I need advice about someone standing guarantee on a loan.

redpete

Stone_Fox wrote: »

I apologize if I come across a little offensive but one of my pet hates is thread trolls.

One of my pet hates is someone who is so pleasant and grateful for advice that doesn't offend them but immediately reacts with unnecessary rudeness to advice that they don't like (which even if it isn't dressed up in the fluffy bunny sentiment of some boards is still valid).

Stone_Fox

Apples2 wrote: »

I did but the mere fact that this thread should have been put to bed by the second reply is enough to suggest you are simply acknowledging someone elses point of view.

About half way down page one I thank someone for bringing the interest rates to my attention and clarifying things for me.

About 3/4 of the way down page 1, I talk through why the math makes sense and thank people for their input.

So yes, it was put to bed. Which is why I'm somewhat confused by you having a go at me saying I'm not reading when I think it's you that's not read properly or not understood.

I thought the thread was done until this troll turns up;-

Good_Goose wrote: »

Only take the loan if you dont love your father. Sorry to sound harsh but if you need a guarantor you cant afford the loan!!

It's rude, it's insensitive, it's plain dumb. I can only assume it's a deliberate troll.

Apples2 wrote: »

You ARE abusing your fathers position, even to the point that you have somehow convinced yourself it is in HIS best interest.
Truly cringeworthy reading, shameful.

So, knowing nothing about my situation you're as rude as possible. And you're moaning about one humorous put down of a deliberate troll?
For your information, my father does very well paid, contract design work for my company. As I've mention above. In my very first post I intimated the connection. I'm also using a friends building company that I do some work for to renovate his house where he can't afford to. Both of these things stop if I go out of business. Hence the comment about personal and financial gain. You've not only commented from a position of ignorance you've made a scathing personal attack based on sweet fa. I'm going to hold my tongue as to my opinions of you as rudeness even when well deserve appears to annoy people here.

Suffice to say, the only things I found "Truly cringeworthy reading, shameful." in what was an otherwise brilliant thread full of help and advice is you, and the original troll.

If you'd like some advice on basic forum etiquette (and I mean universally, not just this forum) I can point you in the direction of some reading but it basically comes down to;- "if you don't have anything useful to contribute, please don't"

start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9q2jNjOPdk

redpete wrote: »

One of my pet hates is someone who is so pleasant and grateful for advice that doesn't offend them but immediately reacts with unnecessary rudeness to advice that they don't like (which even if it isn't dressed up in the fluffy bunny sentiment of some boards is still valid).

Apologies if I've offended you, however, this;-

Good_Goose wrote: »

Only take the loan if you dont love your father.

Isn't advice. It's not contrary to anything without making sense.

If it had been contrary advice it would have been read, digested and possibly debated. It wasn't. I made a joke out of it. Admittedly I might have been a little harsh but I've got some serious drama in my life at the moment and I asked for advice on a financial matter relating to credit ratings vs interest rates. I did not ask for the Gerry Springer show.

Stone_Fox

And just to clarify for anyone else struggling to read between the lines.

No, I'm not going ahead with the guarantor loan. The math simply doesn't make sense as I explained on page 1 and thanked the helpful person. I may discuss the matter of him taking out a loan (as advised by several helpful people on page one, commenting on the matter at hand not making rude assumptions about my personal life), but it's a sensible financial conversation between intelligent adults about facts. I'd prefer if people kept their own emotional shortcomings out of it and stop insulting my family.

If any financial transaction does take place it'll be well documented between us and the reason I'm not worried about besmirching his credit rating is I expect to be able to pay the loan back in full within 2-3 months depending on 2 particular clients invoicing turn around.

One other thing I'd like to clarify is the bad credit history. One was a temper tantrum with a phone company;- I was sure I'd been miss-sold a contract but had no proof so I refused to pay the bill. I think it's a CCJ but over the 9 years it's been outstanding it's stayed on my credit record as it's sold from debt company to debt company for increasingly smaller amounts. They're all still writing to an old address and none of them have ever had any contact.

The other is quite shameful, but it's a similar age and it was me not bothering to notify a finance company I owed 1500 to when I moved abroad for work. Similar story on the credit history.

HappyMJ

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Ermmm CCJ's are NEVER statute barred. They can be enforced for all time one they have got a CCJ.

They can only be enforced for 6 years. The creditor would have to go back to the court to get further enforcement action taken and it's unlikely to go through if it's been more than 6 years since the CCJ was granted. The money is always owed and would be repayable out of the estate of someone once they died if they had been refusing to pay and avoiding the creditor. It's quite easy to refuse to pay especially if a debtor is not a home owner.

Stone_Fox

HappyMJ wrote: »

They can only be enforced for 6 years. The creditor would have to go back to the court to get further enforcement action taken and it's unlikely to go through if it's been more than 6 years since the CCJ was granted. The money is always owed and would be repayable out of the estate of someone once they died if they had been refusing to pay and avoiding the creditor. It's quite easy to refuse to pay especially if a debtor is not a home owner.

Exactly what I thought, however, 9 years on they're still there. I seem to recall some legislation a few years back allowing the renewal under certain circumstance (like the debt changing ownership) I'm going to try and dig it up but I'm starting a thread for it somewhere else. This thread has descended into madness, the wailing and gnashing of teeth. >.<

tinkerbell28

HappyMJ wrote: »

They can only be enforced for 6 years. Indeed The creditor would have to go back to the court to get further enforcement action taken yep and it's unlikely to go through if it's been more than 6 years since the CCJ was granted. That is pure conjecture The money is always owed yes it is and would be repayable out of the estate of someone once they died if they had been refusing to pay and avoiding the creditor. It's quite easy to refuse to pay especially if a debtor is not a home owner again pure conjecture.

So what part of my statement was wrong? CCJ's are NEVER statute barred. They can be enforced for all time if the creditor goes to court after 6 years to "renew".

So that was a lot of old waffle for nothing really/

Stone_Fox

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

So what part of my statement was wrong? CCJ's are NEVER statute barred. They can be enforced for all time if the creditor goes to court after 6 years to "renew".

So that was a lot of old waffle for nothing really/

I *think* (don't moan if I'm wrong) that her point is that they never get court renewed. She said it doesn't happen, I assume because whatever low rent debt agency is holding the ticket after 6 years won't have the original signed credit agreement or even half the details they'd need.

In other news, I have a lovely saucer of milk here as penance from my earlier remarks. Would you like to share?

HappyMJ

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

So what part of my statement was wrong? CCJ's are NEVER statute barred. They can be enforced for all time if the creditor goes to court after 6 years to "renew".

So that was a lot of old waffle for nothing really/

The court will not allow a creditor to renew a CCJ if nothing has been paid and no enforcement action has been taken. The court will not allow enforcement action to be taken if nothing has been done for 6 years...therefore unenforceable and your last sentence saying enforceable for all time is incorrect.

Tixy

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

CCJ's are NEVER statute barred. They can be enforced for all time if the creditor goes to court after 6 years to "renew".
/

A judge won't automatically let a creditor enforce action after 6 years if they go back to court.
The creditor would be expected to provide a good reason as to why they had not enforced the judgement within the first 6years, if they are unable to convince the judge that there was a good reason for not enforcing then the judge is quite likely not to allow them to take further enforcement action.

None of that changes that the debt is still owed, but can change the likelihood of the creditor being successfully able to recover the debt.

tinkerbell28

Stone_Fox wrote: »

I *think* (don't moan if I'm wrong) that her point is that they never get court renewed. She said it doesn't happen, I assume because whatever low rent debt agency is holding the ticket after 6 years won't have the original signed credit agreement or even half the details they'd need.

In other news, I have a lovely saucer of milk here as penance from my earlier remarks. Would you like to share?

No I'm filing my nails, I mean claws.