SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

[labman]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

I can sympathise with that Winner. When you hit the stage where they won't make you bankrupt because you simply have literally nothing left of value though, you do come to an acceptance. I think anyone with a conscience will try their very best as long as they have something to lose. Once you've lost it, I think your view does change a bit.

It's why I started my charity - I vowed that if ever I could stop anyone going through what we went through, I would do it. Hopefully a few have benefited and avoided some of the sleepless nights or anxious days dreading the post or anyone ringing the doorbell. Also, to a large extent, the more knowledgeable you get about the subject, the less you tend to worry. DCA's can write nasty letters, but they can't actually do much more unless the OC wants to.

[winner12]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

And I would also like to add
DCA are not honest either making you believe they own your debt so can do what they want going to great lengths to make you so confused and isolated its not legal but why do they care they would never take you to court and on the rare occasion they do its when they are sure you are so lacking knowledge that they would win hands down

[FlamingParrot]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

It's a shame that there isn't a way to filter the debt avoiders out from SB.

In this case, there would also need to be a system to filter those who steal out of desperate need from common criminals, whether it's shoplifting to feed your family or nicking a phone to buy heroin, if they are addicts they can't live without the drug. Stealing would only be a criminal offence for those who do it without a valid reason. We'd also have to filter those who commit benefit fraud to keep a roof over their family's head because they can't make ends meet otherwise, from those who shamelessly profit from the system. How far could we take this? There are much bigger injustices where people fall foul of the law because of desperate circumstances, yet the law still convicts them, and, in some cases, even sends them to prison.

In reality, financial institutions and the fat cats that rule them are the world's biggest criminals. Anyone else doing the same things they do, would be thrown in jail, their business shut down. For example, Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest investment banks, were selling worthless mortgage-backed securities to their own clients whilst, at the same time, taking short positions on the very same instruments (betting against them). This is the same as selling you a box of chocolates laced with poison as luxury Belgian chocs, then betting that you should be dead within a week as a result of eating the poisoned chocs! :scared: :scared: :scared: When CEO Blankfein was questioned by Congress (I saw it live on TV at the time), he replied he "wasn't aware of it". A toddler saying "mummy I didn't do it" would have sounded much more convincing!

Bernie Madoff was jailed for 150 years after it was discovered he had been running a Ponzi scheme, yet what he did wasn't much different from what Northern Rock, and many other banks, did. In fact, the credit crunch which was what left many people in debt, was a direct result of what can only be described as fraudulent behaviour on the part of the banks, who were responsible for creating the housing bubble by lending money to people who could not afford their mortgages, knowing if the properties were repossessed they would still make a profit due to rapidly raising prices. Mortgages were sold and re-packages as securities to be bought by other institutions. While many ordinary people got ruined, big profits were made by investors and traders, let's not forget it is just as possible to make money from FALLING stock and asset prices as it is from raising prices, it's called 'going short', or betting against.

House prices were artificially inflated as a result of all this 'generous' lending. The generous lending spread beyond housing, fueling consumer spending with credit card limits being increased manyfold and people being pushed to borrow more, this wasn't done out of charity on the part of the banks, but because that's exactly how they make their money. Not just at the institutional level, but also individually. In financial institutions, bonu$e$ are paid according to performance over the past year and how individuals contributed to it. In general the more the merrier, whether it's mortgages or credit cards, a higher volume = a higher bonu$.

It was all a game of musical chairs where quite a few were left standing when the music stopped, and they had to be bailed out using taxpayer's money. Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary who orchestrated the US$700 BILLION bank bailout, had previously been CEO of guees who: Goldmans, of course! Amongst the biggest recipients of funds were Citigroup with US$50 BILLION and Bank of America with US$45 BILLION. In the UK, RBS was bailed out to the tune of £45 BILLION.

I'm going for SBd with 3 creditors:

• MBNA - part of Bank of America, bailed out with US$50bn
• RBS - bailed out with £45bn
• Egg - until 2011, part of Citi, bailed out with US$50bn, then bought by Barclays, well known LIBOR riggers and corporate tax dodgers

I don't think I need to say any more! eace::rockon:

[PlanB]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

I don't think I need to say any more! eace::rockon:

Don't stop there. I like your other speech where you explain the fact that real "money" wasn't actually lent, it was all a mirage on spreadsheets on a database. There was no actual "money" being played with in the casino :juggle:


The only real money at risk was the money deposited by investors which the banks (and rogues like Madoff's $65 billion) used to gamble with :smokin:

[labman]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

I was hoping for a full explanation FP! :tung::tung:

Yes Plan B, I agree - I like the explanation of how the money doesn't really exist and how it is not really owed as such. This is the Fractional Reserve Banking mentioned above I think and is fascinating.

[PlanB]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

Yes Plan B, I agree - I like the explanation of how the money doesn't really exist and how it is not really owed as such. This is the Fractional Reserve Banking mentioned above I think and is fascinating.

I did Google that and I still don't understand how this fantasy money was created which I have apparently spent on shoes and handbags courtesy of my Visa card(s) :noidea:


But I did find this book called *Investment Banking for Dummies* on Amazon due to be released next year

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Investment-B...825556-9982863

[jon1965]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

Just a few thoughts
Of course if a DCA is aware that a debt is statute barred they "should" stop chasing you for he money, however how do they know?
It is unlikely that the creditor who sold it on will say "Oh BTW this is SB" or even supply statements etc. So in reality it is down to the borrower to tell them, and only the few know about SB

I think the number of people who rack up debts with prior thought of defaulting and then letting it go SB are few although I have no figures. I also think it is wrong that many debt management companies and charities will take the creditors word for how much is owed. I was with a DMP for several years and although I was told they would only pay legitimate debts they clearly didn't check

The paperwork side is again a whole new ball game. Nearly every one of my debts have legal issues with them, be it as serious as a faulty agreement or down to a faulty DN. I have some where the NOA has not been properly served (although a court may not accept what the law says). One was even served by email!
I have had many a sleepless night about my debts. Getting into a DMP was a good thing for my own wellbeing , however if they had looked into which debts were enforceable or not it is quite likely that by the time I became unable to pay any of my debts all the enforceable ones would have been paid off. Now I have so many creditors I can only deal with them all the same

I am not sure what was being suggested about allowing people to steal if they had a good reason...I believe that if you commit a crime you should be charged but it is then for the courts to decide on the appropriate punishment. Being an addict maybe mitigation but it doesn't justify what happened and in those cases help and treatment should be part of the order handed down. I do not want to go on about the criminal justice system so I will shut up.

[Celestine]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

Don't stop there. I like your other speech where you explain the fact that real "money" wasn't actually lent, it was all a mirage on spreadsheets on a database. There was no actual "money" being played with in the casino :juggle:


The only real money at risk was the money deposited by investors which the banks (and rogues like Madoff's $65 billion) used to gamble with :smokin:

I'd like to read that if you can dig it out FP?
Awesome earlier post, made me wonder how the 'Bob Diamonds' of the UK managed to stay out of prison?

[jon1965]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

Well PlanB if your debts were caused by handbags , shoes and Harrods what can I say...what is wrong with Shoezone , Primark and Adli?

[labman]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

Don't stop there. I like your other speech where you explain the fact that real "money" wasn't actually lent, it was all a mirage on spreadsheets on a database. There was no actual "money" being played with in the casino :juggle:


The only real money at risk was the money deposited by investors which the banks (and rogues like Madoff's $65 billion) used to gamble with :smokin:

I was hoping for a full explanation FP! :tung::tung:

Yes Plan B, I agree - I like the explanation of how the money doesn't really exist and how it is not really owed as such. This is the Fractional Reserve Banking mentioned above I think and is fascinating.

I'd like to read that if you can dig it out FP?
Awesome earlier post, made me wonder how the 'Bob Diamonds' of the UK managed to stay out of prison?

See - some things really are best learned 'Parrot fashion.'

I have to say - you do have a very lucid way of explaining it. Your explanation of it for the purposes of debt management is far clearer than that of anybody else I know.

[PlanB]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

See - some things really are best learned 'Parrot fashion.' .

msl:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

I'd like to read that if you can dig it out FP?
Awesome earlier post, made me wonder how the 'Bob Diamonds' of the UK managed to stay out of prison?

A lot was written on the subject mostly in 2008/09 after the credit crunch. This is quite a good article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-wal...-banking/11600

Fiat money, money without any intrinsic value, is explained here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalem...is-fiat-money/

The alleged measures to stop banks from collapsing through proper risk assessment and adequate capitalization from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision can be seen below. Unlike the above, this gets a bit technical. :nerd: :nerd: :nerd:
http://www.bis.org/bcbs/about.htm
http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs107.htm
http://www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3.htm

[FlamingParrot]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

Of course if a DCA is aware that a debt is statute barred they "should" stop chasing you for he money, however how do they know?
It is unlikely that the creditor who sold it on will say "Oh BTW this is SB" or even supply statements etc. So in reality it is down to the borrower to tell them, and only the few know about SB

That's precisely they point, they don't! I have posted this quite a few times: DCAs buy debts in bulk without paperwork. They themselves wouldn't know the debts are SBd, if they did, they probably wouldn't even buy them in the first place!

I think the number of people who rack up debts with prior thought of defaulting and then letting it go SB are few although I have no figures. I also think it is wrong that many debt management companies and charities will take the creditors word for how much is owed. I was with a DMP for several years and although I was told they would only pay legitimate debts they clearly didn't check

Not only do they not check, they will advise you to pay SBd debts! A CCCS (now Stepchange) rep on another forum actually offered someone help setting up a repayment plan for a SBd debt because "the debt still exists".

Furthermore, the official debt charities often don't make sure that interest and charges are frozen. I know of someone who, in his first year on a CCCS DMP, paid £5k into his DMP, but less than £500 went towards reducing the debt! :scared: :scared: :scared:

The paperwork side is again a whole new ball game. Nearly every one of my debts have legal issues with them, be it as serious as a faulty agreement or down to a faulty DN. I have some where the NOA has not been properly served (although a court may not accept what the law says). One was even served by email!
I have had many a sleepless night about my debts. Getting into a DMP was a good thing for my own wellbeing , however if they had looked into which debts were enforceable or not it is quite likely that by the time I became unable to pay any of my debts all the enforceable ones would have been paid off. Now I have so many creditors I can only deal with them all the same

If financial in$titution$ whose core bu$ines$$ is to lend money AND who have unlimited resources, employ thousands of people, can afford the mo$t $ophi$ticated IT $y$tem$, etc. can't get their paperwork right, why should they get their money back? If you are running a bakery, you'd be reasonably expected to be able to bake a decent cake and provide suitable packaging for it! If you are running a bank, you'd be reasonably expected to be able to provide a credit agreement compliant with the CCA and keep a copy on file, as well as issuing compliant DNs. It's not too much to expect, is it? :confused2:

I am not sure what was being suggested about allowing people to steal if they had a good reason...I believe that if you commit a crime you should be charged but it is then for the courts to decide on the appropriate punishment. Being an addict maybe mitigation but it doesn't justify what happened and in those cases help and treatment should be part of the order handed down. I do not want to go on about the criminal justice system so I will shut up.

I wasn't suggesting allowing people to steal with a good reason, on the contrary, I was using that as an example of why the law cannot make exceptions such as the one suggested, of somehow filtering those who are regarded as unable to pay and stopping the rest from taking advantage of the Statute of Limitations. :nono:

[MissFM]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

In this case, there would also need to be a system to filter those who steal out of desperate need from common criminals, whether it's shoplifting to feed your family or nicking a phone to buy heroin, if they are addicts they can't live without the drug. Stealing would only be a criminal offence for those who do it without a valid reason. We'd also have to filter those who commit benefit fraud to keep a roof over their family's head because they can't make ends meet otherwise, from those who shamelessly profit from the system. How far could we take this? There are much bigger injustices where people fall foul of the law because of desperate circumstances, yet the law still convicts them, and, in some cases, even sends them to prison.

In reality, financial institutions and the fat cats that rule them are the world's biggest criminals. Anyone else doing the same things they do, would be thrown in jail, their business shut down. For example, Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest investment banks, were selling worthless mortgage-backed securities to their own clients whilst, at the same time, taking short positions on the very same instruments (betting against them). This is the same as selling you a box of chocolates laced with poison as luxury Belgian chocs, then betting that you should be dead within a week as a result of eating the poisoned chocs! :scared: :scared: :scared: When CEO Blankfein was questioned by Congress (I saw it live on TV at the time), he replied he "wasn't aware of it". A toddler saying "mummy I didn't do it" would have sounded much more convincing!

Bernie Madoff was jailed for 150 years after it was discovered he had been running a Ponzi scheme, yet what he did wasn't much different from what Northern Rock, and many other banks, did. In fact, the credit crunch which was what left many people in debt, was a direct result of what can only be described as fraudulent behaviour on the part of the banks, who were responsible for creating the housing bubble by lending money to people who could not afford their mortgages, knowing if the properties were repossessed they would still make a profit due to rapidly raising prices. Mortgages were sold and re-packages as securities to be bought by other institutions. While many ordinary people got ruined, big profits were made by investors and traders, let's not forget it is just as possible to make money from FALLING stock and asset prices as it is from raising prices, it's called 'going short', or betting against.

House prices were artificially inflated as a result of all this 'generous' lending. The generous lending spread beyond housing, fueling consumer spending with credit card limits being increased manyfold and people being pushed to borrow more, this wasn't done out of charity on the part of the banks, but because that's exactly how they make their money. Not just at the institutional level, but also individually. In financial institutions, bonu$e$ are paid according to performance over the past year and how individuals contributed to it. In general the more the merrier, whether it's mortgages or credit cards, a higher volume = a higher bonu$.

It was all a game of musical chairs where quite a few were left standing when the music stopped, and they had to be bailed out using taxpayer's money. Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary who orchestrated the US$700 BILLION bank bailout, had previously been CEO of guees who: Goldmans, of course! Amongst the biggest recipients of funds were Citigroup with US$50 BILLION and Bank of America with US$45 BILLION. In the UK, RBS was bailed out to the tune of £45 BILLION. [IMG]Bullseye! | (Bleep) My Brain Says[/IMG]

I'm going for SBd with 3 creditors:

• MBNA - part of Bank of America, bailed out with US$50bn
• RBS - bailed out with £45bn
• Egg - until 2011, part of Citi, bailed out with US$50bn, then bought by Barclays, well known LIBOR riggers and corporate tax dodgers

I don't think I need to say any more! eace::rockon:

Phenomenal FP! Absolute bullseye.

[jon1965]

Re: SB: Unenforceable But Why Not Non-collectable?

That's precisely they point, they don't! I have posted this quite a few times: DCAs buy debts in bulk without paperwork. They themselves wouldn't know the debts are SBd, if they did, they probably wouldn't even buy them in the first place!

Very well explained thank you

Not only do they not check, they will advise you to pay SBd debts! A CCCS (now Stepchange) rep on another forum actually offered someone help setting up a repayment plan for a SBd debt because "the debt still exists".

I wonder where that was? :lol: Although I think that DMP's are not a bad thing altogether I wouldn't trust stepchange or payplan

Furthermore, the official debt charities often don't make sure that interest and charges are frozen. I know of someone who, in his first year on a CCCS DMP, paid £5k into his DMP, but less than £500 went towards reducing the debt! :scared: :scared: :scared:

Although there is no guarantee that interest and charges will be stopped a fee paying DMC is more likely (hopefully) to get things stopped.

If financial in$titution$ whose core bu$ines$$ is to lend money AND who have unlimited resources, employ thousands of people, can afford the mo$t $ophi$ticated IT $y$tem$, etc. can't get their paperwork right, why should they get their money back? If you are running a bakery, you'd be reasonably expected to be able to bake a decent cake and provide suitable packaging for it! If you are running a bank, you'd be reasonably expected to be able to provide a credit agreement compliant with the CCA and keep a copy on file, as well as issuing compliant DNs. It's not too much to expect, is it? :confused2:

Couldn't agree more and it's an argument I have used many times

I wasn't suggesting allowing people to steal with a good reason, on the contrary, I was using that as an example of why the law cannot make exceptions such as the one suggested, of somehow filtering those who are regarded as unable to pay and stopping the rest from taking advantage of the Statute of Limitations. :nono:

That was what I thought , just wanted to stick my point of view across. We have to stick to the law, if we don't like it, lobby to get it changed