Irresponsible lending on account in default

y3sitsm3

Deleted_User said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Finallyfacingup2 said:

Sourcrates thank you so much for your helpful advice. I assume that if I settle at 20% and then the claim is upheld then the debt is already settled so any refund would come to myself. The other 80% wouldn’t be deducted?

No.

You're muddying the waters significantly by trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You only have two choices, settle at 20% and walk away or go ahead with the complaint and roll the dice. 

Actually.... If the lender sells on the debt and has no clawback rights, and the debt buyer settles as a %, it's not impossible that the complaint could succeed and the original lender has to pay it out. There were a few PPI complaints like this where cards were long closed and sold onto debt collectors, then a PPI complaint was done against the original lender who had sold on the debt and they had to pay out. The FOS actually covers this on their site (for PPI) where a lender has accepted the money from the debt buyer as the final stage before closing the loan on their books.

But if the debt was sold on to a third party and it cannot be bought back, or the business chooses not to buy it back, we might take a slightly different approach. That is because the consumer does not owe the business money - it owes money to the third party that bought the debt instead. When selling the debt the business made a commercial decision and accepted an agreeable price for the debt. In those circumstances, we would usually tell the business to calculate the compensation as normal at the point it sold on the debt - and to pay all parts of the compensation to the consumer. The business should also consider the possibility that the consumer might have incurred further losses since the debt was sold on as a result of PPI being included on their debt.

In this case, as I have pointed out twice now, credit cards are not "irresponsible lending", as no money was lent. The OP might have spent more than they could afford, but that is irresponsible spending not lending

That doesn't extinguish the debt, and I find it "farfetched" that you don't see that.

[Deleted User]

y3sitsm3 said:

Deleted_User said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Finallyfacingup2 said:

Sourcrates thank you so much for your helpful advice. I assume that if I settle at 20% and then the claim is upheld then the debt is already settled so any refund would come to myself. The other 80% wouldn’t be deducted?

No.

You're muddying the waters significantly by trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You only have two choices, settle at 20% and walk away or go ahead with the complaint and roll the dice. 

Actually.... If the lender sells on the debt and has no clawback rights, and the debt buyer settles as a %, it's not impossible that the complaint could succeed and the original lender has to pay it out. There were a few PPI complaints like this where cards were long closed and sold onto debt collectors, then a PPI complaint was done against the original lender who had sold on the debt and they had to pay out. The FOS actually covers this on their site (for PPI) where a lender has accepted the money from the debt buyer as the final stage before closing the loan on their books.

But if the debt was sold on to a third party and it cannot be bought back, or the business chooses not to buy it back, we might take a slightly different approach. That is because the consumer does not owe the business money - it owes money to the third party that bought the debt instead. When selling the debt the business made a commercial decision and accepted an agreeable price for the debt. In those circumstances, we would usually tell the business to calculate the compensation as normal at the point it sold on the debt - and to pay all parts of the compensation to the consumer. The business should also consider the possibility that the consumer might have incurred further losses since the debt was sold on as a result of PPI being included on their debt.

In this case, as I have pointed out twice now, credit cards are not "irresponsible lending", as no money was lent. The OP might have spent more than they could afford, but that is irresponsible spending not lending

That doesn't extinguish the debt, and I find it "farfetched" that you don't see that.

Did you even read the FOS decision?

If the bank sells on the debt, without the right to take it back, that is the END OF THE DEBT with the bank. They have accepted a partial sum from the debt buyer as a commercial decision and closed off the case. The debt NO LONGER EXISTS with the bank.

The FOS decision literally explains this, that if they have sold on the debt without being able to take it back, they cannot use any  refund to offset against the debt.

There is nothing to see except the fact I've shown you're wrong and you want to keep arguing

Oh and if you want a second opinion, here's the rules from the Insolvency service

31.9A.82 Action where cheques in respect of PPI compensation received by official receiver (amended August 2013)

Where there is no outstanding debt or mutual dealings at the date of the bankruptcy order, then there is no right of set-off, and any further enquiries will not be necessary, for example if the debt has been repaid prior to bankruptcy, or if the debt has been sold on to a third party (see paragraph 31.9A.83).

 

31.9A.83 Loan sold on by financial institution

If the lender sells or assigns the debt to a third party prior to the date of the bankruptcy order, this ends the right of set-off as there is no mutuality at the date of the bankruptcy order. This is because once the debt is assigned or sold, the debt is outstanding to a different party (the assignee) to that owing compensation (the lender).

y3sitsm3

Deleted_User said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Deleted_User said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Finallyfacingup2 said:

Sourcrates thank you so much for your helpful advice. I assume that if I settle at 20% and then the claim is upheld then the debt is already settled so any refund would come to myself. The other 80% wouldn’t be deducted?

No.

You're muddying the waters significantly by trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You only have two choices, settle at 20% and walk away or go ahead with the complaint and roll the dice. 

Actually.... If the lender sells on the debt and has no clawback rights, and the debt buyer settles as a %, it's not impossible that the complaint could succeed and the original lender has to pay it out. There were a few PPI complaints like this where cards were long closed and sold onto debt collectors, then a PPI complaint was done against the original lender who had sold on the debt and they had to pay out. The FOS actually covers this on their site (for PPI) where a lender has accepted the money from the debt buyer as the final stage before closing the loan on their books.

But if the debt was sold on to a third party and it cannot be bought back, or the business chooses not to buy it back, we might take a slightly different approach. That is because the consumer does not owe the business money - it owes money to the third party that bought the debt instead. When selling the debt the business made a commercial decision and accepted an agreeable price for the debt. In those circumstances, we would usually tell the business to calculate the compensation as normal at the point it sold on the debt - and to pay all parts of the compensation to the consumer. The business should also consider the possibility that the consumer might have incurred further losses since the debt was sold on as a result of PPI being included on their debt.

In this case, as I have pointed out twice now, credit cards are not "irresponsible lending", as no money was lent. The OP might have spent more than they could afford, but that is irresponsible spending not lending

That doesn't extinguish the debt, and I find it "farfetched" that you don't see that.

Did you even read the FOS decision?

If the bank sells on the debt, without the right to take it back, that is the END OF THE DEBT with the bank. They have accepted a partial sum from the debt buyer as a commercial decision and closed off the case. The debt NO LONGER EXISTS with the bank.

The FOS decision literally explains this, that if they have sold on the debt without being able to take it back, they cannot use any  refund to offset against the debt.

There is nothing to see except the fact I've shown you're wrong and you want to keep arguing

Oh and if you want a second opinion, here's the rules from the Insolvency service

31.9A.82 Action where cheques in respect of PPI compensation received by official receiver (amended August 2013)

Where there is no outstanding debt or mutual dealings at the date of the bankruptcy order, then there is no right of set-off, and any further enquiries will not be necessary, for example if the debt has been repaid prior to bankruptcy, or if the debt has been sold on to a third party (see paragraph 31.9A.83).

 

31.9A.83 Loan sold on by financial institution

If the lender sells or assigns the debt to a third party prior to the date of the bankruptcy order, this ends the right of set-off as there is no mutuality at the date of the bankruptcy order. This is because once the debt is assigned or sold, the debt is outstanding to a different party (the assignee) to that owing compensation (the lender).

None of this changes anything.

Bank pulls back debt, refunds, sells back to DCA.  The OP doesn't see the refund and is still being chased for the debt.