Not to create bad feeling, but why bother..

System

Clapton, I agree with some of your points. Just, personally, I feel that there is (or should be) a moral obligation to pay back what you borrowed, of your own free will. Yes the banks tactics are a little naughty BUT at the end of the day, they do not force you to borrow the money.

To then turn round and say "Sorry, it will take me to long to pay it, ill take the easy route." and walk away is just not cricket.

earwig

hi we went for bankrupcty because our income drop by over hundred and fifty pounds per week (not through our choice) and beening 600 a month short we just couldnt pay every one

we spoke to the cccs and was told that a dmp would be no good for us as it would take to long to pay the money back (oh would be on a pension and they still wouldnt be cleared) so for us it was a case of feed the kids or pay the bills the kids win every time and mybe if you got to that stage you would do the same

as for the easy way out that just crap cause anyone who has been or is going through bankrupcty will tell you easy it is not so its not a case of we dont want to pay or cant be botherd to pay or even had no intension of paying it was there is no money to pay

people on dmp are people who can aford to pay a realistic amount of money to clear their debt in a realistic time and so they should bankrupcty is for people who cant and will never get out of debt with out it

and dont forget if you have a surplus in your income the or will take it for up to three years your credit rating is shot and you are made to feel like crap and for ever having to justife your self to peolpe who think you took the easy way out of your debts

CLAPTON

cricket .. you play by the rules..

it's a game of tactics, you play for the light, the weather, declare when it suits you...exactly what i mean ..best advantage according to the rules

felixdahousecat_2

Well said...

The financial industry is governed by 'terms and conditions', 'if you sign you abide by', 'in the event that'.....

By trade I am a network engineer, I give advice to people based on the assumption that they do not have the first idea what I am talking about, so put it into plain English, we keep the techie speak within the industry.

The financial industry on the other hand ask you to agree to contracts in their language, often at the click of a mouse.

When you receive that flyer from Capital One/MBNA (the one that most of us throw in the bin) telling you that they guarantee you a £250 credit limit, no strings just in time for Christmas, think how tempting it is for the single mother/father/benefits dependant couple.

When things go wrong they point you to sub clause xx paragraph xxx.

Bankruptcy is the only way most people have to play the joker card, sure it has lasting consequences, but how else would you protect the vulnerable from aggressive debt collection and harrassment ? As I see it it is the only way to say "That's it, i'm out"

referree

Sadly as part of my job I regularly speak to people who view bankruptcy as the easy way out! I accept that for most people, it may occur only once and they will learn the hard way but today I spoke to a woman aged 31 who had decided to declare herself bankrupt for the third time and her only concern was how long it would take her to be able to get credit again. Ripping off companies like this only makes it harder for the genuine people who got into trouble but have sorted themselves out! This is not an unusual event I have to stress! Her view was that it didn't matter as the businesses she effectively stole from made enough money as it was, maybe they do but the poor sods who get laid off because of poor profits thanks in some way because of the thousands of people like her who are quite prepared to borrow with no intention of paying back, may not it see it that way. I definitely feel that there should be a one time only limit to people declaring themselves bankrupt to avoid this kind of abuse.

CLAPTON

yes but Banks and BS are also serial offenders aren't they? does that change anything for you?

however your example may be a very good reason for changing the law or maybe not but hard cases make bad law.

lets look at a simple example of cahoot loans..now they say they are variable..well we reasonably think that variable means it varies a little as the base rate changes ....but thats not what it means ..it actually means that after a year or so they double your interest rate...just when they know you can't simply pay it off...is that ethical?
of course variable means variable but there you go, but of course someone who defaults is stealing from them....

remember a pub discussion

QueenB.

I believe in paying back what i owe, afterall i spent it and now i must pay it back. However i resent the charges added and high interest rates, banks want you to develope a debt so that they can increase their profits, and yes it is our responsibility to know that and not play their game. However as most of know (otherwise we would not be here) life is not that simple. However i do get a bit fed up of everyone saying well it is just our responsibility, that the banks are just a business. Afterall if the institutions we as a society surrond ourselves by are corrupt and immoral then what does that say about our society?

But all that aside as much as i believe in paying what i owe i also agree with Clapton, if it is the best alternative for you and your family then why not chosse bankruptcy? All systems are abused by a minority but that does not mean those systems should not be kept as an alternative for those who really need them.

CFC

Pub discussion:

bankruptcy isn't an easy answer for most people who take that route. As another poster said, if you've got anything, you'll lose it. If you've any kind of income at all, you'll be left with benefit levels only to survive on. I don't think it's a walk in the park....

CLAPTON

cfc
i agree with what you say, but its an option that is appropriate in some circumstances and it doesn't make you a bad person.

felixdahousecat_2

referree wrote:

but the poor sods who get laid off because of poor profits thanks in some way because of the thousands of people like her who are quite prepared to borrow with no intention of paying back, may not it see it that way. I definitely feel that there should be a one time only limit to people declaring themselves bankrupt to avoid this kind of abuse.

Sorry, but assuming that we are talking about banks here (big assumption I know but bear with me), record profits year on year, job losses have nothing to do with with bad retail debt, and everything to do with bad investment in high risk/high gain countries, and the chance to cut costs by outsourcing.

Remember, the values that you inherited from your parents of paying your way, don't spend more than you earn were based on a business society that was very different from today's. The xbillion profits boasted every quarter are not imaginary money, they are your bank charges/admin costs/ legal fees.

When you have absolutely nowhere else to go, bankruptcy is a vital 'out', yes it will be abused, but that is the price we have to pay, remember it is not a crime to be in debt.

Cheers

Paul