Spendaholics - BBC3 now.

scootw1

Okay, it was a little bit irresponsible getting into that kind of debt BUT the credit card companies let her do it. No mention is ever made of that on the programme

moozie_2

icklejulez wrote:

Im 24 and last year had debts of 52.5k exc mortgage. Ok so Ive got 2 kids had a wedding and a conservatory out of it but it taught me a great lesson being so young. I can see that by age 30 I should have no debts except my mrtgage and who knows mortgage free by 40. That should give my kids a good start in life. If it wasnt for getting to the point I couldnt live Id still be spending now!

I didn't watch it but icklejulez, can I just say WELL DONE!!! You are doing brilliantly! :T :T :T :T

barnaby-bear

scootw1 wrote:

It was irresponsible getting into that kind of debt BUT the credit card companies let her do it. No mention is ever made of that on the programme

And people who shoplift do so because the shops put all the stuff out within reach, and people who write dud cheques do so because they have cheques.... and alcoholics are alcoholics because Tesco will sell them booze! HELLLLLLLLLLOOOO! personal responsibility. Data protection laws mean companies can't share as much info. as they could and people round here endlessly complain refused credit or have had info. shared.....

Debt is a for a lot of people and that girl in particular like alcoholism... for a few it's genuine want/bad luck for people like her it's greed and lack of personal responsibility.

PigginSkint

Just found this thread and unfortunately missed the programme - annoyed because I like to watch it!!

I just have to say - £52K at the age of 21!!!:eek: :eek: How on earth did she manage that?

I had no debt at the age of 21, apart from a very small overdraft - when I left university at 22 my overdraft was still only £200 and that was my only debt. I have to say, this was in the days when we still got grants, and my Dad paid me a small monthly allowance to cover the shortfall (as he was required to do) but still!! My problems with debt came later - long, long story which perhaps I will share with you all at some point!!

scootw1

barnaby-bear wrote:

And people who shoplift do so because the shops put all the stuff out within reach, and people who write dud cheques do so because they have cheques.... and alcoholics are alcoholics because Tesco will sell them booze! HELLLLLLLLLLOOOO! personal responsibility. Data protection laws mean companies can't share as much info. as they could and people round here endlessly complain refused credit or have had info. shared.....

Debt is a for a lot of people and that girl in particular like alcoholism... for a few it's genuine want/bad luck for people like her it's greed and lack of personal responsibility.

I DID say she was a bit irresponsible but credit companies do have access to your credit file and can see if you are in trouble. They let you carry on accumulating credit if you are paying the minimum because they know they can make even more money from you and then moan when people go bankrupt and they lose their money. All I was saying is that there needs to be tighter regulations and lower interest rates so people can get themselves out of trouble if they so wish. Interest rates are so crippling that if you do get into financial trouble there is no way you ever pay off the interest, just the initial sum. The high charges, interest etc is the reason this girl was £10000 more in debt than she thought. and before anyone says, "they have to make money somehow" yes I agree but not to the extent that they do.

Mc4ndy

The ending for me was a tad annoying.

25k to settle 52k debt. That's a £27K write off, and the solution was using the equity in her house. Why even sell the house if there is 25K equity, why not just bump the mortgage? Anyway for me the system does not seem very fair if someone can spend 52k, pay back only £25k and get the rest for FREE. A bit like winning the lottery, except for a few black marks on the credit file.

Why shouldn't she have to:
Sell the house
Sell all her jewelry
Sell all her unused clothes
Sell her car
Stop with the drving lessons
Stop with the going out
Stop with the million pairs of shoes / sunglasses
Try earn more etc etc etc

A bit like what everyone else on this forum who is in debt is trying to do. For me I didn't have a lot of sympathy for Sam, I don't agree with the banks making it so easy for people to rack up that much debt, but her debts were pretty much entirely her own doing with no real justification for them other than she had expensive taste that her salary couldn't afford. I'm not even sure she was burrying her head in the sand either. To me it seemed she had no real concept of what the consequence of spending so much money she didn't have was. She seemed oblivious to the bank letters, interest, charges. Openly laughed at her paying for takeaways with cheques that bouced so they ending up costing £40+. Exactly how loud do the ALARM bells need to be?

scootw1

Mc4ndy wrote:

The ending for me was a tad annoying.

25k to settle 52k debt. That's a £27K write off, and the solution was using the equity in her house. Why even sell the house if there is 25K equity, why not just bump the mortgage? Anyway for me the system does not seem very fair if someone can spend 52k, pay back only £25k and get the rest for FREE. A bit like winning the lottery, except for a few black marks on the credit file.

Why shouldn't she have to:
Sell the house
Sell all her jewelry
Sell all her unused clothes
Sell her car
Stop with the drving lessons
Stop with the going out
Stop with the million pairs of shoes / sunglasses
Try earn more etc etc etc

A bit like what everyone else on this forum who is in debt is trying to do. For me I didn't have a lot of sympathy for Sam, I don't agree with the banks making it so easy for people to rack up that much debt, but her debts were pretty much entirely her own doing with no real justification for them other than she had expensive taste that her salary couldn't afford. I'm not even sure she was burrying her head in the sand either. To me it seemed she had no real concept of what the consequence of spending so much money she didn't have was. She seemed oblivious to the bank letters, interest, charges. Openly laughed at her paying for takeaways with cheques that bouced so they ending up costing £40+. Exactly how loud do the ALARM bells need to be?

It does seem a bit strange that the credit companies agreed to write off £27K without her going bankrupt or an IVA etc when a lot of people are turned down for IVAs and they are actually trying to pay the money back. I think perhaps the fact she was on Spendaholics in the first place may have had an effect and the BBC may have talked the companies into doing it (how I don't know)

shell2001

Dont think she would have been able to increase her mortgage as their earnings were so low. On paper she would be able to make the repayments but mortgage companies dont work that way. Plus I really feel if the slate were wiped clean she would be in a similar situation pretty quickly.

They were planning on getting married and she wants the fairytale life, dread to think what the budget for said wedding will come in at!

I couldnt believe they did not get her to sell stuff either, I am sure they have encoraged this in other episodes.

Bargain_Rzl

scootw1 wrote:

It does seem a bit strange that the credit companies agreed to write off £27K without her going bankrupt or an IVA etc when a lot of people are turned down for IVAs and they are actually trying to pay the money back. I think perhaps the fact she was on Spendaholics in the first place may have had an effect and the BBC may have talked the companies into doing it (how I don't know)

I don't think there was any evidence that she had actually gone through the process of applying for an IVA. I got the impression that it was all speculative - they "might" get the extra £25k for the house, and the creditors "might" accept that as a F&F. I don't think there was anything to say that they actually had proved that this was possible!

Also they had only been in the house for... was it 1yr 8mths? If that's the case, there's a good chance they would have been liable for a penalty to get out of the mortgage.

scootw1

I shall watch it again on the weekend but I think they did say that the house would be bought if they wanted that and would release £25000. And I think that she did say the CC companies had agreed to wipe out the £27000. My concern is that if this happens she will still have the cards and may be able to do it again (unless they stop the cards) and would still have all the things she bought whereas lots of other people have had to sell all their possessions (I had to sell a lot of mine) to make ends meet and then go for an IVA or bankruptcy as well. She already has a care-free attitude and that would just make things worse