Irresponsible Question Time - What happens if I just decide not to pay?

agrinnall

chattychappy wrote: »

Lots of moralising on this thread, but a notable absence of those coming on saying they were sued. I certainly know those with written-off debts that were never litigated.

If you think expecting people to pay back their debts is moralising then yes, I'm guilty of moralising. And I'd rather be that than advocate running up debt with the intention of never paying it off, which seems to be to be your position. I'm quite surprised that you take that stance, and to be honest disappointed - I'll be taking your posts with a large pinch of salt in future.

enthusiasticsaver

Refusing to pay debts even though you can afford it is theft pure and simple. I can't see how anyone could look at it any differently. Hopefully the OP will never get credit again even if he is not taken to court.

chattychappy

agrinnall wrote: »

If you think expecting people to pay back their debts is moralising then yes, I'm guilty of moralising. And I'd rather be that than advocate running up debt with the intention of never paying it off, which seems to be to be your position.

Not at all, that's not my position.

I thought the OP asked an interesting question - the extent to which CCs enforce debts if you simply stop paying off your debts. I didn't see many answers that addressed the question, particularly from personal experience of being sued/not sued.

I know the moral position. I know the legal position in respect of what CCs can do. Most of the "answers" addressed these points. I've sued people myself, obtained charging orders etc. But I was interested in what CCs do in practice.

muhandis

chattychappy wrote: »

The reality is that AFAIK few judgments related to this kind of debt are enforced in the EU (or even the UK for that matter), so perhaps it won't make any difference.

Lots of moralising on this thread, but a notable absence of those coming on saying they were sued. I certainly know those with written-off debts that were never litigated.

Exactly.

I definitely DO NOT recommend defaulting on debt if you can afford to repay it.

But going by the posts I think people have very unrealistic expectations of how rigorously unsecured consumer debt is dealt with in this country and how extortionately expensive and risky (reputation wise) it is for mainstream lenders to chase debt.

They're running a business and the high rate charged by credit cards reflects the risk they take. After a certain point, they will sell the debt on at a fraction of its price to firms who will do the same further down the food chain if they can't make any progress on recovery.

I know of many people who defaulted on debt (credit cards, mobile phone contracts, utilities, etc) in the carelessness of their youth and are now leading normal lives with a mortgage and other forms of credit. In *some* situations (definitely not the OP's) it is better to default and start afresh rather than get into more and more debt trying to service debt+interest+fees which quickly add up.

Again, the OP's situation appears contrived and a wind up. If the situation he describes does indeed exist, I would recommend that he not default on his commitments as it appears that he can easily afford to repay.

agrinnall

chattychappy wrote: »

Not at all, that's not my position.

I thought the OP asked an interesting question - the extent to which CCs enforce debts if you simply stop paying off your debts. I didn't see many answers that addressed the question, particularly from personal experience of being sued/not sued.

I know the moral position. I know the legal position in respect of what CCs can do. Most of the "answers" addressed these points. I've sued people myself, obtained charging orders etc. But I was interested in what CCs do in practice.

OK, given what I've seen of your posting history over the years I accept that. So perhaps you should not have used the term 'moralising' in a way that made it seem like a bad thing, because I and many others (and perhaps even you) don't think that it is.

chattychappy

agrinnall wrote: »

OK, given what I've seen of your posting history over the years I accept that. So perhaps you should not have used the term 'moralising' in a way that made it seem like a bad thing, because I and many others (and perhaps even you) don't think that it is.

Yep, perhaps not the best choice of word. I've reworded my post. I think it's fair game for posters to express their moral/ethical view when people submit a post as the OP did. I also think it's fair to refrain from answering questions if it might encourage or facilitate people to break the law or behave unethically.

My personal view is that of course it's wrong to run up debts you have no intention of paying. I wish the courts were used more often when people don't pay their debts (for whatever reason). Repayment plans, mediation etc., would all then have an element of judicial oversight. Where there are judgments, this information would then be publically available - useful for all those considering entering into business with people, not just lenders.

As it is, the court system is hopelessly inefficient and a raft of consumer protection makes suing an undesirable option. CRAs are, in effect, an alternative. It's as if the industry has just "opted out" of the judicial system for the most part and set up their own parallel structure. Businesses that normally compete with each other cooperate to share information about their customers. In any other industry this would be considered anti-competitive/cartel. Forgetting to pay your Barclaycard can stop you getting an MBNA card. Or even a dispute with one provider could stop you getting credit elsewhere. There is no judicial oversight (except perhaps the ICO/FOS)- no independant "judgment" is necessary before negative information is recorded about you and shared amongst the "cartel".

Anyway, I digress!

agrinnall

chattychappy wrote: »

Yep, perhaps not the best choice of word. I've reworded my post. I think it's fair game for posters to express their moral/ethical view when people submit a post as the OP did. I also think it's fair to refrain from answering questions if it might encourage or facilitate people to break the law or behave unethically.

A good example of how reasoned discussion leads to agreement between the disputing parties.

"It's good to talk!" (Hoskins, R., 1995)

:beer:

adnanjanuzaj

OP here - update time.

First of all, not on a windup. What I am considering doing is irresponsible, I agree (see title of thread). But I don't consider it stealing - the credit card company chose to lend me the money, that was their decision? If they really want, I can pay £1 a week for the next 192 years.

Anyway, I've reached a point in my life where I'd rather have the 10k to blow on actually living and deal with whatever consequences arise later. It appears I am not like 99.9% of people as I don't care about credit ratings, mortgages, debt, bankruptcy. All I care about is not paying back the £10k and avoiding any serious problems (taken to court, sued, kidknapped) caused by that decision.

My credit rating by the way has been decreasing for the past 6 months due to high exposure on this card (10k limit with 9.8k debt). Again, don't care. However, interesting email arrived this week announcing they are happy to tell me my credit limit has been increased to 11k. They must have noticed I stopped using my card since I maxed it out? Irresponsible lending, anybody?

walesrob

adnanjanuzaj wrote: »

Irresponsible lending, anybody?

Irresponsible borrowing? Now there's a thought.

agrinnall

adnanjanuzaj wrote: »

All I care about is not paying back the £10k and avoiding any serious problems (taken to court, sued, kidknapped) caused by that decision.

But you will be taken to court, where do you think a County Court Judgement is issued?