I'm interested to know

Ineedaname

alastairq wrote: »

Do, in fact, creditors like DCA's, credit companies, etc, actually gain an indirect benefit from ramped-up charges being included in an individual's BR?

Surely only if the money is recoverable?

alastairq

Ineedaname wrote: »

Surely only if the money is recoverable?

I didn't mean, from the BR's asset-stripping exercise....but from indirect sources such as tax relief, etc....

fiveyearplan

debtinfo wrote: »

If it helps, the average amount of debt in a bankruptcy is in the region of about £35,000- £40,000

I always thought I was above average!! :rotfl::rotfl:

Ineedaname

That's still comes under 'recoverable' from the creditor's point of view, they don't care where the money comes from as long as they can get some back.

I don't think they can increase the amounts owed at BR though and only additional charges are the OR's. Whether they can recover some of the amounts owed through other sources I have no idea.

All I'm concerned about right now is that I no longer have to deal with my creditors or pay into a DMP.

SurreyLass1

£38k - 3 cc's (2 with the same bank), 2 store cards and an overdraft. Mine was accrued over a period of at least 12 years.

alastairq

That's still comes under 'recoverable' from the creditor's point of view, they don't care where the money comes from as long as they can get some back.

I don't think they can increase the amounts owed at BR though and only additional charges are the OR's. Whether they can recover some of the amounts owed through other sources I have no idea

My question wasn't concerned with 'recovery'.....'precious little' in most cases seen on here seems to be the norm?

No....in my own case, [as an 'exercise'] I went through some typical statements of account from my CC creditors......a significantly high percentage of the actual amount 'owed' was in fact made up of charges, etc, accrued over preceding periods....well prior to BR.

[in fact, one particular 'offer' put to me, was so low, I did some paperwork hunting....they wanted not a lot more than I had actually 'borrowed' from the CC in the first place...ie over a number of years, essentially amounts I have not cleared each month]...]....

As we know, financial institutions will offset debt risk as a 'protective' measure.

They also seem to be able to claim tax relief for 'bad debts'...but..do they 'claim' for what they've actually demanded we pay?

Or is most CC debt, for example, actually smoke and mirrors?

HOLIDAYMAD_2

I thought it was the defaulted amount, what intrested me was i had been told that the costs to the OR are first then anything left over is to the creditor, so in reality nothing really does get repaid.

My question, how does the OR deem someone that perhaps could have cleared a debt say in the max period of 10 years via a DMP but chose BR over that, i dont think the judge pays much to that detail only that you had got advise re the long term implications.

mine to the OP was the average x2.

im intrested to know what friends and family thought esp if they were working.

Ineedaname

Sorry, I thought you were referring to whether they could add costs after BR, doh!

JCS1

HOLIDAYMAD wrote: »

I thought it was the defaulted amount, what intrested me was i had been told that the costs to the OR are first then anything left over is to the creditor, so in reality nothing really does get repaid.

My question, how does the OR deem someone that perhaps could have cleared a debt say in the max period of 10 years via a DMP but chose BR over that, i dont think the judge pays much to that detail only that you had got advise re the long term implications.

mine to the OP was the average x2.

im intrested to know what friends and family thought esp if they were working.

OR won't have a view, it's not down to them to decide if BR, IVA, DMP, or DRO is best. The judge has already made that decision by approving the bankruptcy.

alastairq

The judge has already made that decision by approving the bankruptcy.

and the Judge will doubtless rely heavily on the fact [?] that the petitioner will have received competent advice......??