Jump to content


What do DCAs pay for a debt?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5993 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

TVM,

"DCA employees probably wonder how debt avoiders sleep at night."

 

A lot of people who suffer financial difficulties through no fault of their own visit this site for help and support from caring, generous people.

 

[edit]

 

Mod Note: Please refrain from making personal attacks

The only man who sticks closer to you in adversity than a friend is a creditor.

 

Debt Collection Charges

 

There is no legal basis for a creditor or a debt collection agency acting on its behalf to claim collection costs from a debtor unless there is an express provision in the original agreement.

 

Without such provision, collection charges cannot be demanded as a debt due under the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TVM

 

Just like you have been on other threads!

  • Haha 1

The only man who sticks closer to you in adversity than a friend is a creditor.

 

Debt Collection Charges

 

There is no legal basis for a creditor or a debt collection agency acting on its behalf to claim collection costs from a debtor unless there is an express provision in the original agreement.

 

Without such provision, collection charges cannot be demanded as a debt due under the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember that it is against forum rules to make a verbal/post/attack upon any other user.

 

Moreso though, the Site Helpers & Moderating team are all unpaid volunteers.

 

Please remember this when venting any anger against any moderation that may occur. :)

 

Let's all be nice to each other.. :D

 

Regards, Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the few months I've been a CAGger I've formed the view that the majority of posters just wish to reclaim fines levied by their bank, with the next biggest group genuinely seeking help to pay off their debts at a rate they can reasonably afford.

 

There are a few - very few in my opinion - looking to avoid their responsibilities plus the odd nutter here and there.

 

As far as I am concerned I try to offer guidance to someone most days.

 

I don't look for gratitude (but the occasional reputation click is gratifying!) but I don't need moralists preaching from on high either.

 

Even as I write I wonder how x and y are managing, and whether I managed to help them in some small way.

 

And, as Mrs. Van would tell you, I am not a pompous do-gooder either.

 

To quote Alexander Dumas, "One for all, and all for one"

 

And that was written long before Britain became the rip-off, sleazy country it has now become.

 

Vandermerwe

Link to post
Share on other sites

"There are a few - very few in my opinion - looking to avoid their responsibilities plus the odd nutter here and there".

 

If only that were true! Most (not all) debt is caused by persons seeking to have a lifestyle they want but cannot afford. How many debtors debts are caused by overspending on food, heating etc? How much by clamouring the designer clothes, nice cars, nice drugs, nice houses etc etc.

 

Ask a bailiff how many poor unfortunate debtors have plasma screens and a nice sky package. Most is the correct answer.

 

OK the banks and the credit card companies tempt you, but you dont have to say yes. Taking the money and not paying it back is no different to taking ANYTHING and not paying or giving it back. Its theft simple as that!

 

Yes those in debt due to illness, unemployment etc should be given sympathy. As for the rest? Why sympathise at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC NEWS | Business | Zambia loses 'vulture fund' case

 

buy for 2 million sue for 42 million !

=====================

 

may i suggest that a copy of the link below be forwarded as part of any defence to give the court an insight into "what dca's pay for a debt"

 

"even a country isn't safe"

 

Oxfam GB :: Vulture fund must not take cash from Zambia, say campaigners

Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

 

1996

PC

Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

 

Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "vulture" fund is used to describe investment companies that circle round very poor countries at a time when they are renegotiating unpayable debts, often run up by a previous, corrupt regime.

The funds buy up the debt on international markets at way below its face value and then try to enforce collection of the debt at full face value plus interest. The debt is usually cheap because in most cases there is little expectation it will ever be repaid.

In this case, Zambia's original debt of $30m was offered for redemption by Romania for $3m but bought by Donegal for nearly $4m. Donegal then persuaded Zambia to agree to pay $15m, a figure since inflated by legal costs and interest to what Donegal says is more than $50m.

Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

 

1996

PC

Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

 

Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

Link to post
Share on other sites

"In 2002, Gordon Brown told the United Nations that the vulture funds were perverse and immoral. "

 

"We particularly condemn the perversity where vulture funds purchase debt at a reduced price and make a profit from suing the debtor country to recover the full amount owed - a morally outrageous outcome."

 

I reckon our Gordon should be looking a little closer to home in his quest to be seen as a guardian of the poor

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...