Employment contract - is this bankruptcy clause retrospective?

dtsazza

alastairq wrote: »

SO spends incredible sums convincing us all that this lifestyle is essential...what we 'need'.

So in many ways.....far from exercising a lack of financial discipline, most BR's are in fact pretty much victims of the world we live in.

'Free will' often has no place when looking at debt.

If that's true for an individual, then I'd argue that bankruptcy is an excellent indicator of unsuitability for any job.

Somebody who keeps spending when they have insufficient funds because "an evil advert told me to do it and I don't have any free will", seems to me to be very likely to leak company secrets/etc. because an evil corporate spy persuaded them to.

As for the "victim" remark, that's rubbish. Almost everyone in this country has the ability to self-actualize; the ones that consider themselves victims are just the ones that renege their own responsibility as to their situation, expect everything to just work out, and feel victimised when they don't. And it's not like credit companies are the only entities that engage in the broader sense of advertising (i.e. persuading you to do something you otherwise wouldn't) - almost every interaction has some element of different goals between participants, even down to your neighbour asking for a cup of sugar that you'd rather not spare.

If someone is mentally feeble enough to do what an advert says without thinking about whether it would be a good idea, then quite frankly they're not able to look after themselves as an individual (likely to fall prey to conmen, criminal rings, even just day-to-day exploits etc) and in all seriousness, they would need the same protections as a child (an assigned legal guardian, no authority to enter into legally-binding agreements, etc.).

Ineedaname wrote: »

But surely ANY debt makes us vulnerable?

...

So yes, we are all responsible for our position, just by taking on ANY debt in the first place. But that's the society we live in today where credit is readily available to the majority. So everyone is at risk of becoming BR purely through having taken out credit they cannot pay back with one month's wages.

...

Everybody lives on credit these days, it's the norm now.

You're right that all debt is a risk, and ideally one wouldn't engage in it at all if possible.

But as with all risks it's about assessing the severity, and the main issue is that the concept of risk has lost proportion, as you've identified. For example, everyone ought to have an emergency fund of several months' expenses saved up to account for unexpected financial setbacks (losting job, boiler explodes, etc.). Most people don't do this, because they think that somehow it'll be fine if something bad happens, and they can't imagine really bad things happening in that case anyway. (While I agree with the concept of welfare, if you removed all social payments it's undeniable that you'd see many more people saving up emergency funds, as they suddenly realise that they're fully responsible for their own well-being.)

And it's a similar concept with debt. Part of the reason people don't see it as a big deal is because at the bottom line they're not fully responsible for the consequences if they really mess up. They undoubtedly get all the rewards (that happens now anyway, not in some uncertain future) and if the debts run away beyond a certain point, they can just declare themselves bankrupt and abandon the agreements that they signed - just go back on their promise to pay back the money they were lent.

I can guarantee that if bankruptcy wasn't the option, and the alternative was some sort of debtor's prison where you work menial jobs at minimum wage to pay off your bets - people would be more cautious.

All debt is a risk, it's just that the individual isn't fully exposed to the downside of that risk and therefore often makes inaccurate decisions. If people were fully responsible for the consequences of their actions, you'd see much more prudent behaviour.

But words like "prudent" and "responsible" aren't something that can often be associated with those who've become bankrupt; which is why I consider it a reasonable test of character for a job application.

Ineedaname

dtsazza wrote: »

and if the debts run away beyond a certain point, they can just declare themselves bankrupt and abandon the agreements that they signed - just go back on their promise to pay back the money they were lent.

I can guarantee that if bankruptcy wasn't the option, and the alternative was some sort of debtor's prison where you work menial jobs at minimum wage to pay off your bets - people would be more cautious.

Wouldn't make much difference for people in my situation, i.e. undiagnosed Bipolar Disorder with manic periods 'causing' excessive spending. I never knew why I spent like this, never wanted to and believed what I was brought up with, that you should save for what you want. But it kept happening. BUT I remained responsible for my debts and kept paying them, until the Bipolar got the better of me and put me on the sick list.

It was never in my thoughts that I could keep running up the debts and no worries if it got too much, I could just go BR. I've spent 5 years on a DMP avoiding going BR before I finally had to face it was the only option if I were to move forward with my life. The Bipolar is now under control and so future manic spending isn't an issue.

So nobody can even say that I used loss of earning or my Bipolar as an 'excuse' to walk away from my debts. I've been off sick for about 8 years now and continued to repay as much as I could for as long as I could.

I think very few people actually run up debts with the view that they can go BR in the future and all will be forgiven.

Oh, and I've always been a diligent and loyal employee. I spent company money far more responsibly than I ever spent my own and never gave any employer cause for concern. So does that make me an undesirable prospect as a future employee?

dtsazza

Ineedaname wrote: »

Wouldn't make much difference for people in my situation, i.e. undiagnosed Bipolar Disorder with manic periods 'causing' excessive spending. I never knew why I spent like this, never wanted to and believed what I was brought up with, that you should save for what you want. But it kept happening. BUT I remained responsible for my debts and kept paying them, until the Bipolar got the better of me and put me on the sick list.

It was never in my thoughts that I could keep running up the debts and no worries if it got too much, I could just go BR. I've spent 5 years on a DMP avoiding going BR before I finally had to face it was the only option if I were to move forward with my life. The Bipolar is now under control and so future manic spending isn't an issue.

So nobody can even say that I used loss of earning or my Bipolar as an 'excuse' to walk away from my debts. I've been off sick for about 8 years now and continued to repay as much as I could for as long as I could.

...

Oh, and I've always been a diligent and loyal employee. I spent company money far more responsibly than I ever spent my own and never gave any employer cause for concern. So does that make me an undesirable prospect as a future employee?

That is different. And it sounds like you've been responsible, within the confines of the situation, at paying back the debts you owe.

Mental illnesses are very difficult, both for those suffering from them, and in accounting for them in terms of policies. Since broadly speaking they're defined by causing people to act in abnormal/unpredictable ways, it's difficult to make assessments of whole populations that will still be true for those with mental illnesses.

I think very few people actually run up debts with the view that they can go BR in the future and all will be forgiven.

I'd agree that it's not a conscious thought. But at some point they're aware of it - it's more in the sense that they don't apply as much conscious thought as they should about the affordability, or potential downsides, etc. Or perhaps it's just a vague "there's no way I could be made homeless, or allowed to starve, in a modern western country". I'm sure that even the view that it's normal, as you mentioned earlier contributes: if everyone's doing it, how could it be wrong?

So I agree it's not a positive thought process, but I stand by my previous statement that if there were stricter and more visible penalties for failure to repay, people would start paying more attention to debt rather than dismissing it offhand as "fine".

Ineedaname

That's the point though isn't it, everybody's case is different and it's not really appropriate to make blanket statements about BR being the debtors fault most of the time. Debt creeps up on people so easily.

There's an easier option and that is for the Government to restrict the credit rules again. They were only relaxed in the 1970s.

But that probably won't happen now as the entire country would ground to a halt.

alastairq

Somebody who keeps spending when they have insufficient funds because "an evil advert told me to do it and I don't have any free will", seems to me to be very likely to leak company secrets/etc. because an evil corporate spy persuaded them to

That would be you then?

Because everybody succumbs to advertising at some time or other.

Whether it's for a car, a consumer product, or a financial product.

A visit to that 'financial adviser' is intended to result in purchase of a product....and if the adviser is good, it will be a product they will sell.

If everybody exercised free will, advertising would't work, and it wouldn't be the multi-billion dollar industry it is.

There would be a sales careers going begging anywhere...no one would bother applying.

The very purpose of salesmanship, or advertising, is to overcome free will....as I said before.

It is very easy to pontificate from a standpoint of financial security.

Speaking as an acknowledged expert in driving and all associated skills, would it not be unfair of me to expect everybody else to exercise the same levels of driving skill as myself?

Equally it is unreasonable for those who have not experienced, or fail to comprehend, the issues surrounding debt, to try to argue from a moral standpoint.


There is more debt in this country than anything else.

The entire country is in debt.

Whole industries have crumbled under the weight of debt.

Half the government is in a state of insolvency...yet all I see written is how irresponsible some individual is for petitioning bankruptcy.

Dealing with debt is something the vast majority of our population are going to have to do within the next decade...if not longer.

And Bankruptcy is a major part of dealing with debt.


And if it had been criminalised, so deterring folk from entering into credit arrangements...this entire country's economy over the last 60 years would have crumbled...and we would be on the same economical level as Yemen.

Because our economy is built on credit.


But...if it still were criminalised, don't forget that in the days of Newgate debtor's prison, crime itself was far more rampant than today.....murder wasn't even a recorded crime.....

the fact is, society has moved on.

Bankruptcy is a valid method of dealing with debt, allowing as it does, closure for all parties involved.

kepar

So dtsazza in your ideal world there basically would be no credit.

Have you got a mortgage, car loan etc. If you fell seriously ill tomorrow how would any of it get paid off.

You buy a house with a mortgage and a 40% deposit, house prices collapse you have little or no equity, whose fault is that.

Not everyone is to blame, some have been reckless(me included) others misfortunes have befallen them. I take it from your posts you are not br, I hope for your sake and attitude it doesn't happen to you.

You know what they say Pride before a Fall

alastairq

So I agree it's not a positive thought process, but I stand by my previous statement that if there were stricter and more visible penalties for failure to repay, people would start paying more attention to debt rather than dismissing it offhand as "fine".

Why not the same attitude towards infidelity within marriage?

Why are you not targeting those who, from a position of apparent 'responsibility', allowed some of our largest banks to get to a stage of near collapse?

If a major company [read..'employer''..read...'provider of financial security]...goes bust, why do we not see those who appear to be in a position of 'responsibility' actually being pilloried, actually being made physically accountable for their mistakes.. their inability to exercise proper [financial] control?

Why should directors hide behind the legal shield provided by Limited liability status?


Why indeed, should there be one moral standpoint for some, but another for others?

JCS1

redbu wrote: »

You can't normally is the simple answer. You could write to the High Court in London for a copy of the Order to Suspend which will have the reason for the application. But I doubt you will get it.

All I can say is - why would you think?

I believe the most frequent reason for SOD's is being un-coperative.

NeverAgain_2

...Hmmm, Discharge suspended indefinitely...How do we find out why???...

Some info here:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_id=516693&in_page_id=62

debtinfo

in this case i would guess that over a period of time that many of her assets or income would have been given away to friends family botfriends etc and that she has not done enough to account for where they have gone so that they can be recovered. I dont know anything more than anyone else but that would be my guess