Using loopholes in the law to avoid paying your debts - discuss ;)

rog2

MrsTine wrote: »

OK as we seem to be clashign heads on this increasingly on threads I thought in order to avoid hijacking other peoples threads too much maybe we should have a thread where we could debate the moral and legal areas of this?

Hi Mrs T - I have just spent the last hour reading through this thread and I think that you raise some very interesting points for debate:

I, personally, do have an issue with somebody who deliberately racks up debt in the knowledge that he/she can use 'loopholes' in the Law to avoid paying back those debts. That is 'Debt Avoidance' and has no place on a forum like this, which is, after all, about 'dealing with debt'. In fairness, though, this board is not, generally, populated by such people and, when they appear, they are usually given short shrift by the majority of posters, many of whom find themselves unintentionally in debt through circumstances over which they have little, or no, control.

That said, I have absolutely no problem with a debtor using the 'protection' that the Law provides.

My views on the Credit Industry, particularily on the less desirable elements of the 'Debt Collection Industry' are well known, and documented on this forum, so I will not enter a 'diatribe' over their practices, many of which are responsible for bringing posters to forums like this.

Suffice to say that since the Credit Industry is supposed to be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, 1974 (and subsequent amendments), then that 'Industry' must not be surprised if their customers (debtors) resort to using that very Act to question the 'legality' of any agreement. The primary responsibility for ensuring that any credit agreement is, indeed, compliant with the Act is, and must remain, that of the creditor. Given that the Act has been around for almost 40 years, it is not unreasonable to expect creditors to be up to date with the requirements and to respect them accordingly. Often, unfortunately as it is, many creditors, including some of the big names, will, in order to satisfy their own greed, dispense with, or completely ignore, some of those requirements. In these cases, they have only themselves to blame if a debtor subsequently finds that the agreement is legally flawed and uses this fact to question, or even stop paying, the agreement.
Equally, in the case of 'Statute Barred Debts', whilst I can not condone anyone who deliberately avoids contact with a creditor for six years purely to allow a genuine debt to become Statute Barred, six years must, surely, be sufficient time for any creditor to have reached an agreement with the debtor over payment of the debt?
One of the problems, as I see it, is when such 'debts' become the 'property' of our not so good 'friends' in the Debt Collection Industry. In many cases, these 'debts' only reach that sector when the original creditor deems, or realises, that the debt is, or may be, legally unenforceable. This is when the 'bully boy' tactics of the Debt Collection Industry, with which most of us are well acquainted, come into play. In such cases, I would have no compunction whatsoever in advising the debtor of any possible clause, act, even 'loophole' in the Law which might help that debtor avoid lining the pockets of people whose own scruples often leave a great deal to be desired.
But that's not the aim of the game, Mrs. T. Only very rarely will a creditor or DCA advise a debtor that he/she may have legal rights in connection with a 'debt' or 'agreement' that they are pursuing. They will, more often, use their position to further penalise the debtor, and they, certainly, show scant regard for the personal circumstances of that debtor - or his/her family.
A knowledge of the protection afforded, under Law, to debtors, is not necessarily a license to 'avoid debt'. Debts, even though they may not be legally enforceable, do not cease to exist, and I would never pretend that to be the case.
What I do say, however, is that once the 'status' of a debt is established, it can, and usually does, put the debtor in the driving seat. Rather than succumb to the pressure of one creditor, often at the expense of other creditors, the debtor is in a much stronger position when it comes to 'dealing' with this debt - whether that be by negociating reduced payments, freezing of interest and charges, full and final settlements or, in an extreme case, by telling the creditor, or dca, that he/she will no longer be paying anything towards the debt as it is, indeed, legally unenforceable.
There are, as you quite rightly say, many ways of 'Dealing with Debt' - none will ever be painless, or without consequences, including, as I can personally vouch, bankruptcy.
The most important thing, to me at least, is that the Law is used, and respected, equally by both debtor and creditor.

Numpty_Monkey

What rog said:T:T

Bill_Shidding

Hi, I may be new here, but I'm not a novice.
Just as politics is no place for an honest man, finance has no place for morals.

What exactly did the creditor provide you with in the first place?

To (mis) quote a well known film-
Morpheus "do you think thats money you borrowed?"
Neo "......?"

Old fashioned values have been somewhat overtaken these days, if you* still believe a bank lends you actual money, your naiveity should be gently educated in real world economics. I recommend you seek out information on Fractional Reserve Banking to open your eyes. Once you have a basic understanding of this great injustice, your commendable olde-worlde attitude will change.
Mine did.

Mis-placed loyalty brings no rewards.

***not aimed at any particular poster***

Bill

stapeley

What should be pointed out is the high interest rate card companies charge 17% -20% above the base rate ! Given that 98% of customers do not get into trouble, it is still a good business for them . It is why they are not even bothered with the hassle of taking people to court. They are just happy to sell off any bad debts to parasites at DCA,s .

never-in-doubt

rog2 wrote: »

Not quite true I'm afraid, nid;

In the case of any joint debt, if one of the debtors declares bankruptcy, then the creditor is legally entitled to pursue the other signatory for the whole of the balance of the debt.

Yea I noticed that someone else said that (toto - #51 ) - cheers for clearing it up though... another bonkers rule eh! :T

rog2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Yea I noticed that someone else said that (toto - #51 ) - cheers for clearing it up though... another bonkers rule eh! :T

There are some instances where a joint signatory can 'dis-associate' themselves from responsibility, but not usually 'after' the event.

fermi

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Yea I noticed that someone else said that (toto - #51 ) - cheers for clearing it up though... another bonkers rule eh! :T

Under the rules of "joint and several liability" I'm afraid rog2 is right.

never-in-doubt

fermi wrote: »

Under the rules of "joint and several liability" I'm afraid rog2 is right.

Oh yes I agree - thanks for the help on that one.

But in the case of the other half using her details without her knowledge and no signature? Then surely there is something she could do.... i.e. how can she then become 100% liable?

MrsTinks

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Oh yes I agree - thanks for the help on that one.

But in the case of the other half using her details without her knowledge and no signature? Then surely there is something she could do.... i.e. how can she then become 100% liable?

I think in that case the CCA to be honest shouldn't even have needed to be brought out... But we all know DCAs are a) vultures b) dishonest c) stupid

never-in-doubt

MrsTine wrote: »

I think in that case the CCA to be honest shouldn't even have needed to be brought out... But we all know DCAs are a) vultures b) dishonest c) stupid

See - we do agree after all :j :j

p.s don't forget; spineless parasites that leech on the needy with no concept of law or humane tactics. The scum would rob their own granny to buy a debt to breed I bet...:)