Do you think 6 years is fair?
Options
Comments
-
Hugely disproportionate for some things, not so much for others
Of course, difficult for lenders to differentiate when it’s simply run through a computer0 -
I would say it is about right. And I know this will not be popular, but I would think there could be arguments for making it longer for habitual defaulters if the only reason for the debts were overspending on holidays, clothes, entertainment.
Clearly it is a different matter if it is illness or suddenly changed living circumstances.Aiming to make £7,500 online in 20220 -
It should be longer. Banks can already pay no attention to old defaults if they want, those calling for it to be for fewer years are in effect saying that they want to hide the facts from a borrower to whom they are applying.
If, as some on here claim, old defaults don’t reflect your behavior now then why the desire to have them gone? If they don’t matter why hide them?0 -
The debt only drop off where they get reported.
The records last a lot longer elsewhere.
Lenders chose from what they can see(which is more than you see) to decide what they will lend. Out to people.
Getting credit won't be a problem, getting a lot will be depending on what's there.0 -
getmore4less wrote: »The debt only drop off where they get reported.
The records last a lot longer elsewhere.
Lenders chose from what they can see(which is more than you see) to decide what they will lend. Out to people.
Getting credit won't be a problem, getting a lot will be depending on what's there.
I quietly think the credit company staff get a buzz out out hitting that 'report it' button:rotfl::j0 -
Shoot me down in flames but I think it's fair.
I think anything less and too many people won't tackle their debt and just wait for it to drop of their files. The cost of borrowing would shoot up and everyone else would have to absorb the cost.Finally Debt Free 24/4/20230 -
It’s perfectly fair, especially for people who purposely don’t pay back their debts in the hope that they’ll just drop off0
-
In my opinion it stunts economic growth and social mobility. Unfortunately we live in a lending society where every level of the economy is in debt. My argument would be yes there needs to be some negative incentive to failed borrowing but this should be much shorter.0
-
Ten years, say, would be a better incentive to deter people from borrowing more than they can realistically afford.I used to think that good grammar is important, but now I know that good wine is importanter.0
-
iolanthe07 wrote: »Ten years, say, would be a better incentive to deter people from borrowing more than they can realistically afford.I work within the voluntary sector, supporting vulnerable people to rebuild their lives.
I love my job0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards