Bankruptcy... Is it to easy?

Dooooooooooooooonut

StevieJ wrote: »

Why, is it both? and there is me thinking that all those bank write offs last year were related to US debt based CDO's:rolleyes:

You think that was the only problem? Really?

:wall:

Dooooooooooooooonut

StevieJ wrote: »

I do not know about the future but as far as I am aware the current problems for banks and lending have not been caused by the UK consumer defaulting.

Not at first, but they will be. Risk was underpriced everywhere and this includes the issuance of loans to UK consumers.

dad-of-4

nickmason wrote: »

It's culture again. While the deterrent of the stigma of BR works for some, it doesn't for others. So there are those for whom there is a punishment, and who will not enter into lightly. I think there is a large and growing "group" who think it's a clever way of getting out of trouble, who will wear it as a badge of pride, not shame. To them the deterrent is completely ineffectual, and they see the BR way-out as an extension of "society's duty" to them, alongside benefits etc. they simply don't see it as theft from other people (which, if planned or brought about by completely irresponsible spending, I suggest is equivalent).

Either the system or that culture needs to change. How? Don't know. I think possibly:
1) Allow the OR to punish, not simply seek money. Might be able to ensure that the benefits of the overspend - tv's etc - are taken away. Would be difficult to manage, but seems some more teeth would be good!
2) involve families in the process of funding after bankrupcy. Sounds harsh, but it might make bankrupts realise that they are simply taking from others.
3) wondering aloud, left-field idea - could the OR role be made more local, based in the community, so that they would have a better idea of the real facts of the case. We seem to agree that discretion is required; the difficulty is determining the real facts of the case. In small communities, everything is known, and it is easier to determine the truth - "the village elders". Taken to its extreme, this could even lead to an elected OR! Of course injustices occur in any system. Just a thought.

personally i think its wrong to "punish" people for nothing more than having a go at living their lives, its the wrong perspective to have on it, and i don't believe thats why bankruptcy exists.

bankruptcy protects people, nothing more. it protects the unaware lenders, and it protects the debtor from the lender, any punishment or lack of, is based purely on ones own perception.

its just a means to bring things to a final & legally binding conclusion and stop things getting out of hand.

and lets not forget this bankruptcy thing work both ways, you can just as easily make someone bankrupt as you can go bankrupt.

so a little protection of peoples worldly goods is probably a good thing, after all it wouldn't be in a banks, or any other lenders best interests to file for possession and sell at a loss, if they can bankrupt you and cover the debt in full.

seriously, some people need to wake up to the true reality of what they wish for, and what they would like life to be like. the ability of the odd person here and their to manipulate the system to their advantage isn't a good reason to alter it to the disadvantage of everyone.

i only wish me and mine could live with such a high level of security as our normality, that we wouldn't need all our rights and liberties and the protection it give us.

I don't particularly aim that at nick mason, but i do ask are you really sitting that pretty in the scheme of life, that you would gladly see bankruptcy changed in that way you suggest, and have 100% confidence that it could never be wielded against you.

i don't know anyone who walks into a court of law on the wrong end the proceedings and ever expected to see the day come, not criminals, not bankrupts, not divorcee's not anyone.

Broken_hearted

Maybe not punish them as such but make it harder to go bankrupt and ban them from certain credit. Meaning they could get credit for a mortgage but not for a holiday or suchlike.
They should also have to prove they have tried everything to avoid it not just phone CCCS or similar once. A lot of people who go bankrupt could have avoided it and most given time could pay the debts back.

1echidna

I think it is sometimes instructive to look at other countries. Sometimes in this country there seems to be a view that one strike and your out and you should never be given an opportunity again if you have blown it once. In California I understand that a high tech business failure (or more than one) is no bar to a person getting finance to try again. The view there is that if one has analysed and learnt from the failure one can be a better bet next time.

StevieJ

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

Not at first, but they will be. Risk was underpriced everywhere and this includes the issuance of loans to UK consumers.

Good to see that you now aknowledge that the serious losses the banks have incurred is nothing to do with the UK borrower. With regards to the future they appear to now be ducking dodgy debtors.

StevieJ

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

You think that was the only problem? Really?

:wall:

In a word, YES. :wall: I will just borrow that one

Francesanne

mewbie wrote: »

Where do you put accountability? Week after week we received offers of credit - a 10k cheque here, a 6k credit card there, and all just requiring a signature. Not asked for, just stuffed through the door. I don't think companies offering credit should be allowed this form of marketing - it is obviously very tempting to some.

I don't even bother opening those letters that land on my mat. I don't want their loans or credit cards. Just tear them up, or return to sender, or shred. It's so easy to say NO. People have to take responsibilty for their own actions and stop blaming their weakness on other people.

1echidna

I wonder if I should register the name Doooooooooooooonut (one less 'o' ) just to create some confusion.

louiser123

me and mine were bankrupt over 7 years ago now under the old rules where we spent three yrs bankrupt, this wasnt through a failure of a business we were and still are employed, this was due to a very personnal issue which ultimatly ended up with my OH out of work, our children were still young and we had infact just moved from a house which would have been paid for within 5 yrs to a semi (nothing fancy just bog standard), we tried everything and i mean everything to pay our debts back but in the end we took the advice of a insolvency practitioner and declared bankruptcy.
i would have been appauled if i had been "punished" in whatever way some on here feel ppl should be, we had gone through a very emotional time which was the root cause of the final act. we were bith ill due to worry and yes pressure. we did keep our home because we were allowed to buy the equity back, in monthy payments.
i would say the saying "take a walk in my shoes" is correct here and not everyone uses br as a get out clause, only the the minority and to be honest the official reciever has the power to decide who these ppl are through his mandatory interview once br has taken place. and take appropriate actions to deal with it.

br can and does happen to all walks of life, and i will always remember saying that if a certain thing happened to me i would do x, and this has not been the case in either as when we are presented with major issues in our lifes what we say we would do usually is the total opposite. i do hope that noone who wishes br to be severely punished or hung for thier crime never find themselves in that position,