Petition to stop DCAs buying your data for unsecured debt at pence in the pound and a

storm01

Hiya Sazzie23, no you're NOT, lol...the whole issues surrounding debt is complex and ignore any non-supportive people!


Basically, some people's circumstances change, they may once have been very good payers, but then maybe comes a time when they have exhausted all avenues and simply can't pay the original bank or credit card company, there are some dedicated groups of people that might help, if you have some money to pay smaller payments BUT there are many people that simply have nothing to pay with, so starts the long old rough road, where the original bank or credit card company chases, sets debt collectors (but still owns the debt), that fails (as people can't pay anything). It then gets defaulted, which makes the whole outstanding sum due (but they might consider a payment plan, though still having no spare money won't resolve).
Further down the line, the banks and credit card companies sell the unpaid debt to debt purchasers/debt collection companies that then 'own' the debt. This is the big issue, it is the law surrounding that causing problems. Many of these companies are heavy handed, they have bought multiple accounts at a very cheap rate, yet charge the full original outstanding balance, they demand, phone, write, send doorstep collectors, 'threaten' to take legal action OR they DO take legal action. The worse ones will 'serve' a Statutory Demand and some then go on to utilise that, with a Bankruptcy petition, it is nasty! They aren't supposed to misuse this process for general debt collection, but they do and they flout many other rules, you will read lots on this over time.


This e-petition is set up to try to get 100,000 people to sign, if that figure is met, then it might get to The House Of Commons. The subject matter is to change the very particular law, that lets these debt purchasers buy the long lists of debts from banks and credit card companies for pennies in the pound and in effect they CAN go to court or make people bankrupt (if they win) when they didn't even pay out the full amount they claim and at the time the banks sell, it is a big argument, but the bank terminates the original agreement and claims for their losses via tax or insurance. But we don't easily find out how much these companies pay, but we DO know that as in my example (only)...a debt needs to be above £750 to be made bankrupt, now if a debt buyer goes to court and says you owe them £750, they have likely only paid a small percentage, so it is morally wrong, they MIGHT be making 900% profit (without facts, can't say) as in if they pay 10% of outstanding balance and charge the whole amount you owed a bank, they make big profits out of you. So only for example they pay £75 for that original debt of £750, the law lets them use the bankruptcy process, someone can lose their home if they own one but otherwise bankruptcy is invasive on anyone...and yet they never paid £750 and you didn't agree to deal with them, let alone owe them due to them and your bank deciding, without your permission, barring the little smallprint on the credit agreement, if they have a legally binding one, there is normally a clause saying debt can be assigned.
We are arguing that the law needs changing because these companies are purely out to make big profit from poor and vulnerable people. (Set aside the won't pays, set aside the fact you borrowed from the bank and couldn't pay it). It is the moral and principal that an old law allows the court to be used, a debt buyer to stand there and say you owe them up to 10 times (estimate) what they paid and nothing to defend the person that has been forced into the situation.


As I read somewhere (assuming facts) someone in court caught a glimpse of where a debt buyer paid £95 for a £15000 debt, so why should they get away with it.


Hope this helps, but obvs do your own research on here and elsewhere. At the end of the day, it is a mammoth task and unless the numbers reach target, the Govt. won't look at it. Plus if numbers are met and they have other reason not to hear it in House Of Commons, they still won't LOL.

Sazzie23 wrote: »

All right then, so I'm thick and uninformed, please educate me, perhaps by examples, of what happens if say, I have a debt which is passed to a DcA.

Then I can decide whether or not to sign. Clearly there are some strongly held opposing views, and I'm not sure I understand yet.

Thanks

Sazzie23

OK brilliant thanks, appreciate time & effort put into that post. I think I'm getting it. Is the argument that its not that people want to avoid paying, but that DCA shouldn't be able to bankrupt someone when they didn't pay the full price for the debt? Could the original creditor bankrupt someone for the debt though anyway? Not trying to be a devils advocate, just trying to be clearer. Or have I got the wrong slant on this ?

storm01

Hiya
There is a lot lot more to it all.


Yes the banks and credit card companies could make you bankrupt, they can also go for CCJ etc, but for some time, they have employed chasers/debt collectors for a few months, then eventually gone quiet...before selling to a DCA/purchasing company. Of course the Debt buyer can go for CCJ and some do, others can't go through court as they know they don't have all the paperwork, if it is really old or the original agreement was flawed (this applied to pre-2006 in special cases where some agreements weren't enforceable in a court, so if taken out before then) but some still went to court with iffy ones, it was up to the judge on the day. BUT we're simply focussing on the morality and how it makes no sense that this loophole allows dodgy DCA/debt buyers to get away with it all. I know so many people can't pay their banks and credit cards, but at least they DID borrow from them as in mutual agreement, these DCAs are purely out for BIG profit (yes the credit cards and banks are out for significant but different) and to prey on people, they didn't give us any service, they just push the boundaries on threats, trickery and break too many rules. The odd DCA might be more helpful in arranging a plan, but others are thugs

Sazzie23 wrote: »

OK brilliant thanks, appreciate time & effort put into that post. I think I'm getting it. Is the argument that its not that people want to avoid paying, but that DCA shouldn't be able to bankrupt someone when they didn't pay the full price for the debt? Could the original creditor bankrupt someone for the debt though anyway? Not trying to be a devils advocate, just trying to be clearer. Or have I got the wrong slant on this ?

BillJones

scaredofdebt wrote: »

parasite
ˈparəsʌɪt
noun
1.
an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

2.
derogatory
a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Both of these would better describe the borrower who spends the money and doesn't repay it than it would describe the people expecting them to honour the agreement.

This is such an ill thought out petition. What do the petitioners think would happen if the change was brought in? You'd either be denied credit in the first place, when you needed it, or the banks themselves would just us in-house agencies to pursue the debt. Is that really what you want?

Hanky_Panky

storm01 wrote: »

Hiya
There is a lot lot more to it all.


Yes the banks and credit card companies could make you bankrupt, they can also go for CCJ etc, but for some time, they have employed chasers/debt collectors for a few months, then eventually gone quiet...before selling to a DCA/purchasing company. Of course the Debt buyer can go for CCJ and some do, others can't go through court as they know they don't have all the paperwork, if it is really old or the original agreement was flawed (this applied to pre-2006 in special cases where some agreements weren't enforceable in a court, so if taken out before then) but some still went to court with iffy ones, it was up to the judge on the day. BUT we're simply focussing on the morality and how it makes no sense that this loophole allows dodgy DCA/debt buyers to get away with it all. I know so many people can't pay their banks and credit cards, but at least they DID borrow from them as in mutual agreement, these DCAs are purely out for BIG profit (yes the credit cards and banks are out for significant but different) and to prey on people, they didn't give us any service, they just push the boundaries on threats, trickery and break too many rules. The odd DCA might be more helpful in arranging a plan, but others are thugs

So in your world - what should happen to the outstanding debt ?

Hanky_Panky

BillJones wrote: »

Both of these would better describe the borrower who spends the money and doesn't repay it than it would describe the people expecting them to honour the agreement.

This is such an ill thought out petition. What do the petitioners think would happen if the change was brought in? You'd either be denied credit in the first place, when you needed it, or the banks themselves would just us in-house agencies to pursue the debt. Is that really what you want?

I agree - there are already mechanisms in place for the borrower including going bankrupt themselves which is much cheaper for them.

Lenders would hardly lend to anyone if they didn't have recourse to cut their losses and move on.

iolanthe07

Someone in court caught a glimpse of where a debt buyer paid £95 for a £15000 debt, so why should they get away with it.

Why should borrowers get away with not paying back what they owe, even if the debt has been assigned?