, another one of your unhelpful and negative replies. There are nicer way to say the things you have to say, this is generally a very friendly and helpful place but there are a few

 

But, if I were to say "you owe me £50.......oh sorry I don't have any papers to prove it but a court will make you pay me anyway." does this make it correct...no, does it make it stand up in court ...no.

 

So if I did take you to court over this would you accept it? didn't think so.

 

The debt may have existed at some point but it was not owed to the DCA and some written evidence that you are paying the correct person is perfectly normal.

[dannyboy660]

Good point dannyboy

 

Thanks.

 

The overwhelming majority here are on the same side, and apart from the occasions when someone will point out the flaw in an argument or theory (quite rightly), we're all in the same the corner.

 

But there are two sides to every argument - and how many people here would be prepared to genuinely and vigorously argue a case for a DCA or Purchaser?? Very few, methinks!!

 

Rameses posts may be a little - distasteful(?) or misplaced to many, but it should be seen as an opportunity to discuss and put things to test. If Rameses can shoot you down in flames, it's a lesson learned and back to the drawing board.

 

It takes guts to step into a crowd and argue against the majority, so Rameses if your still there, it's over to you.

 

On the other hand, if he's just out to provoke and has no input of value, it's not difficult to ignore someone on an internet messageboard.

[Laiste]

Hi everyone.

 

Rameses comments are deliberately provocative to get people on here to justify what they are doing. Nobody should feel they have to explain themselves, especially to such an individual, who may well be part of the parasitic industry of debt collection.

 

Banks, credit card Companies and DCA's have a right to assert what they believe is their legal right to collect a debt, and debtors equally, have EVERY RIGHT to challenge every aspect of a purported debt, from the validity of an agreement, through to harassment and the assignment of debts.

 

Such asinine comments IMO are not worth our consideration....we have better things to do with our time!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[rory32]

Laiste I do agree with you and Rameses should be taken at face value i.e. nil, but a also agree with dannyboys comment of The fact there's been no rebuttal of any the legal issues raised speaks volumes.

 

I think both you and dannyboy are basically sighing of the same hymn sheet (albeit not in tune). Unfortunately Rameses doesn't shoot anyone down in flames, he/she/[edit] just makes provocative comments with no reasoning (or at least no legal bearing) behind them. I think that probably gives most people sufficient insight into how DCA's think.

[gerryb2]

Well said Laiste

 

I'll cancel the EDIT competition.

 

And it's nice to know that IP's are logged;)

[caro]

Rameses has posted a number of responses in a similar vein on several threads.... he/she seems to have an issue with debt evasion...

 

 

Me too. I have debts, but I've borrowed the money so I have to pay it back.

 

There seems to be a misconception among some of the contributors to this thread that CAG condones debt evasion, which is incorrect. I would class debt avoidance as not getting into debt in the first place. That is not meant as a criticism of getting into debt, which I know can be unavoidable, just an interpretation.

 

Please allow everyone the right to express their opinion.

[snlc]

Be interesting to know why Rameses came to the froum for in the first place. Most come here for help with dealing with the pressures debt brings. From what I read nobody on here wants to skive out of paying, but bear one thing in mind, the DCA's will break many laws to get money out of someone that owes and dca's make a living collecting money for others. Got no problem with that except if someone comes knocking at the door and they don't have a right for whatever reason but threaten you non the less, then why should you let them away with it?

 

The likes of Rameses have been coming on here for a while, and god bless 'em but you can't get them to understand that it's not a matter of trying to get out of paying ( although there are always exceptions ) but people here just beginning to learn exactly what these institutions and their agents are SUPPOSED to do by law.

 

We all know if we go through a red light on the road it is against the law and we get a tidy little reminder through the post or by a copper catching us and asking if we have our licence,road tax and insurance. That's the authorities and the law at work. So whats the big deal by turning it all around and doing the same to the banks or dca's? - Nothing, that's what, so whilst Rameses might be right in one respect he/she misses the point completely with that attitiude and there's absolutely no point in rising to it because if he/she is some kind of insider with the same mentality as a dca instills in their staff then you'll never have a sensible conversation cos they got tunnel vision. If someone took his bike from his front garden he'd be onto the police in no time - it's no difference Rameses, we are just checking the paperwork - then we'll pay and so will you.

[caro]

If the banks and DCA's are claiming unlawful penalty charges then I agree that is wrong, and if they use unlawful methods for collection, that is wrong.

 

I don't understand the analogy about the bike, as if it is taken of course the police should be informed. But if the thief were to turn round and ask the owner to prove ownership, by say producing a receipt, and the owner couldn't produce a receipt, should the thief keep the bike? Not in my book.

Please don't think that I am implying anyone contributing to this thread is a thief.

 

There are posts on this thread which imply that debt evasion is acceptable, but people know full well if they have borrowed money, and in my honest opinion, unless there are extenuating circumstances, they should pay it back.

 

I have not read any posts by Rameses so far that differ from my own view, and as a moderator of this site, I can assure you that I am no troll, and neither do I work for a DCA. Please treat him with the courtesy and respect that all users of this site are entitled to expect. If you come across a genuine concern about a post by anyone then report it and let the site team deal with it.

[Vampyra]

I haven't got a scanner at the mo - sorry

[dannyboy660]

I don't understand the analogy about the bike, as if it is taken of course the police should be informed. But if the thief were to turn round and ask the owner to prove ownership, by say producing a receipt, and the owner couldn't produce a receipt, should the thief keep the bike? Not in my book.

 

........... but if the thief doesn't ask for proof you own the bike, the Court/Police will anyway, so if you haven't kept the receipt, losers weepers, to use a very basic expression.

And then if you still insist on demanding your bike back having claimed on the insurance and expect to keep the money as well - that's fraud. Quid pro quo.

 

That's not a good example at all, but I'm sure you can see what we've been driving at on this thread, otherwise I agree with the points you are making.

[caro]

So in that case the insurance company loses out, and increases premiums to all its customers who lose out, and the thief gains. Ok we'll forget that analogy now if you like.

 

In the case of not paying back loans, the people extending the credit will pass the loss on to future borrowers and they will lose out. Somebody will pay somewhere along the line, and it seems to me that it should be the borrower if at all possible.

[Dougal16T]

Well that is VERY interesting, jst recently I asked Northrn Rock for copy statements (going down the excess fees path....!) and when they came back, imagine my surprise to see the words '£8250' and the date followed by the words 'debt written off', but wait a minute, I'm getting correspondence from another company telling me I owe them the money!

It appears that Northern Rock have written off a debt, and then 'sold' that to a third party - but what is there to sell? Nothing, if the debt is truly 'written off' becase there will be a benefit to Northern Rock in their Taxation. Does this then mean that if they receive this benefit in their taxation then the sum that this new company are after will go back to repay the taxman!? I think not.

What is happening is that Northern Rock are 'getting 2 bites of the cherry', or as I look at it obtaining property by deception.

1. If debt 'sold' then no claim against tax liability should be made by NR.

2. If debt not sold but 'written off' against tax by NR then nothing should be claimed by third party, otherwise they are 'aiding and abetting' NR in commission of a criminal offence.

Sorry if this sounds a bit pedantic, but am I right?

If I'm right.........then the snowball has started rolling.....

[andrew1]

Dougal, a quick call to the Inland Revenue to investigate this would not do you any harm. - You might like to ask them for a 10% commission on the recovery on any tax recovered too -

[caro]

I work in a finance department of an organisation and we regularly write off bad debts, and then pass them to a DCA. If the DCA then manage to collect money and repays it, the tax liability has to be amended to take account of it.

[dannyboy660]

So in that case the insurance company loses out, and increases premiums to all its customers who lose out, and the thief gains. Ok we'll forget that analogy now if you like.

 

But you're beginning to get the picture I see.

 

In the case of you and your company writing off debts, passing them to DCA's so they eventually end up in the hands of purchasers, then it's the taxpayer who loses out!!! The taxpayers are the ultimate insures/underwriters.

 

I've worked in collections for DWP and HMRC, and if Creditors were prevented from writing debts off so quickly for tax gain and/or offset, they would have to pursue the debt themselves, like it used to be. No irresponsible lending, no "Middleman" making profit from the misfortune of others, the debtor repays his debt, and the taxpayers don't end up footing the bill. What on Earth is so wrong with that??

 

People were only too quick to jump on the 'reclaim your Bank Charges' bandwagon - because the Banks were being 'oh so unreasonable' despite it being in your contract - who do you think is paying for that - yes, the 'premium' payers. It's very unfortunate some still have that debt stigma and can't see what is going on under their very noses because it's far too uncomfortable to tackle. Somehow Bank charges doesn't seem quite so bad, because who's to blame......??

 

Whats so wrong with making sure everybody benefits by standing up to purchasers, the real **** of the financial world, and saving the taxpayers money????

[caro]

The bank charges are unlawful, and if premium payers have to cover the costs of money that has been rightfully returned, then those customers should move bank in my opinion. It seems to me that you are suggesting that the less well off customers are currently subsidising so-called premium customers, and surely that can't be right. The money the banks profit from unlawful charges is a relatively small amount of its income, and I would hazard a guess that the profits from them are passed to the shareholder and not the customer.

[dannyboy660]

Is it lawful to demand money i.e 150 for a debt you paid 10 for?? Is it lawful to demand this money when the debt has already been partly or largely settled in favour of the OC??

 

Taking into consideration the taxpayer and underwriter has already paid up a chunk, why should a purchaser pocket your money?? They can't be paying a higher rate of tax or there would be little or no profit for a private company, and no point getting involved..

 

The 'premium' payers are the taxpayers, and I was drawing on the bicycle scenario, where you say the costs are passed on to the other premium payers. You are absolutely right, the premium payers in our current scenario are taxpayers. Mr Person who supposedly had his bike stolen wants his bike back AND expects me (premium/taxpayer) to pay for it!!

 

A small amount of profit from Bank Charges??? Take a look at how much has been refunded to people at the head of site. This is just one site of many. And there are 100,000's+ who have done it on their own and don't show anywhere. This has hit the banks very hard, and by their own admission (Credit today) the knock on effect to the collections and purchase sector is potentially enormous. Ask yourself why this should be so.

 

The OFT have ordered a wider investigation to avoid the 'waterbed' effect whereby the banks costs will be recovered, legally or not, elsewhere. After years of "free banking" people are finally waking up to the fact that any account with an interest rate lower than that of inflation is not free, it's eating your money. We've all fallen for that one at some time.

 

It's a con. The whole thing is a rip off, and one of the biggest rip-off's of all, is this smoke and mirrors booming economy created by irresponsible lending to vulnerable people many on minimum wage, and then getting the taxpayer to foot the bill (and/or rob the pension pot) when it all goes down the pan.

 

This is great Caro!! I'm quite enjoying getting this out in the open:) I feel better already!!

[caro]

Charges make the banks 4.5 billion a year collectively. Their overall profits are significantly more.

 

Why would a purchaser, by which I assume you mean a DCA, buy a debt if they could never collect on it. The reason they can buy them cheaply is because they are prepared to risk losing what they have paid. That is their business, and how they make their money. If people paid their debts then DCA's would not exist, so if you want to put the DCA's out of business, pay what you owe if you possibly can. The original lender is merely cutting their losses for money they are owed. I don't know enough about the tax issues involved and that side of it to be able to comment further.

 

If the owner gets his bike back and is paid up from the insurance, he should return the insurance money.

 

Profuse apologies to the OP for this major hijack of the thread.

 

If others wish to discuss these issues further I suggest a separate thread may be appropriate, but I think I've exhausted my limited knowledge of this topic.

[dannyboy660]

This might be of interest to some.

 

Cash is no longer king – and we’re paying the price - Credit cards - MSN Money UK

 

They're even after your kids now.........

[PriorityOne]

There seems to be a misconception among some of the contributors to this thread that CAG condones debt evasion, which is incorrect. I would class debt avoidance as not getting into debt in the first place. That is not meant as a criticism of getting into debt, which I know can be unavoidable, just an interpretation.

 

Please allow everyone the right to express their opinion.

 

 

Caro, I think Rameses has been quite free with his opinions over a number of threads. When I pointed out that he seemed to have a problem with debt evasion.... perhaps I should have been clearer and posted that he seems to class all non-payment of debt as debt evasion.... and has a problem with that. I assume this is part of the brain-washing that goes into training folk for the kind of work that he does.

 

Of course, he is as free as anyone else to express his opinion. However, so far he has expressed his opinion by putting all debtors into the category of "won't pays".... debt evaders.... which is a very blinkered view of life.

 

I do not class my self as a debt evader and have always maintained regular contact and regular payments with all of my creditors/DCAs until the beginning of this year. However, if withholding further payments when a debt cannot be substantiated with a CCA is evading.... if sending a CCA request to an original creditor, when that creditor ignores the responsibility shown towards a debt with regular payments over several years... deciding instead to go for a CCJ and threatening a property charge... is evading and.... if sending a SAR to clarify if any unlawful charges have been applied is evading what is claimed to be owed by creditors/DCAs, then I must be one of the huge number of debt "evaders" that Rameses has such a deep-rooted hatred for, after all.

 

If that is the case, then I wear my badge with pride.