Write off you debts under £15K
Discussion
From 1/4/9 apparently.
As long as you don't own a house, have not more than £300 in assets ( I am presuming they mean in the bank not including everything you own in the world) and have not more than £50 a month in 'disposable income' (which I presume means after paying for Sky, Sunny Delight and ciggies).
I can see the point in terme of the fact that kind of debt with people with so little is probably costing more to keep live than to colect, and not much chance of that, but FFS, they did have the loan and spent it.
As long as you don't own a house, have not more than £300 in assets ( I am presuming they mean in the bank not including everything you own in the world) and have not more than £50 a month in 'disposable income' (which I presume means after paying for Sky, Sunny Delight and ciggies).
I can see the point in terme of the fact that kind of debt with people with so little is probably costing more to keep live than to colect, and not much chance of that, but FFS, they did have the loan and spent it.
Brown and Boris said:
From 1/4/9 apparently...
Hmmmm. Nearly. Have you got in on the act early this year?ETA surprisingly not! Still it should have been 6/4/9 to avoid suspicion
Debt Relief Order as an alternative to IVA:
http://personal-debt-management.suite101.com/artic...
http://iva-information-centre.org.uk/1509/debt-rel...
Looks like a plan for Labour to buy more loyalty from its welfare rump vote.
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 28th March 13:14
swerni said:
you see where this is going to lead.
No unsecured loans for under £15k.
Then all the tossers (see banking scam thread) will start moaning that it's not fair, the bank won't lend them any money.
It's called Karma
No. MOST people wouldn't dream of taking out a loan they couldn't afford, and would be horrified to have to default on a debt. But there are a few (increasing, but still I would hope a small minority) who DO take the piss...it is these that will abuse this rule the same way they've abused other rules.No unsecured loans for under £15k.
Then all the tossers (see banking scam thread) will start moaning that it's not fair, the bank won't lend them any money.
It's called Karma
And it is the 'most' group who will suffer as a result.
Try not to see the world in such black-and-white terms.
Jaysus this reminds me of a new episode of southpark I saw last night.
Bonkers.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1303/
Bonkers.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1303/
Edited by Broccers on Saturday 28th March 15:59
If you fall into this category:
Don't own a house, have not more than £300 in assets ( I am presuming they mean in the bank not including everything you own in the world) and have not more than £50 a month in 'disposable income' (which I presume means after paying for Sky, Sunny Delight and ciggies).
Then a .22 to the head would be more beneficial to the nation. Consider the organs given to the NHS as repayment of the loan.
This will just mean more people strive to meet these conditions (hiding money, deliberately losing their job) so they don't have to pay for the new Astra they couldn't afford but got anyway.
Don't own a house, have not more than £300 in assets ( I am presuming they mean in the bank not including everything you own in the world) and have not more than £50 a month in 'disposable income' (which I presume means after paying for Sky, Sunny Delight and ciggies).
Then a .22 to the head would be more beneficial to the nation. Consider the organs given to the NHS as repayment of the loan.
This will just mean more people strive to meet these conditions (hiding money, deliberately losing their job) so they don't have to pay for the new Astra they couldn't afford but got anyway.
Playing Devil's advocate a bit here, but part of me thinks, serves them right. A lot of these companies have spent the last 10 years cashing in on selling stupidly easy credit to vulnerable and simple people they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back. Then shuffling their massive junk loans around and bundling them up in ever more convoluted ways to sell them on to debt collectors.
The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing s
t fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them.
A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing s
t fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them. A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
Carpie said:
If you fall into this category:
Don't own a house, have not more than £300 in assets ( I am presuming they mean in the bank not including everything you own in the world) and have not more than £50 a month in 'disposable income' (which I presume means after paying for Sky, Sunny Delight and ciggies).
Then a .22 to the head would be more beneficial to the nation. Consider the organs given to the NHS as repayment of the loan.
This will just mean more people strive to meet these conditions (hiding money, deliberately losing their job) so they don't have to pay for the new Astra they couldn't afford but got anyway.
i've recently lost my job...Don't own a house, have not more than £300 in assets ( I am presuming they mean in the bank not including everything you own in the world) and have not more than £50 a month in 'disposable income' (which I presume means after paying for Sky, Sunny Delight and ciggies).
Then a .22 to the head would be more beneficial to the nation. Consider the organs given to the NHS as repayment of the loan.
This will just mean more people strive to meet these conditions (hiding money, deliberately losing their job) so they don't have to pay for the new Astra they couldn't afford but got anyway.
im in this catagory + i have a student loan to start paying back.
i can't afford my own car, i'm not borrowing any money for "the new astra"
and after paying for, erm, nothing i still don't have that disposable income, times are hard.
be careful who you brand in this catagory.
we're not all raking in thousands in benefits that your taxes are paying for.
[/b
kingforstereotyping]AJS- said:
Playing Devil's advocate a bit here, but part of me thinks, serves them right. A lot of these companies have spent the last 10 years cashing in on selling stupidly easy credit to vulnerable and simple people they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back. Then shuffling their massive junk loans around and bundling them up in ever more convoluted ways to sell them on to debt collectors.
The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing st fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them.
A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
It's the fault of the Company offering finance? The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing s
t fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them. A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
How warped does this get?
ukwill said:
It's the fault of the Company offering finance?
How warped does this get?
Yes, of course. It's the job of the investor/creditor to ensure that he is making solid loans and good investments. In this case, they didn't do this, in fact they guaranteed finance to anyone who had 4 weeks of steady employment, often at exhorbitant interest rates, probably working on something like a 50% default rate. Mass default was built into their business models, just not mass default all at the same time.How warped does this get?
This business model actually puts a fairly big burden on the magistrates and bankruptcy authorities, so why not reduce this burden by streamlining a process which is almost inevitably fruitless anyway.
The debtors will suffer a bad credit rating but if this can be done quicker and cheaper than a full scale bankruptcy which will produce nothing for creditors anyway (as the person has no assets) then it's better for all.
As I said, somewhat playing Devil's advocate as I think the bankruptcy laws could probably deal with it just as well.
AJS- said:
Playing Devil's advocate a bit here, but part of me thinks, serves them right. A lot of these companies have spent the last 10 years cashing in on selling stupidly easy credit to vulnerable and simple people they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back. Then shuffling their massive junk loans around and bundling them up in ever more convoluted ways to sell them on to debt collectors.
The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing st fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them.
A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
It can only be done once every six years so I think that will curb any abuse.The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing s
t fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them. A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
Oakey said:
AJS- said:
Playing Devil's advocate a bit here, but part of me thinks, serves them right. A lot of these companies have spent the last 10 years cashing in on selling stupidly easy credit to vulnerable and simple people they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back. Then shuffling their massive junk loans around and bundling them up in ever more convoluted ways to sell them on to debt collectors.
The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing st fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them.
A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
It can only be done once every six years so I think that will curb any abuse.The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing s
t fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them. A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
jas xjr said:
s3fella said:
Good old Gormless Clown, another million votes from the clueless fxckwitts that forgot you are meant to eventually pay it back.........
do these people even bother to vote?ShadownINja said:
Oakey said:
AJS- said:
Playing Devil's advocate a bit here, but part of me thinks, serves them right. A lot of these companies have spent the last 10 years cashing in on selling stupidly easy credit to vulnerable and simple people they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back. Then shuffling their massive junk loans around and bundling them up in ever more convoluted ways to sell them on to debt collectors.
The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing st fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them.
A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
It can only be done once every six years so I think that will curb any abuse.The simple fact is they were never going to get this money back, and having an ongoing s
t fight between thuggish debt collectors and equally useless borrowers in their council flats with broken plasma screens serves no useful purpose. Dragging them through the courts is still useless as they don't have anything worth seizing, and won't have anything worth seizing however bankrupt you declare them. A law like this actually just gives a more orderly way to close this and move on. In the short run
On the other hand, the moral hazard is enourmous. Why wouldn't you now take out an unsecured loan with no intention of paying it back? On the other hand, why would you lend one. Ultimately this will mean that these sort of debtors are sent into the waiting arms of loan sharks who have other ways of collecting on unpaid debts.
Now where's Ocean finance's number.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff