Debts which have been sold

Hanky_Panky

Anthorn wrote: »

Let's be clear on this: We are considering a creditor who has not taken any action at all to recover a debt for six years save for possibly passing the account to a debt collection agency. They may sell the debt and the buyer similarly doesn't do anything to recover the debt. Many creditors don't even live up to their legal obligation in keeping the debtor informed about the debt: Debtor clients of Lowell Financial, for example, will be well aquainted with their annual statement.

In my view such companies deserve to lose out on debts they do not by all accounts want to recover.

Complete nonsense again and purely speculation on your part you absolutely cannot possibly know that, it is nothing more than a sweeping generalisation.

ALso to keep you up to date - on many types of account; personal loans for example; until fairly recently (first round of OFT guidleines I think) there was no requirement to send out annual statements so again another sweeping generalisation. Please try to keep up.

You seem to just make these wild statements based on possibly some bad experience of yours in the past that have no basis in fact. If you are going to advise people which is a good thing, it would be worth checking your facts first else you have the potential to cause more harm than good.

Buzby

When circumstances change, a borrower can find themselves with a fried credit file, but (more usually) the possibility of court action reduced. I am fully aware the creditors have designed their arrangements so that they retain the right to sell-on the debt to whoever is prepared to purchase it for the highest fee. They then wash their hands of the debtor, leaving it to the new firm to pursue.

We have the debate that the debtor has a moral obligation to pay their debts, however, if the original creditor is so fickle in not caring to work with the debtor, preferring to unload their problematic customer to a specialist third party, I view these new incomers as the monkey (to the original organ grinder).

The moral argument shifts somewhat, should I have to deal with the monkey? My argument is I shouldn't - I'll do all I can to make good as it was the original creditor who provided the service, but to an outfit who simply pays a few pence on the pound simply for the right to harass the customer and make them pay up? Nope. I have the courtesy to provide them with my reasons for not playing their game and they eventually see sense - indeed, it's like these private parking companies who pursue those who may not have the stamina to resist the bullying.

Sure, if the debt was £500, and they paid £10, if they made a reasonable profit and agreed to £50 in settlement I'd be all in favour - morally and reasonably we all benefit. But most will take the £500, bolt on a few additional fees to screw the consumer futher, and I'm supposed to be grateful?

Just as the Government's PFI financial juggling is now seen as for what it is, the quicker debts become unassignable to third parties would do much to prevent firms anxious to avoid assisting customers in difficulty. But until then, if a third party pursues me I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Anthorn

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Complete nonsense again and purely speculation on your part you absolutely cannot possibly know that, it is nothing more than a sweeping generalisation. .

Limitation Act 1980

(1) The creditor has never taken action against the debtor in a court of law*
(2) In the last six years the debtor has never contacted the creditor in writing admitting that they owe the debt.
(3) In the last six years the debtor has never made a payment towards the debt.

*If the creditor has not enforced a CCJ in the last six years it is likely but not certain that the creditor will have to apply to the court for an enforcement order. In that case (pun intended) the debtor can ask the court to set it aside due to the amount of time passed.

If the above is true then the debt is unenforceable by law. Not worth the disk it's saved on

It's also an unfair practice to sell a statute barred debt according to the OFT

datostar

hynish wrote: »

Thank you Bankhater for at least trying to understand the predicament I'm in.

Datostar and chanz4 - do you not think you should have done likewise? I'd love to be able to pay my way again.

Well it hasn't happened to me but it did happen to my son due to illness and unemployment when he ended up with £2000 outstanding on a CC. After loads of phone calls from them and letters on his behalf from CAB etc. they eventually passed the matter to their legal dept. (not selling it on at that stage) and they offered a settlement figure of £1100. I paid it for him and he has since paid me back as his circumstances improved. They made it clear that if the offer wasn't accepted the debt would go back to the original amount and be pursued further. It seemed a good deal to me and that's why I suggested accepting the discounted settlement offer especially if they'll allow 'time to pay'. I must say I found their approach quite sympathetic - and this was one of the impaired credit rating card issuers.

Hanky_Panky

Anthorn wrote: »

Limitation Act 1980

(1) The creditor has never taken action against the debtor in a court of law*
(2) In the last six years the debtor has never contacted the creditor in writing admitting that they owe the debt.
(3) In the last six years the debtor has never made a payment towards the debt.

*If the creditor has not enforced a CCJ in the last six years it is likely but not certain that the creditor will have to apply to the court for an enforcement order. In that case (pun intended) the debtor can ask the court to set it aside due to the amount of time passed.

If the above is true then the debt is unenforceable by law. Not worth the disk it's saved on

It's also an unfair practice to sell a statute barred debt according to the OFT

Thank you for confirming your lack of understanding.