Do a bit of research before you make snap judgements please!

Toto

If you read the article properly it says he was living within his means until he lost his job. He spent the 50k on trying to pay the bills, not extreme living, but to keep afloat while he looked for another job. Many people find themselves in this position, they keep trying and applying thinking their next job is coming anytime now and they will be able to clear the credit they are using to finance the mortgage, bills and food. Of course, the more you are declined and your financial position becomes worse, the more depressed and hopeless you feel. Then you fnd you can't pay and the financial institutions lay on the threats so things seem even bleaker. It's a vicious circle.

pipkin71

Migz wrote: »

Graham, I see exactly what you are saying, I have been on both sides of this fence, I worked for someone years back who went bankrupt, we turned up for work one monday morning and was told go home, and we never ended up getting paid either, so I know this harms both sides of the scales. For every action there is the equal and oppersite reaction somewhere and all that jazz, but it is how the world works unfortunately, and people get hurt and left in the poo through no fault of their own, and yes it is very hard.
And I agree too with BrokenHearted that the laws perhaps do need changing in many different ways, what I have found most surpriingly out of this whole experence, is in the booklet thats comes from the court that tells you what you can and can't do, it states that after you have gone bankrupt you are not alowed to get more than £500 credit... astounding, I think this made more of a mockery out of what I have just been though than anything, and like you say in a years time, if I so choose to I can go get credit here and there and if I was a person who didn't care and hardn't learnt a very hard lesson, could do what I pleased, and I feel that is wrong, again it goes back to what I said in an earlier post, credit should be harder to obtain in the first place.

Migz

Can I ask.......

Where you say that a BR cannot obtain more than £500 - is that restriction there until they are discharged, or for a period of so many years?

Pipkin xxxx

rog2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This very post is about not making snap judgements. I have not made any of you, or anyone else on this post. You just did.

Please point out where, in any of my posts, in this thread, I have made any 'snap judgement'?

Graham_Devon

Toto wrote: »

If you read the article properly it says he was living within his means until he lost his job. He spent the 50k on trying to pay the bills, not extreme living, but to keep afloat while he looked for another job. Many people find themselves in this position, they keep trying and applying thinking their next job is coming anytime now and they will be able to clear the credit they are using to finance the mortgage, bills and food. Of course, the more you are declined and your financial position becomes worse, the more depressed and hopeless you feel. Then you fnd you can't pay and the financial institutions lay on the threats so things seem even bleaker. It's a vicious circle.

Ok, well I don't bring in anywhere near 100k a year.

Yet I manage to pay a mortgage, pay bills, pay off debts (yes I have a couple of loans) and also have savings.

Now, you could say to me, well why on earth have you got loans if you have savings (savings double the loan). Simple. If I lost the ability to work, I have money in the bank.

Now, on 100k a year, 2 grand a week, or £400 a day whichever way you want to put it, even taking off tax (as I have to pay that too), howcome when he lost his job, he had to create 50k (masses!) of debt?!

It's ok saying he lost his job, therefore got into debt. He had a 500k house, (presumably with equity), I would presume very expensive car, and by god should that man have had some capital in the bank on that amount of money.

What on earth was he spending it on!? Why did he have nothing left at the end of it?! Surely he had assets, otherwise surely he would have thousands in the bank!?

Anyway, this is a pretty extreme example. But I don't really have any sympathy for the man in the slightest. He had bigger chances than all of us on this board get!

rog2

pipkin71 wrote: »

Can I ask.......

Where you say that a BR cannot obtain more than £500 - is that restriction there until they are discharged, or for a period of so many years?

Pipkin xxxx

It's until they are discharged Pk. However, they will find mainstream credit difficult to obtain for 6 years, although not impossible.

Migz

pipkin71 wrote: »

Can I ask.......

Where you say that a BR cannot obtain more than £500 - is that restriction there until they are discharged, or for a period of so many years?

Pipkin xxxx

Actually very good question, one I am sorry to say I'm not sure of, I think that is until you are discharged, but I guess it depends what restrictions are put on an indivual. I just find it amazing, I wont ever go near credit ever again and found it shameless that I could of gone bankrupt in the morning and in the afternoon gone out and found someone somewhere, cos there are companies out there that deal with BR's, I looked it up out of morbid curiosity, and I could of got myself in £500 of debt, surely this needs changing, and if I come over as flippant then I am sorry, but I just sit stunned and numb by it all!!

Migz

Toto

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, well I don't bring in anywhere near 100k a year.

Yet I manage to pay a mortgage, pay bills, pay off debts (yes I have a couple of loans) and also have savings.

Now, you could say to me, well why on earth have you got loans if you have savings (savings double the loan). Simple. If I lost the ability to work, I have money in the bank.

Now, on 100k a year, 2 grand a week, or £400 a day whichever way you want to put it, even taking off tax (as I have to pay that too), howcome when he lost his job, he had to create 50k (masses!) of debt?!

It's ok saying he lost his job, therefore got into debt. He had a 500k house, (presumably with equity), I would presume very expensive car, and by god should that man have had some capital in the bank on that amount of money.

What on earth was he spending it on!? Why did he have nothing left at the end of it?! Surely he had assets, otherwise surely he would have thousands in the bank!?

Anyway, this is a pretty extreme example. But I don't really have any sympathy for the man in the slightest. He had bigger chances than all of us on this board get!

Ok, so his take home pay was about £1250 a week, and yes I presume there was some scope in there for savings etc. But it seemed to go to pot when he divorced, his wife would have had her 50% of the 500k house, the savings, the cars etc. In those circumstances it's pretty easy to end up with nothing isn't it.

Graham_Devon

Toto wrote: »

Ok, so his take home pay was about £1250 a week, and yes I presume there was some scope in there for savings etc. But it seemed to go to pot when he divorced, his wife would have had her 50% of the 500k house, the savings, the cars etc. In those circumstances it's pretty easy to end up with nothing isn't it.

So on that basis, you could assume his wife, also went bankrupt then?

Or anyone who splits up. Many people lose jobs at the same time as a split, many. They should all end up bankrupt too?

Richard_S

Graham,

For arguments sake, imagine that I had a dislike for angling; I’ve picked something neutral so that anything I say can’t be misquoted.

What would be the point of me going onto an angling website and posting on the forum that angling was cruel or damaging to fish and birdlife; a blight on the countryside, and something that should be banned.

There would be absolutely no point; it would only cause heated and pointless arguments, and wouldn’t change anybody’s opinion. I could invite a couple of “easily influenced mates” to back up my arguments and we could have a laugh at how annoyed the anglers got.

That is exactly what you’re doing. You’re not going to change anybody’s mind, and the arguments you make are completely shallow and meaningless. If you really believe in what you say, and that’s really giving you the benefit of the doubt, then try to change the law.

All you’re succeeding in doing, is upsetting some very vulnerable people, and enjoying the fact, that because you’re in a strong financial position, or appear to be, that you can amuse yourselves with people who are not in a position to defend themselves.

If you answer a question honestly for me; I’ll reciprocate: “Why do you enjoy upsetting vulnerable people”?

If you can’t see that that’s all you’re achieving then I’m probably crediting you with too much intelligence.

Richard

pipkin71

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, well I don't bring in anywhere near 100k a year.

Yet I manage to pay a mortgage, pay bills, pay off debts (yes I have a couple of loans) and also have savings.

Now, you could say to me, well why on earth have you got loans if you have savings (savings double the loan). Simple. If I lost the ability to work, I have money in the bank.

Now, on 100k a year, 2 grand a week, or £400 a day whichever way you want to put it, even taking off tax (as I have to pay that too), howcome when he lost his job, he had to create 50k (masses!) of debt?!

It's ok saying he lost his job, therefore got into debt. He had a 500k house, (presumably with equity), I would presume very expensive car, and by god should that man have had some capital in the bank on that amount of money.

What on earth was he spending it on!? Why did he have nothing left at the end of it?! Surely he had assets, otherwise surely he would have thousands in the bank!?

Anyway, this is a pretty extreme example. But I don't really have any sympathy for the man in the slightest. He had bigger chances than all of us on this board get!

the thing with using like for like examples though Graham, would only work if you had the same mortgage, the expensive car etc etc.

If he had a mortgage on an expensive home - a 500k house - then payment on that mortgage would cost way more than yours, so whilst you don't earn as much as he did, you can't say "I manage, so he should", and clearly, if you have loans, then you have perhaps lived beyond your means at some point.

Ok, you have savings that double the loan, but why take out a loan and pay interest on it, if you had the money already. That does not make financial sense.