Bankruptcy for the 2nd time

dippydora_2

JoeHel wrote: »

Thanks for highlighting my post and it's true - I didn't expect the level of support I received as a creditor but you're right, a lot of people on here are just supportive of anyone who has been "done over" financially, whichever side of the fence they are on! I was very upset by Malestrom's comments though. My OH is schizophrenic and the resulting depression from having both legs in plaster and being unable to work made him a recluse for nearly 3 years, unable to leave the house. I have worked myself into the ground with overtime to cover our bills but still had to use credit cards for day to day expenses. Now my OH has finally gone back to work and is so much better, we've cut up the cards and we're paying everything back but the £21k award would make life a whole lot easier. Creditors aren't always big financial organisations who can swallow the losses and increase their interest rates to claw it back elsewhere. Sometimes Joe Public loses out to bankruptcy too.

Goodluck with the fight for the payout. I shall watch with interest, keep us informed,
It seems like the system is letting people down on both sides, ultimately we all want to be able to pay our way (without huge amounts of interest) and to be paid for what is rightfully ours.

JoeHel

betterlatethannever wrote: »

I for one, have never really thought about the 'little man', I always assumed all creditors were big companies with money to write off and the means to carry on.
Bankruptcy can become a chain reaction thast ends up with innocent people at the bottom of the list suffering.
I'm sure thats what Malestrom meant with his comment (though feel free to correct me if i'm wrong)

I'm sure that's how most people think but sometimes there are genuine people owed money and, from our perspective, bankruptcy does look like a cop out in this situation! Mind you, once the official receiver has checked out the legislation we've quoted her she will hopefully agee that my OH's personal injury claim will NOT be discharged with the other bankruptcy debts and we can hound this pig for our money for the next 5 years. My only regret will be that I'm not a fly on the wall when he's told that £47k of his £80k debts won't disappear!! If it IS included in the bankruptcy our other option is to petition for the bankruptcy not to be discharged. An insolvency solicitor friend knows a case where someone has been kept bankrupt for 18 years. This guy would deserve it. Anyway, I'll keep posting updates on my other thread with how it's going!

dippydora - best of luck with getting what you are owed too. Yet another deserving creditor who is not a huge organisation and cannot afford to lose this money. The system fails us miserably!

rog2

dippydora wrote: »

I may just do that Rog2
wish me luck!!!

I most certainly will - and do. :beer:

seven-day-weekend

rog2 wrote: »

The MAJORITY of posters, on this board, have CONSISTENTLY criticised the 'professional' bankrupt. By that I mean the person that either goes all out to 'rip off' the financial institutions by running up huge debts with absolutely no intention of ever paying them back and then choosing 'bankruptcy' as an easy option in order to put two fingers up to their creditors. Equally the same justifiable criticism has been made of those who hide behind a small limited company that will take deposits from unsuspecting customers, yet not deliver the goods, but declare bankruptcy after having carefully salted away all liquid assetts, only to start again, under a different name, offering the same products, often from the same building.
Now, I can't think of anyone who posts on this forum as falling into either of those categories, although we have, from time to time, had the odd poster who has 'boasted' about the ease of bankruptcy - needless to say those people don't stay around for very long.
For most of us, bankruptcy has either been forced on us, usually by circumstances over which we have had little or no control or influence. For many it has been the result of unhearing financial institutions who have been happy to make vast profits out of customers, yet are unprepared to stand by them when they encounter difficulties - irrespective of whether those difficulties could have been solved by greater flexibility on the part of creditors.
It is, to me at least, obvious that bloomsberg's wife is just as much the victim as the cause - a Financial Institution (LTSB) driven by greed has siezed on a potential debtor who, due to her previous bankruptcy, was a vulnerable, but easy target. LTSB would have known of her previous bankruptcy, yet they continued to increase the amount of credit available to her - it actually beggars belief, but anyone who has had a credit card will appreciate just how easy it is to increase your credit limit - either by a quick phone call, or, more often, the limit is automatically increased as the credit card holder approaches his/her spending limit. LTSB's approach has been, to say the least, irresponsible.
I also find it difficult to be over critical of bloomberg's wife for having kept the true extent of her debts from him - it is bad enough having to face bankruptcy once, but to have to face up to the apparent fact that she had not 'learnt her lesson' by incurring more 'unmanageable debt' so soon afterwards, must have been truly daunting.
I believe, therefore, that whilst the second bankruptcy will be the best solution in this case, it is a great pity that LTSB will walk away virtually unscathed from the whole affair. Please do not, anyone, ask me to feel any sympathy whatsoever for the fact that they will not receive any of the £5k debt that has been built up as a result of their own incompetence.
Bloomsberg, as well as his wife, now have to confront bankruptcy for a second time in less than three years. We all know how traumatic the experience can be, and just how much we have all relied on forums like this to help us through that experience.
Bloomsberg, and his wife, need our support, now, more than ever, and that level of support should not be influenced by posters who have not taken the time to check the facts before making judgemental assumptions.
Sorry to have gone on a bit, but you did ask.

rog2

I've edited my original post as it sounded a bit judgemental and I have no wish to do that. I was just puzzled that the lady would get into debt again as I thought she would be relieved to be out of it the first time. But I suppose the bank offering her the money is like buying an alcoholic a drink? (Trying to understand here, genuinely).

Just remembered last September I helped my son to open a savings account with Lloyds TSB (he is 27 but has Aspergers Syndrome and can't get his head round what to him are complex financial matters). While we were there we upgraded his current account as the perks that came with the £10 a month charge actually were beneficial to my son. The guy said would he like a card with the account and my son, thinking it was a debit card, said he would. I was suspicious and asked if it was a credit card and the guy said it was. Now my son, knowing his limitations, has never had a credit card and I pointed out to him that he'd always said he never wanted one. But for some reason he didn't want to upset the guy from the bank so he said he'd have it. As soon as we got out of the bank he said he wouldn't register the card and would cut it up as soon as it came (which I'm very glad to say he did).

BUT.....if I had not have been there, he would never have known it was a credit card. The bank never told him. So he would have used it, thinking it was a debit card. And also, some people, even knowing it was a credit card, would find the temptation to spend on it too great. Also, my son didn't want to say no to the guy at the bank. So I can actually see how easy it is for people who are not financially savvy to get into debt, sometimes without realising that they are doing so.

The bank imho should not have offered my son a credit card as his income is small from a part-time job on minimum wage.

So on reflection I can see how this poor lady has got into the problem again and would like to say what a nice husband she has for supporting her through it.

wherediditallgo

I'm so glad you edited your original post, because it meant I could edit what was going to be my reply to it.

When applications for credit are made, credit providers usually don't know the person - they just have a credit file to go by. Once we're over the age of 18, the magic word "credit" comes into our lives, largely uninvited. From being offered your first store card by someone at the till, the potential for getting credit seems endless. It doesn't seem to matter to the companies how you pay as long as you do pay, & to a certain extent the customer who pays monthly or just makes the minimum payment is their ideal, since those are the people they make the most money from. Once I became BR, I realised the credit file is exactly that - a file that (a) reads what it reads on a particular day depending on who's put what in it, & (b) can be incorrect, but will stay that way until & unless you manage to get it corrected. By no means does the credit file mean the person is creditworthy - it just means they've managed to pay their bills (however they've managed to do it) for the time being. It certainly doesn't mean the person has taken on the credit knowing what they're doing & is able to make sound financial decisions. It's only because you know your son that you know what he's capable of, but the bank don't know (& I suspect don't particularly care until the sh*t hits the fan). As you rightly say, but for you being there & able to explain things to him properly, he would have taken a credit card he didn't want & could have ended up with credit & debts he could do without.

It's the same for Bloomsberg's wife. She's not good with money - she knows that, Bloomsberg knows that, & her credit file reflected her past problems. The file isn't a fail-safe method by which to judge whether to give credit, but it does provide info that the creditor possibly wouldn't get any other way, such as how many times they've defaulted on payments to other creditors, how many times they've moved home, etc. If a credit provider is given the info & then chooses to ignore it, they can't put all the blame on the creditor for not being able to meet the resulting bills. I don't think I'll be applying for a credit card as long as my heart keeps beating, but I'm also hoping that if anyone such as a mail order catalogue thinks of increasing my credit limit (as opposed to me asking them to do it), they'll first take a look at my credit file & decide not to bother.

rog2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I've edited my original post as it sounded a bit judgemental and I have no wish to do that.

I, too, am pleased that you edited your original post. I had, initially, lookeed at it last night, when you posted, and was tempted to reply to the effect that the post was, indeed, judgemental and, therefore, unhelpfull to the OP.
However, as I have read several of your previous posts, I simply could not believe that you were 'trolling' this forum, so decided to sleep on it, before posting a reply.
So thank you for clarifying your views and thank you, wdiag, for your eloquent answer - I could not have put it better - well said.

wok_boy

I didn't even have any credit cards until 2 years ago, always being rejected, then I got a credit card with Barclaycard and Halifax, the credit limits weren't huge but enough for me to eventually struggle to pay them off. As soon as I'm out of BR and 6 years down the line, I'm not going to look at credit ever again. As with regards to property I would have no problem in renting for the rest of my life than have the "ball and chain" of a mortgage at my age.

moyilla

I am due to move back next Easter and am petrified of trying to rent it out once they are evicted, in case I cannot get back in or someone does the same thing again, as I now no longer trust reference or credit checks, but I cannot afford not to. Argggghh[/quote]

As I am bankrupt I cannot now go through a letting/estate agent for a home due to credit references etc. I can pay and have excellent references and rental payment history.

I have now just secured a new rental privately, this was due to the landlord speaking to my neighbors about myself and my family and obtaining written personal references.

Just because a credit check cannot be passed does not mean that the person is a bad one. I feel that credit checks should not be used to judge a person, whatever happened to one to one where you could get to know a person rather than judge them on a printout

Sorry if this is off topic but thought it might give dippydora some ideas about future tenants???

rog2

dippydora wrote: »

I only pray that they do not wreck my home when they leave, I am due to move back next Easter and am petrified of trying to rent it out once they are evicted, in case I cannot get back in or someone does the same thing again, as I now no longer trust reference or credit checks, but I cannot afford not to. Argggghh

It may, or may not be possible in your case DD, but when my Daughter rented out her house, in Warrington, she did it through an agent that guaranteed a monthly 'rental' whether the house was occupied or not - in her case it did not matter, because the house was rented out for the whole period that she was away, but it's just a thought - perhaps some of your local agents have the same lettings agreements?
One other possibility - some local councils will guarantee rent, and take responsibility for the upkeep and condition of a house if you rent it to them, and they subsequently sub-let it to someone on the housing register.

wherediditallgo

rog2 wrote: »

One other possibility - some local councils will guarantee rent, and take responsibility for the upkeep and condition of a house if you rent it to them, and they subsequently sub-let it to someone on the housing register.

That's a very good point, Rog. One of my friends inherited a house when her father died. She could charge a lot of rent for it on the private market, but she didn't want the aggro that could come with people not paying the rent, damaging the property etc. She's let it through a housing association - she gets less for it & is tied into a 3-year agreement, but the rent is guaranteed for all of that time whether someone's in the property or not. The housing association will also decorate it to the same standard it was in when they got it, & replace any furniture like for like.

It's worth considering, DD - a guaranteed rent is better than no rent at all. Try the bigger housing associations, as they usually have a department that deals with acquisitions (staff who deal specifically with taking on property from private landlords).