Thame Credit

rog2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

So people might think that as they spent the money, and were presumably grateful for receiving the loan, then paying it back with the agreed interest is the decent and proper thing to do.

'People' might, indeed, think that, iolanthe, and if they feel that they wish to pay the loan because of the 'moral obligation' then that is entirely their choice.
The important thing is that the 'debtor' is, now, in the driving seat, in that any such decision will be his (or hers) and the dca/creditor can, legally, no longer try to force, or influence, that 'debtor'.
It is, unfortunately, a common misconception that 'debt' is always the responsibility of the 'debtor', hence the oft used phrase (particularily favoured by MBNA) - 'you spent it therefore you must pay it back'.
This attitude is often adopted by people who know nothing of either the make-up of the 'debt' or the circumstances of the 'debtor'. We read of people who have been 'paying off debts' at £10 a month, with the creditor/dca adding charges of £25 a month, putting that 'debtor' into a complete no-win situation. How can one suggest to somebody in that position that 'he spent the money, therefore he is morally obliged to pay it back'?
I do not dispute what I see as the 'core point' of your argument, and please correct me if I have misread what you are saying - that debtors are, indeed, morally obliged to pay back what they owe. This site is all about 'dealing with debt' and not the 'avoidance of debt'. I, as a regular poster, subscribe 100% to those aims - indeed I would give extremely short shrift to any poster who was openly using these boards to purposely avoid paying legally agreed debts. However, in the case of 'Statute Barred' debts, the Law quite clearly states that these can no longer be enforced, through the Courts, after a 'Limitation Period' of Six years (Five in Scotland), wherein the debtor has made no payment towards, nor written acknowledgement of, that debt.
The fact that the debt can no longer be enforced through the Courts does not mean that the debt is 'written off' or 'disappears', but it certainly does give the debtor the choice, which he or she is free to take, based on his/her own viewpoint, as to whether or not they wish to pay anything towards that debt. That right is enshrined in British Law.
From a personal point of view, I believe that any creditor who allows a 'debt' to become Statute Barred in the first place quite frankly deserves not to receive any payment after the Limitation Period.
But that is a personal view and I respect, wholeheartedly, any decision, by a debtor, to adopt what you are saying and to make payments towards a Statute Barred debt.
I still, however, stand by my statement about the 'morals' or lack of them, by companies such as Thames Credit, and others, whose overall treatment of debtors does not give them any right to start appealing to the debtor's sense of morals when they have no further legal options.

Friends? :think: :think:

iolanthe07

From a personal point of view, I believe that any creditor who allows a 'debt' to become Statute Barred in the first place quite frankly deserves not to receive any payment after the Limitation Period.

Thanks for a very helpful post. The only thing I would take slight issue with is the above. Some debtors are very elusive; they do not tell their creditors of their changes of address or even changes of name, and lie low hoping not to be discovered within the 6 years (5 in Scotland). This is just as underhand and dishonest as the DCA's tactics. I am not suggesting that the OP is guilty of this, of course, but some debtors can be very hard for creditors to find.

rog2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

The only thing I would take slight issue with is the above. Some debtors are very elusive; they do not tell their creditors of their changes of address or even changes of name, and lie low hoping not to be discovered within the 6 years (5 in Scotland).

If a debtor behaves as you describe, ie deliberately trying to 'avoid' their responsiblities towards a debt, then such a debtor would, I assure you, get very little support from this forum.
However, the scenario that you describe applies to only a minute percentage of those people who seek support from forums like this as we are genuinely trying to 'deal with debt' - not avoid it - and, if there is 'protection in law' from the often bullying tactics of the ilk of Thames Credit, and others who are equally well known for their similar disdain towards debtors, then it is only right and proper that those debtors are directed towards the legislation that will give them protection from these 'vultures' rather than submitting to what can be a very frightening experience at their hands.