Vampyra -v- Various DCA's

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[caro]

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 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) 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.

 

 

I have no problem with this and do not see it as debt evasion either. As far as I'm concerned penalty charges are not a debt. I am merely referring to the actual loans that some people have taken out, and appear to want to avoid paying if they can. If you borrow the money, and the terms of it are lawful, the contract is lawful, the interest rate is reasonable, and you know you owe it, then you should pay it if you can. If not, then the contact as you suggest is entirely appropriate.

[caro]

Excellent post thank you. I agree that it's unlikely that debts would be sold for 80% too, one reason being there would be little profit in collecting it, and another being that if it was that likely to be collected the original lender would do it themselves. It's generally the older debts that are sold on in my experience.