Old debt following me round

al-209

29.9% interest is theft, pal, and if its a legal course of action then its not a scam is it, pal. Just cause your daft enough to keep paying these scumbags their pound of flesh, doesnt make me pond life when i refuse.

50quidonRED

you f**ked up by paying 2-3 years ago now pay your debt of face the concequences

ALIBOBSY

AnxiousMum wrote: »

and if all debtors paid their loans back, then we would all be able to save money, as fees and interest could be lowered, and we could borrow properly instead of like in recent times - when lending to the normal person virtually stopped.

So, yes, it's money saving - pay your loan back so the rest of us don't have to on your behalf.

This is rubbish, the rates come from the market. If no debts defaulted all that would happen is the banks would make even bigger profits.

If the banks thought they could get away with it they would charge everyone the same huge rates.

The orginal lender will get all the payments made on the account ( in many case well over the principle), plus a fee when they sell it on to debt collectors and they write off the balance against tax. It is rare the banks make a loss against any lending, they just may not make as big a profit as they oringinally planned.

ali x

al-209

50quidonRED wrote: »

you f**ked up by paying 2-3 years ago now pay your debt of face the concequences

But did i f**k up? Thats the big question. If it was already statute barred by then, which im near certain it was, then it seems that it makes no difference whether i made those payments or not. If thats the case then i only f**ked up in that i paid them money when i need not have.

My only question now is how do i find out for certain whether or not the debt was indeed statute barred? Just to be 100% on the matter.

And honestly, where do some of you people get off telling me to pay up or face the consequences? What consequences? It seems to me if there were any consequences to face i would have faced them by now. Christ, anyone would think i owed you the money personally.

Jay_Tee

50quidonRED wrote: »

you f**ked up by paying 2-3 years ago now pay your debt of face the concequences

Perhaps you should read post #23 by someone who knows what they are talking about!

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but hey get the facts right

Clive_Woody

al-209 wrote: »

29.9% interest is theft, pal,

When they told you the interest rate you could have declined to borrow the money, you accepted their offer and took the money.

~Brock~

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

This is rubbish, the rates come from the market. If no debts defaulted all that would happen is the banks would make even bigger profits.

If no debts defaulted then rates would come down significantly, in the same way that is nobody had car accidents then motor insurance rates would come down signficantly. The reason people dont seem to be willing to grasp this simple fact is because it doesnt fit in with the conspiracy theories that are designed to back the idea that it is fine and dandy for people not to pay their credit commitments.


If the banks thought they could get away with it they would charge everyone the same huge rates.

Rates are driven by two factors - competition and risk. At present we are experiencing a lack of competition, because the appetite to lend at previous levels is no longer there, and we are also seeing an upsurge in bad debts, even in markets previous seen as low risk. This is partly fuelled by the liberalised attitude prevelant over recent years that anyone who doesnt want to pay back their credit can in some way twist their circumstances into being portrayed as a victim, and the lender as the villain.

The orginal lender will get all the payments made on the account ( in many case well over the principle), plus a fee when they sell it on to debt collectors and they write off the balance against tax. It is rare the banks make a loss against any lending, they just may not make as big a profit as they oringinally planned.

If the causal reader seriously thinks that lenders make a profit on all their lending then there really is no hope of serious discussion. Suffice to say, you are sadly deluded if you think that this is the case.

To quote from a recent article by Eric Leenders from the BBA

"A deep recession will pressurise individual consumers, banks and the financial system as a whole. the present economic climate suggests higher unemployment witht he attendant effects on debtors ability to repay, but increased incidence of financial difficuly will increase the rewards from those seeking to profit from it. One of the unintended consequences of the emerging market is the 'moral hazard' of creating a culture where repayment of debts is optional......

.....Increasingly, new remedies are mandating creditor concessions such as debt write off, compulsion and interest forgiveness. This forces pricing adjustments across the remainder of the performing portfolio, puts upwards pressure on interest rates and moderates risk appetite - all negative factors around financial inclusion"

Well thank you Eric, I couldn't have put it better myself.

Now, in plain English, the effect on the economy if NOBODY repaid what they borrowed would be catastrophic, because the very fabric of our modern society would be ripped apart. No repayments would equal no new borrowing. No credit would stifle consumer demand for most manufactured goods and the resultant effect on unemployment and the welfare state would be incalcuble.

So.......if it is established that it is NOT GOOD FOR SOCIETY for people not to repay their credit then WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE when it comes down to individual people and their attitude to their own debts?

In a developed and compassionate society this usually means that there is support and sympathy for those who are in genuine hardship. Few would argue with that.

However, do we also offer support for al-209 and others who blatantly evade their debts for no other reason than personal greed and/or irresponsibility? They should not, in my opinion, be encouraged by the remainder of society or indeed forums such as this....for reasons that should be fairly clear above.

:beer:

al-209

Usury in general is not good for society. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but i am asking for genuine, LEGAL, advice as it relates to my current situation. Ive paid back more than the principle, so no one stands to lose here except me. Im not asking for advice on how to perform an illegal action, im operating within the law. Whether you agree from a moral standpoint, or not, is irrelevant. I mean,come on, its not like im asking the best way to fleece an old granny, like these companies do every day.

roger196

Have a look at S29(7) Limitation Act 1980 ( search this on google). In essence once debt is statute barred, it cannot be unbarred by making a subsequent payment or acknowledgement.
You need to sort out the date the debt was incurred and the dates you made payment or acknowlegement in writing and signed by you or your agent.

al-209

Roger, thanks very much. I assume then it is up to the collection agency to provide me with proof to the contrary if i write stating that the debt is statute barred?