Old Loan Caught up With Me

[Deleted User]

Amazed yet again at the sheer cheek of some people,starts off not wanting to avoid this debt,gets bad advice as to how he may do exactly that,so guess what he then come out with a hundred reasons why he cant service the debt....unbelievable...

danrogers

ignore those having a go... lifes about looking after your family and staying happy, not being a slave. you dont get to choose the system, so you have to make it work for you. Its dog eat dog. Id say your morals seem far higher than that of any bank or loan company or debt agency. do what you have to do

[Deleted User]

kingdonkey wrote: »

#1 Bailiffs regularly act illegally to obtain persons address. Forget the voters register and all that, they buy information from low paid workers in benefit offices. They are crooks that would be dealing drugs if not buying debts

#2 Do you have a loan agreement with the Bailiff? No. They have bought your debt so have paid it on your behalf.

I wish they taught LAW in schools. People really need it

Chris

Literally the most useless post on this thread. Coming from someone who DID study law (at university) - and as someone with at least an ounce of understanding about how the world actually works, I can tell you that #2 is complete and utter bo**ocks.

Have you never heard of the concept of debt factoring? Or CMBS? Perhaps Collateralized Debt Obligations rings a bell? Debts are assets that can be freely sold between bidders. It doesn't mean that Lowells has paid your debt for you. It means that they have paid the original lender for the right to manage that debt and they then assume the role the original lender had in the original contract. Debts can be freely assigned and you confirmed this in the small print of the contract you signed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lowells isn't the bailiff. It's the debt-owning company. They might engage a bailiff to chase you, but they are not the bailiff.

So, to answer the OP's question factually, without moral bias:

If you did nothing, then all they can do is shred your credit report, but not much more than that. They could default you in the first instance (which they've done), apply for a CCJ, obtain a charging order (if relevant, which it's not) and then apply for bankruptcy against you if it really went that far. Will they do that? Probably not. But your credit report is going to be FUBAR for the next six years so any thoughts about obtaining any sort of credit should disappear now.

So, you'll find it more difficult:

To get a mortgage
To obtain credit cards
To rent property (at least, without a guarantor)

All of which isn't exactly the best position to be in if you're thinking of starting a family and intend to put a roof over their heads.

As an aside, that is what might happen if you just ignore the debt. If you actually send the letter back to sender, you're then firmly in the realms of fraud by obtaining a pecuniary advantage (e.g. not paying back) by deception. And if you want a legal opinion on it, grab a cup of tea and have a good read of the Fraud Act:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf

[Deleted User]

On a side note, something's changed on the forum in the past seven days, most probably caused by new registrations by people wanting to post following the Bank Charges case.

A week ago, there would be a tidal wave of criticism of people like the OP, by others who get angry at people avoiding their debt.

Now it seems like everyone's in favour of it. You do realise that it was this type of behaviour that got us all into this mess in the first place? Banks loaned money to people in risky credit positions, but it was those people seeking to get loans they couldn't afford in the first place!

If the past week has taught anyone a lesson, it's pay what you bloody well owe!

golden_eagle

I agree with Bunglejemson above. I can't believe some "advice" people that are not legally qualified are providing here! It does not help the person seeking advice.
Any debt will become statute barred only if it's not been pursued by the lender (or its assignee as the case seems to be here) for 6 years from the date it has become due. Without having all the details available to me it is impossible to say if the debt has become statute barred or not in your case but basically the lender has 6 years to issue proceedings from the date of default. If it does nothing than the debt becomes statute barred.
Your credit profile is a slightly separate issue. If you default on your debt it is usually registered with one or more of the credit agencies. The lender doesn't need to obtain judgement against you to do so. And as Bunglejemson stated above it it is likely to make your life more difficult for several reasons.
In my opinion, you have three options:
1. you offer to pay them less than you actually owe and try to negotiate that they do not register any adverse entry with credit agencies (unlikely they'd agree to the second condition but might agree to the first.) If they agree to accept less they are likely to want a lump sum settlement rather than monthly repayments though which I understand is not always possible.
2. you offer to repay the loan in full but with lower montly repayments and stick to it. They dont' have to agree to it but would be foolish not to. Worth a try perhaps?
3. do nothing and have your credit profile destroyed and possibly have CCJ entered against you

woody01

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I bet you a million quid he never got into debt with Lowell so why should he even speak to them, let alone offer them repayment?

If the lender wants to sell a debt to this scum for 12p in the pound then that is their silly fault. The OP should ignore the DCA who will, invariably, not have assignment rights anyway! Pointless arguing cos you guys will never learn - morals is a personal choice - My morals support my family, not the banks or my obligations to the banks!

I NEVER agree with things that N-I-D says, but in this case, with the quote above, i actually think he is correct.

The Op doesn't owe the cash to the DCA so he shouldn't pay them.
If the company he owes the money to were that bothered, then they would chase the money themselves rather than sell it on.

What i cannot agree on though, is the fact that the OP borrowed the money, and decided not to pay it back.
Although i wouldn't pay a DCA, i do think the OP deserves all that is coming to them for effective STEALING the cash in the first place.

RobertoMoir

kingdonkey wrote: »

I wish they taught LAW in schools. People really need it

That much is clear from the rest of your post. Still I'm sure there's some kind of further education course you can enrol on if you really want.

RobertoMoir

Deleted_User wrote: »

Now it seems like everyone's in favour of it. You do realise that it was this type of behaviour that got us all into this mess in the first place? Banks loaned money to people in risky credit positions, but it was those people seeking to get loans they couldn't afford in the first place!

Not to blame it all on "society innit" but we do have a rather "live for the moment" short term thing going on these days.

Wutang_2

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Not to blame it all on "society innit" but we do have a rather "live for the moment" short term thing going on these days.

You're not really keeping up with the times are you mister??

dtaylor84

woody01 wrote: »

I NEVER agree with things that N-I-D says, but in this case, with the quote above, i actually think he is correct.

The Op doesn't owe the cash to the DCA so he shouldn't pay them.

The law disagrees.