Financial Claims are they for real [Archive]

View Full Version : Financial Claims are they for real

Essexcountryman

4th July 2009, 10:50

Hi

I am involved in claims management, you know the ones that advertise that they will write off all your credit cards and loans and win you compensation.

The same type of company that makes you all think..Scam how could I get my credit written off......it's just too good to be true, so it cannot be!!

I have been in the process of setting up a company from scratch since January, I have found out that this business has been so full of hype and bull that a decent and honest company can struggle to start. When you consider that we can offer to minimise or write off some of your debt you would think we would be popular. I have been so surprised with the apathy that surrounds an industry which has set up on the back of new legislation from Government.

Anyway I have joined this forum and intend to dispel the myths about what we can do and let people know what is real and what is sales pitch.

The lenders (banks/loans companies) have a great wealth of publicity provided for them by some top news papers and online sources and they are pulling the wool over the public eye. Many ordinary people are as a result missing out on the biggest money giveaway since PM John Major tried to prop up sterling, he lost billions in one day....well done John!

I look forward to being a keen member on this forum.

BusinessIdeas

6th July 2009, 01:09

Hiya from Gina :)

mobile_advertising

6th July 2009, 02:56

welcome to uk business forums ^__^

GRDCredit

6th July 2009, 06:28

The same type of company that makes you all think..Scam how could I get my credit written off......it's just too good to be true, so it cannot be!!

You said it!

Let's assume for a minute that you can arrange for part or all of an individual's debts to be written off. Where do you stand on the moral question?

Geoff

aaacbc

6th July 2009, 07:46

Welcom to the forum

aaacbc

6th July 2009, 07:46

Welcome to the forum

Essexcountryman

6th July 2009, 11:08

You said it!

Let's assume for a minute that you can arrange for part or all of an individual's debts to be written off. Where do you stand on the moral question?

Geoff

Hi Geoff

What moral question are you referring to;

The part where the lender has not even bothered to complete the paperwork and his duty to make sure that the agreement is compliant with the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.
or
The part where the lender has been so contemptible with the rights of the borrower that they treat them merely as an asset.

Forgive me for not feeling sorry for the lender, they have not acted in a moral way, they are the same chain of business that have brought this country to its knees.

The matter comes down to law as do most things in the UK and the law states in the 2006 Consumer credit Act that the consumer has the right to challenge such agreements, which will inevitably end up as unenforceable in a court of law.

I do not see this as a moral question or obligation, merely the application of the law that protects the consumer.

Thank you for the question Geoff, it is one that often gets raised.

GRDCredit

6th July 2009, 11:27

Thank you at least for your honesty and prompt reply although I strongly disagree with the sentiments.

The moral issue I am concerned with is an individual borrowing money and 'getting away' with not paying it back on a technicality.

To be frank I am surprised that you have had so many welcome messages on this thread but perhaps I am missing the point.

I know you are a newish company but what sort of success rate have you achieved to date?

You don't have to say how much you charge - I won't tell you my fees! - but when do you charge your 'customers'? Upfront or based on results?

Geoff

Essexcountryman

6th July 2009, 12:06

Hi Geoff
I can see from your company profile why you would have a problem with this type of business. That being said your concern about individuals getting away with it seems a bit unfair when the following is taken into consideration;

British economy is being mortgaged to prop up the banking system. The banks are being kept alive by our promise to provide an indeterminate proportion of our future economic output to make good the banks' future losses.

Are the banks paying their debt?

As for the welcome messages I am indeed confused as to why I would not get them, as part of a business registered with the Ministry of Justice. I feel you are taking a moral high ground that is unstable at best and unreasonable given all circumstances.

Some client fees are charged up front, that is how most business work unless of course they are a charitable cause, also there are fees when we achieve success. It does not seem odd to me that companies are set up to make money. You mention you charge fees so I know that you understand the principal.

We have had success with clients, if we can't proceed on their behalf where an agreement is written correctly they get a refund less a small fee for the barrister to read the contracts.

The whole business is fairly new since October last year but there is plenty of evidence that cases are being won. What I do not like is the fact that companies are stating that they will win compensation as well as write offs. In reality a majority of cases are unenforceable and the debt can be wiped out, the agreement would need to be rescinded to gain compensation as well and I think that this would happen infrequently.

Zeno

6th July 2009, 12:28

I'm with Geoff. Two wrongs don't make a right. No-one forced the consumer to spend on credit cards, buy cars on HP etc. Using techicalities to weasel out of their obligations is worse than contemptible.

Gillie

6th July 2009, 12:29

GRDCredit

6th July 2009, 12:31

Essexcountryman

6th July 2009, 14:26

Hi Zeno

Please do not think that this is just about credit cards, one of the other types of claim is made against Mortgage providers.

The client (possibly you) has taken out a Mortgage and later finds out that the lender included in the loan a Payment protection insurance or a mortgage indemnity insurance where the fees were taken up front or included in the loan. The insurance being built into the loan for a period of 20 years or more and not separated out of the interest being accrued. The lender knowing what they were doing but not informing the client how the charges were being applied.

Would you not claim against this, the lenders are quite quick to pay back around £5000 compensation for such cases, I guess that is something you will not bother to check on your own mortgage when you get home.

It is not a case of just technicalities to weasel out of things, often it is just simply righting the wrong and upholding the law. I do not think your moral argument will not stand up to much debate.

Zeno

6th July 2009, 14:39

Essexcountryman

6th July 2009, 15:31

I am typing this on a blackberry so will keep it short!

Wait until I get home though!

I don't see what the banks have got to do with it - yes they are in the wrong but separate issue

Bottom line is for me if someone borrows £5000 they should expect to pay it back

Cannot get easy access to it at the moment but did I not read that all such cases are on hold at present?

Care to back up the statement that most cases are unenforcible? Stats?

Finally, what are you going to do in 5 years time wheb all of this will have been resolved one way or another?

I don't think we are going to agree here!

Geoff

I mention the banks because you raised the moral question of not paying money back. If my business went bust I would have to go into bankruptcy and cease trading I would have no choice. I for one am opposed to bailing out the fat cats in this situation and I do not see a problem in allowing the little guy to check out his own options and act upon them in line with current legislation.

Your bottom line as you put it is a personal choice and as we live in a democracy you are free to hold that view as others are free to hold theirs.

As for the cases on hold, you are one of thousands of people who read the misreporting of the Chester Judges statement regarding this and other matters. Like most publicity surrounding the claims industry it is subject to much misreporting in the press and online. The Judges comments were actually aimed at the lenders who should stand up to their responsibilities. He has made sure now that his actual comments were posted on the Ministry of Justice website in order that his words were not further misquoted by interested parties. No cases are on hold, it is true that such cases are not reaching court because they are being settled before they are given the light of publicity that would open the floodgates to similar claims.

I said most case were unenforceable rather than could be rescinded, this would mean cases where we had vetted the agreements and found them to be unenforceable had wholly outweighed the possibility of compensation.

In 5 years time when all this has been resolved I will have a client list with many happy customers, I feel sure that I will survive somehow.

We do not need to agree, I enjoy the chance to dispel much myth and expose the half truths put out by hostile lenders and their partners in the media.

Essexcountryman

6th July 2009, 15:40

An extremely simplistic view there of the credit crunch/recession that fails to mention lots of other factors such as consumer greed as well as a few other ones too.

I think Geoff is referring to the fact that yes perhaps some lenders are unscrupulous, but also some consumers are just so as well and take out the loans knowing they aint going to pay them back!

I am of the same opinion as him in that, you spend, you pay!! And yes on the forum we have had this dicussion quite a few times recently and quite a few feel the same way, hence the remark about welcomes.
Hi Gillie

Your tax website offers people the chance to claim back something they may be entitled to, I found that very enlightening. You invite people who have paid something more than they should have to claim this back.... I see similarities in our business methods. You also offer Business finance facilities, which could make you a good customer and colleague of banking institutions. Perhaps my cynical thoughts are misplaced.

I am sorry I missed the previous debates, should that make me not welcome?

Mattonella Tile Studio

6th July 2009, 15:51

As to the moral argument, it would appear that two posters agree with me. How many with you?

Make that three posters Zeno.

Essexcountryman

6th July 2009, 17:18

The moral argument is a matter of opinion, I am not looking to change your opinion but I am here to debunk the myth and half truths being spread.

Essexcountryman

6th July 2009, 17:25

The moral argument is a matter of opinion, I am not looking to change your opinion but I am here to debunk the myth and half truths being spread.

GRDCredit

6th July 2009, 17:27

The moral argument is a matter of opinion, I am not looking to change your opinion but I am here to debunk the myth and half truths being spread.

It wasn't so good you had to say it twice!

GRDCredit

6th July 2009, 17:31

. He has made sure now that his actual comments were posted on the Ministry of Justice website in order that his words were not further misquoted by interested parties.

Had a quick look and cannot see it - have you got a link to this on the MofJ site?

Geoff

Essexcountryman

6th July 2009, 18:14

That is what you get when a person is new to the forum :>):redface:
That is what you get when a person is new to the forum :>):redface:
That is what you get when a person is new to the forum :>):redface:
That is what you get when a person is new to the forum :>):redface:
That is what you get when a person is new to the forum :>):redface:

LOL

Gillie

6th July 2009, 21:03

Hi Gillie

Your tax website offers people the chance to claim back something they may be entitled to, I found that very enlightening. You invite people who have paid something more than they should have to claim this back.... I see similarities in our business methods. You also offer Business finance facilities, which could make you a good customer and colleague of banking institutions. Perhaps my cynical thoughts are misplaced.

I am sorry I missed the previous debates, should that make me not welcome?

No similarities at all ... with a tax rebate, you have wrongly paid too much by perhaps not understanding simple forms or simply not understanding the tax system. They are NOT seeking to wiggle their way out of a debt ... they don't borrow and think of means to escape paying the bill back, they have already OVERPAID, this is the difference, therefore to say they are similar is way off!

And since when did I say you were not welcome? I do believe I didn't even mention the word or imply otherwise ... :rolleyes:

sirearl

6th July 2009, 21:20

No similarities at all ... with a tax rebate, you have wrongly paid too much by perhaps not understanding simple forms or simply not understanding the tax system. They are NOT seeking to wiggle their way out of a debt ... they don't borrow and think of means to escape paying the bill back, they have already OVERPAID, this is the difference, therefore to say they are similar is way off!

And since when did I say you were not welcome? I do believe I didn't even mention the word or imply otherwise ... :rolleyes:

When a lender misrepresents a loan you have paid to much.

Come on the financial institutes have been screwing the public from the inception of the first bank.Lets be honest.

This guy is just being a modern day Robin Hood in a pinstripe.

sorry for the financial institutes they have brought this country to its knees with there unethical ,imoral and probably illegal activities and then hid behind the taxpayers money.

Get real crooks in whits satin they ain't.:rolleyes:

Parasites in every area of society.

good job I am not going to tell you the bad stuff about them.

Earl

Essexcountryman

7th July 2009, 08:56

The good news is that the lenders in their haste to get consumers signed up and maxed out, forgot to do their job properly. We are finding that contracts do not have APR's mentioned, what the early repayment figure is likely to be or have a signed contract at all. In these cases the contract can be unenforceable. What appears to be happening more and more is that the lenders have not got a system to access the original signed document. No paperwork ....no agreement.

I do not know of one client who took out the credit and then decided just to try and wriggle out of the debt. Our clients are from all walks of life and more often than not they have found that due to the credit crunch they are unable to pay off their debts and seek alternatives. Clients were happily servicing their debt until they were made redundant or their firm was closed down by the bank in the squeeze for money.

The moral crew I find a bit hard to take as they mainly come from people in business that do not produce anything, they are the safe skimmers from bookkeepers to bankers. There are others that take some risks and try and build things, the credit crunch has hit the latter very hard and they need some help.

sirearl

7th July 2009, 09:03

Essexcountryman

7th July 2009, 09:08

89% you say....no wonder I feel so alone in these type of conversations.

:redface:

Zeno

7th July 2009, 09:15

The moral crew I find a bit hard to take as they mainly come from people in business that do not produce anything, they are the safe skimmers from bookkeepers to bankers. There are others that take some risks and try and build things, the credit crunch has hit the latter very hard and they need some help.

How dare you Sir. I find it rich that a pimple on the arse of society like you who makes a living showing people how to weasel out of their responsibilities and has the gall to believe that you are benefiting the public dares to criticise my profession.

If you activities extended to those who had been genuinely mis-sold a financial product then I would not feel the same of course however to me it seems fairly black & white - you borrow money, you pay it back regardless if you were not told the interest rate etc. That was your responsibility to find out.

The reason that you find we are not collectively polluting our breeches with the joy of your arrival is simply that the majority of us are business owners. We extend credit to our clients and expect them to pay us in the same way that we pay our debts. Sort of how business works you see?

GRDCredit

7th July 2009, 09:22

89% you say....no wonder I feel so alone in these type of conversations.

:redface:

Why, what is it you are producing?

To be frank - any chance you had of me seeing your side of the argument went with your previous post.

As a 'safe skimmer' myself trust me, I took an enormous risk early this year when I decided to go it alone. It has been hard to keep on top of my financial commitments but never has the thought or will been there to try and get out of these commitments. Thank goodness things are a little easier now - due to hard work and not playing the system. I can move forward with a completely clear conscience.

Geoff

Essexcountryman

7th July 2009, 09:27

GRDCredit

7th July 2009, 09:33

This is a good and decent business and my clients come from all walks of life and business.

Good - for you, undoubtedly

Decent - absolutely not

Business - anything with a shelf life cannot be considered, in my opinion, a business. If I am being kind I would call it an opportunity, if I was not feeling so kind, it's a scam!

Geoff

Zeno

7th July 2009, 09:40

Zeno

I take that I am not on your best friends list?

This is a good and decent business and my clients come from all walks of life and business.

I have met many people with a lofty opinion of themselves, not all of them were in my church. They have the need to look down on others and ex pout their moral code to the unsuspecting and timid.

I came here to talk about my business and here you are banging on about morals that I doubt you even understand yourself.

It may be a good business as in generating cash for yourself however decent is another matter. Law firms specialising in personal injury generate huge amounts of cash too but you could hardly call them decent.

I do not have a lofty opinion of myself however I do have a moral code (and a professional one too if my conscience fails me) that see's borrowing money and not paying it back as wrong.

Essexcountryman

7th July 2009, 11:55

It may be a good business as in generating cash for yourself however decent is another matter. Law firms specialising in personal injury generate huge amounts of cash too but you could hardly call them decent.

I do not have a lofty opinion of myself however I do have a moral code (and a professional one too if my conscience fails me) that see's borrowing money and not paying it back as wrong.

Zeno you seem stuck on this moral crusade, my business is not quite top draw enough for you, I get that.

If any of your clients are scruffy tasteless individuals I would be happy for you to refer them to me, I will be the one dressed as a spiv standing in the shadows trying to gain the attention of those who would fall victim to my evil ways.

Zeno

7th July 2009, 12:31

GRDCredit

7th July 2009, 12:37

Had a quick look and cannot see it - have you got a link to this on the MofJ site?

Geoff

Could be oversight of course but I have not seen you post this link?

Geoff

PS I don't think any other introduction thread has stretched this long!:)

Dawg

7th July 2009, 12:49

Ok, in summary:-

A client of yours was offered a credit card some time ago. He duly applied and was given a £10k limit which he has now blown on wine, women & song.

He comes to you and you find that due to some irregularity in the paperwork means you can work your magic and have the debt written off.

Are you telling me that you really don't see the moral issue with this?

Only the song bit. Probably songs by Michael....arrgh, sharrup, don't go there.:)

The OP won't see the point about morality, but will continue to <nasal voice> stick to the letter of the law</nasal voice>, doing what is legal but not what is right.
Waste of time arguing, perhaps? Especially as it was covered so comprehensively in an earlier thread.

sirearl

7th July 2009, 12:55

How dare you Sir. I find it rich that a pimple on the arse of society like you who makes a living showing people how to weasel out of their responsibilities and has the gall to believe that you are benefiting the public dares to criticise my profession.

This is UKBF not the Times.

Now do the accountants get the seats in front of the Lawyers or behind.?:|

Earl

Essexcountryman

7th July 2009, 13:03

Zeno
I do not look into the spending habits of my clients, although the ones that you describe that are having a life, I am thinking of excluding.

You have me thinking now that I should vett my clients before I do business with them, here is a form I am sending all potential clients from this point on;

1.Do you drink....if yes how many units per day?
2.When you drink do you pay cash or charge it to your credit card?
3.Are you married - single - Gay or bisexual?
4.Do you cavort around town with loose women?
5.Have you ever purchased singing or dancing material using your credit card?

If you have answered yes to 1.2.4 or 5 we cannot do any business with you on moral grounds, if you have answered question 3 we would ask you now to consider your answers again and fill out our separate questionnaire.

You will also need to have a person of some standing in the community to sign to say that you have filled this form out correctly and truthfully. This person needs to be a Doctor/Lawyer/Police Officer or MP.

Zeno I do hope you vett all your own clients.

In reality I do not take a moral position on the person you describe above, although your view of people did put a smile on my face......textbook moralist. Is everyone but you out singing and drinking and !!!!!!!

Essexcountryman

7th July 2009, 13:08

Could be oversight of course but I have not seen you post this link?

Geoff

PS I don't think any other introduction thread has stretched this long!:)

Sorry Geoff....senior moment

http://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/ look on this page for;

Unenforceable Consumer Credit Agreement cases – Update
The Judicial Communications Office has issued a statement in light of the activity surrounding the recent case heard in Chester County Court by His Honour Judge Halbert and the speculation and misreporting which followed the hearing. Contrary to some reports, there is no general stay on cases challenging the enforceability of Consumer Credit Agreements.
Cases of this type will therefore continue to be heard and decided on their own particular facts, although the Court may group similar cases for trial, where appropriate, in an effort to save costs and time. Further consideration is also being given to the transfer of selected cases to the Commercial Court in London for definitive ruling where new questions of law have been identified. The media release can be read in full here (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications_media/media_releases/2009/1609.htm).

Essexcountryman

7th July 2009, 13:09

Quite an achievement:redface:

Zeno

7th July 2009, 13:13

So basically, no you don't see the moral problem with that then?

So therefore you will have no problem then if your clients find a technicality to weasel out of paying your fees then?

(Incidently, wine, woman & song is a common polite expression for pissed it up a wall. I did not mean it literally).

philludg

7th July 2009, 14:10

GRDCredit

7th July 2009, 14:15

Phewwwwwwwwwwww what a thread, I hardly dare post.
All I will say, haven't we all been shafted by the banks, and is it still not going on, high interest on credit cards and loans, don't the banks know interest rates are nearly zero, we bailed the banks out, and up to now have given nothing back, I'm really struggling at the moment, but I bet Gorden won't give me a few quid to help me out.:rolleyes:

How dare you join in a private thread!

I don't think anyone disagrees with what you are saying. What we are trying to argue is that it has no relevance to what the OP is saying - i.e. it is OK to borrow money and then not pay it back because of a technicality. He doesn't agree with us which is fair enough because that is what forums are for - opinion sharing. It just so happens that in this case he is wrong and I am not!

Geoff

Essexcountryman

7th July 2009, 16:55

That sounds like a good name for a stage double act.

Ladies and gentlemen it give me great pleasure to introduce our star attraction Zeeeeenoooo and Geoff.:)

One at a time please...Zeno

If they do not pay me I will of course be most disappointed if not crest fallen but as I have no morals.........

Geoff admit it you are coming over to the dark side aren't you:)

GRDCredit

7th July 2009, 22:23

Has he gone yet?

Geoff T

8th July 2009, 08:41

Phewwwwwwwwwwww what a thread, I hardly dare post.

I know the feeling! Actually thought about leaving this one WELL ALONE - don't like to interrupt private chats!:rolleyes: - but then how could I?!?

I can see an element of both sides here...based on the fact that the whole s**t storm we're in right now comes down to irresponsible credit...

So in a way, I can agree with OP - WHERE irresponsible, unscrupulous, and greedy companies are at fault ONLY, by getting people signed up to products they didn't understand or couldn't afford... I do agree with you Zeno that a person takes responsibility for what they sign up for, and they do...go to court any day of the week and you can see the increasing numbers coming out of bankruptcy hearings...any genuine case of misselling/misrepresentation against the lender therefore gets my vote!

Having said that, the culture of irresponsible lending also needs to be addressed, and the public needs to be re-educated and "weaned" off of "credit as the way to get what you want", and I for one don't feel a "get out" clause conveys the right message.

People need to learn to live within their affordable means, if they're just "let off" won't this give the wrong impression, and reinforce the current behaviour pattern...?

So - on balance - I'm going to have to stand with the "nays" I'm afraid!

PS - thanks all for the last 90 mins - off to do some work!

regards TO ALL
Geoff:)

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 09:29

GRDCredit

8th July 2009, 09:40

The Credit Crunch has made people realise that the Banking Industry has not been as diligent as it should have been. Many have been shocked at the performance of the Banks at home and abroad, especially in regard to the money in their charge. It has been difficult to imagine that the industry was trading in such an free fall way.

I really need to leave this thread alone but I just can't - you are wrong! You keep refering to errors by the bank and suggesting it justifies individuals trying to get a debt written off which to my mind, it doesn't. They are two entirely separate issues.

Perhaps the signs of the end were visible to us, as consumers were enticed to take on more Loans,Credit Cards and larger Mortgages. The banks began to squeeze more interest from the consumer. Often these additional funds were given to people who could not afford to repay the debt, but who were glad of a lifeline. Some say irresponsible borrowing and others irresponsible lending, mainly dependent upon their financial position.

Some say both.

I used to work on, among other things, personal debt at a high street bank. If a customer had run up an overdraft more often than not it was the bank's fault for honouring a customer's cheques. On a separate issue very often the people who were struggling smoked 40 a day and had the maximum package on Sky.

Take responsibility for your own actions!

C'mon Geoff a few more baby steps and you are there......welcome Brother

We are so far apart we make Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill look like bed mates!

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 09:51

:) Sorry guys I had to do it

Zeno likes to deal in what if's, I like to keep a foot in reality.

Mr CF Worked for a firm of solicitors, the pay was pretty good and one of his perks was that he received an income protection policy....kismet

He lived a normal lifestyle, nothing too fancy and had some loans for his car and he paid for things on his credit card like many people do. He balanced transferred a few times to get 0 % interest so he had a few cards. He fell ill one Monday with long term Problem. His insurance kicked in and he got 70% of his salary for the first year, thinking he would get better and having the insurance he had few problems. Until his insurers stopped paying him and asked him to visit their Harley street quack who virtually told him you are cured my son before he sat down to say who he was. He ended up having to get solicitors, which he paid for to get his firm to take up the missing salary. It took him a years fight and the loss of a years income plus £1000's in solicitors fees.

Bottom line he has credit problems and is using our service to try and clear some of the problem.

Is he morally wrong to try and get what the Government has made possible for him via the 2006 Consumer Credit Act ?

should he ;
1.sit on his morals and go bust.
2.Go for an IVA and make matters worse
3.Phone Zeno for a tax break.

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 10:01

For those on other threads that wonder how to get on top of Google search...I bring you the Magic of Zeno and Geoff.

I made them who they are today.

Geoff please type in Zeno and Geoff on you google search.

I am thinking of going into another line of business.

All of a sudden I am swept away by the magic that is Zeno and Geoff and a star is born....

Essex Countryman Search Engine entrepreneur

GRDCredit

8th July 2009, 10:01

:) Sorry guys I had to do it

Sorry - don't get this? I have heard of this one (http://www.glastonburytor.org.uk/) but never a European one.

Is he morally wrong to try and get what the Government has made possible for him via the 2006 Consumer Credit Act ?

Yes

Geoff

Zeno

8th July 2009, 10:05

No one ever said life was fair and the right thing to do is rarely the easiest.

Your basic argument here is that this guy has been screwed over by his employer, insurer etc and so therefore he is justified in screwing over his creditors? (Who gave him credit when he needed it to pay his legal fees)

An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 10:11

Zeno I am liking the weasel thing quite a lot at the moment, more British than a meerkat and far more accessible up North.

I am prepared to cut you both in for a slice of the action. First things first though.

I never like to leave a project half way through, I was thinking that if you could both just sign up with me for a deal on your Credit to be lowered or written off. It need not be too much, Geoff that car loan you have it is possible that if it were written by a certain Bavarian firm that the contract is unenforceable. It seems they were particularly fussy about the vorsprung dortechnik but lax on the paperwork.....go figure.

Zeno that smooth and very distinguished Financial advisor that sorted out your mortgage, well it seems that he may have forgot to tell you that his fees were included in your Mortgage loan and you have been paying for them monthly ever since.

We can do this guys we have a future together, you cannot ignore the stars or fate that brought us all together.

I must stay off the meds:)

Geoff T

8th July 2009, 10:53

C'mon Geoff a few more baby steps and you are there......welcome Brother

We are so far apart we make Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill look like bed mates!

Could be wrong, but I think he might've meant me:)

PS "brother"? Not flamin' likely if you DID mean me! (though credit for the latest stabs at humour...;))

On a separate issue very often the people who were struggling smoked 40 a day!

BACK AWAY from my habit man!!! Separate issue, leave it alone!!:rolleyes::D

PS to OP (Essex, blah de wotsit)... in your example you failed to add in your options the outcome of the legal action, presumably the subject is still awaiting the outcome of the case? If not, and he won then he'll have the funds awarded by the court won't he? If he got lucky, he'll have had an award for costs too, so that can go to the £1,000 fees he racked up...or did he blow all that too?

Geoff T

8th July 2009, 11:16

Mr CF Worked for a firm of solicitors, the pay was pretty good and one of his perks was that he received an income protection policy....kismet

He lived a normal lifestyle, nothing too fancy and had some loans for his car and he paid for things on his credit card like many people do. He balanced transferred a few times to get 0 % interest so he had a few cards. He fell ill one Monday with long term Problem. His insurance kicked in and he got 70% of his salary for the first year, thinking he would get better and having the insurance he had few problems. Until his insurers stopped paying him and asked him to visit their Harley street quack who virtually told him you are cured my son before he sat down to say who he was. He ended up having to get solicitors, which he paid for to get his firm to take up the missing salary. It took him a years fight and the loss of a years income plus £1000's in solicitors fees.

Bottom line he has credit problems and is using our service to try and clear some of the problem.

Is he morally wrong to try and get what the Government has made possible for him via the 2006 Consumer Credit Act ?

should he ;
1.sit on his morals and go bust.
2.Go for an IVA and make matters worse
3.Phone Zeno for a tax break.

Ok - got the bit 'tween me teeth now!:rolleyes: Answer is probably a resounding YES

Let's examine this example in some more detail!

1. the Subject was clearly living beyond his means...otherwise he'd have used the 0% interest periods to clear the credit card debt...rather than "playing the system"...
2. Subject was off "sick" for more than a year...did he apply for DLA/Incapacity Benefit? Did he reduced his expenditure to allow for the change in circumstances? Did he try and reach agreements with his creditors during this time? Freeze any of his credit cards?
3. If - on re-reading this, your post means that he lost his case, then he didn't have a case did he? Or is he appealing the decision?
4. Has he offered to sell, or return, any of the toys he bought with other people's money? I expect not!

So I go for option 1.

Take it on the chin...accept the OR, and get a job! Many worthy people out being made bankrupt every day, and unless your subject can show attempts, or even a willingness to work with his creditors to get out of the situation...then I'd say you picked a bad example!

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 11:17

What is it with Geoffs and this forum:|
Any more Zeno's:)

Two Geoff's do not make a Zeno....you weasel, pimple on the ar....
I do like to cause a stir in the room:cool:

No outcome on his case against the firm yet as the solicitor is in fact the pimple on the ar... that Zeno described so eloquently in an earlier description of me. It hurt Zeno, what can I say " I'm hurt:redface:

Zeno

8th July 2009, 11:25

It hurt Zeno, what can I say " I'm hurt:redface:

Regular sweary words are banned and the moderators crack down on any offensive language so I am forced to be inventive.

And if the cap fits...

I would ask how you sleep at night but I'm a wee bit worried the answer will be "on a pile of money with many beautiful ladies".

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 11:28

1. He was not living beyond his means, this guy lived in this century where credit flows so freely....well for a while. He was servicing his debt with no problem as he had a good job and a life....you know that thing that happened when you were young!

2. He did accept help from the state, this helped him pay his mortgage and eat.He did approach the lenders who were kind enough to help him and harass him until he feared answering the phone.

3. The firm picked up where the insurers left off but he is fighting still to reclaim the years salary missed out, he is not on full pay. He thought he had everything mapped out, even had his income protected by insurers, his circumstances changed...best not get too comfortable this could happen to you.

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 11:29

..

I would ask how you sleep at night but I'm a wee bit worried the answer will be "on a pile of money with many beautiful ladies".

Have you got me under surveillance:cool:

Geoff T

8th July 2009, 11:31

What is it with Geoffs and this forum:|
Any more Zeno's:)

bet if you look hard enough, you might even find another bloke from Essex on here...:rolleyes:

Two Geoff's do not make a Zeno....you weasel, pimple on the ar....
I do like to cause a stir in the room:cool:

true, but then I like to leave the "direct communication" option for Zeno - soooo much better at it!!:cool:

No outcome on his case against the firm yet as the solicitor is in fact the pimple on the ar... that Zeno described so eloquently in an earlier description of me. It hurt Zeno, what can I say " I'm hurt:redface:

2 items from this:

1. If there's a pending court case which will solve the subject's problems, why's he trying to do the dirty on his creditors already???
2. If you're THAT sensitive you are SOOO in the wrong job!:rolleyes:

Geoff T

8th July 2009, 11:43

1. He was not living beyond his means, this guy lived in this century where credit flows so freely....well for a while. He was servicing his debt with no problem as he had a good job and a life....you know that thing that happened when you were young!

I remember being young - that was when I was stupid... luckily I grew out of both!:rolleyes:
OF COURSE he was living beyond his means:rolleyes: - if he hadn't been he'd have used the 0% interest periods to clear the debt wouldn't he - rather than just blow more of other people's dosh up the wall!:rolleyes: IRRESPONSIBLE BORROWING!...

2. He did accept help from the state, this helped him pay his mortgage and eat.He did approach the lenders who were kind enough to help him and harass him until he feared answering the phone.

So the inference from this, they weren't giving him the answers he wanted, so he buried his head in the sand...STUPID!:mad:

3. The firm picked up where the insurers left off but he is fighting still to reclaim the years salary missed out, he is not on full pay. He thought he had everything mapped out, even had his income protected by insurers, his circumstances changed...best not get too comfortable this could happen to you.

The pending court case may help him...and no it couldn't. When my circumstances change - as they do (and have), I've LEARNT not to ignore it, and cut my cloth accordingly!

Best thing for your subject would be to drag his sick arse down to Citizens Advice Bureaux...most honourale thing for you to do would be to tell him this, and give him the contact details...you want I should send them over?:p

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 12:04

2 items from this:

1. If there's a pending court case which will solve the subject's problems, why's he trying to do the dirty on his creditors already???
2. If you're THAT sensitive you are SOOO in the wrong job!:rolleyes:

!. doing the dirty on his creditors = exercising his rights as a consumer under current government guidelines as set out in the 2006 Consumer credit Act as amended...from where I sit.
2. I am alas a sensitive soul, perhaps you are right too sensitive for the job, you could not imagine the number of times I have cried myself to sleep at night.:(

Still you have to make the best of what you've got, cutting my cloth blah blah blah,
Knowledge talks, wisdom listens.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me !
Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change.
Don’t let your victories go to your head, or your failures go to your heart.
Those who criticize our generation forget who raised it.
Criticizing is easy, art is difficult.

I do like a nice quote don't you

Geoff T

8th July 2009, 13:08

!. doing the dirty on his creditors = exercising his rights as a consumer under current government guidelines as set out in the 2006 Consumer credit Act as amended...from where I sit.

Comfy seat...big..plush...leather no doubt?:rolleyes:

2. I am alas a sensitive soul, perhaps you are right too sensitive for the job, you could not imagine the number of times I have cried myself to sleep at night.:(

I feel your pain - really!:(;)

I do like a nice quote don't you

:DLOVE 'EM! here's another for you guru..."like the wise man said":p

Back to topic, it looks on the surface like your subject lived it up while he could, without worrying about the consequences, so yes it is a cop out - the heck with his "legal" rights...

I understood the legislation to be brought in to answer the problem of missold products, not for people to exploit!

Back to your OP - about disspelling myths etc - since you started up can you give one example of the real "Robin Hood" as you previously referred to, where you have helped someone who had genuinely been missold...this might help redress the balance some!

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 13:43

A nice large soft brown leather chair...with suitably padded arm rests, that swivels...no pun intended or implied.

I keep battling on.....damn this war

Several of my colleagues were shot down over the Kent countryside on their way back to blighty (Essex) Poor old Johnny had the undercarriage ripped right out from under him......there are some nasty potholes on that damned M25, then there is the human toll .........................(QE2) bridge & tunnel
its the price you have to pay for freedom.

With Freedom comes responsibilities and the right to challenge any unfair agreement or badly written one made by any lender.

Did you know that the nasty old lenders ignored the Financial Ombudsmen for a year when he politely asked them in 2005 to start doing their job in accordance with the 1974 Consumer Credit act and write proper agreements. The FO got tired and grumpy at being ignored by the Banks and decided he would teach them a lesson.....He decided that the best way to beat them with a stick was to set joe public on them in the form of the 2006 Consumer Credit Act.......bless them all.

Back to the examples;

Man had a Mortgage and was not asked relevant questions about PPI which was added to his mortgage. Mis-sold in fact. The lender when challenged was kind enough to stump up £5000 in compensation for their man being a bit of a crook at the point of sale.

Have a quick look at what a MIG is that may be on your original Mortgage offer, this is a little insurance that you may have paid upfront for in your loan. This little insurance is something you pay for but it is taken out for your lender at your expense to pay the lender his money back if you decide you cannot or will not pay at a later date.

MIG's were automatically added to some types of Mortgage loans.

I am thinking about getting a bow and arrow, not too sure about being Robin Hood as he spent much of his time in the woods with some rather large, rather strange men in tights.

Zeno

8th July 2009, 13:56

No, just realised there is little point debating ethics with a moral vacuum.

You will get no disagreement from me that where someone has been genuinely mis-sold a financial product that they should be able to remedy this loss however what you are talking about goes far beyond that.

Geoff T

8th July 2009, 14:50

A nice large soft brown leather chair...with suitably padded arm rests, that swivels...no pun intended or implied.

DANG! pre-empted on the obvious gags!:D

Did you know that the nasty old lenders ignored the Financial Ombudsmen for a year when he politely asked them in 2005 to start doing their job in accordance with the 1974 Consumer Credit act and write proper agreements. The FO got tired and grumpy at being ignored by the Banks and decided he would teach them a lesson.....He decided that the best way to beat them with a stick was to set joe public on them in the form of the 2006 Consumer Credit Act.......bless them all.

you're mixing issues here...the charges that banks were issuing were found to be unfair and disproportionate through legal process...but that issue doesn't justify your subject dumping his creditors!

Man had a Mortgage and was not asked relevant questions about PPI which was added to his mortgage. Mis-sold in fact. The lender when challenged was kind enough to stump up £5000 in compensation for their man being a bit of a crook at the point of sale.

Have a quick look at what a MIG is that may be on your original Mortgage offer, this is a little insurance that you may have paid upfront for in your loan. This little insurance is something you pay for but it is taken out for your lender at your expense to pay the lender his money back if you decide you cannot or will not pay at a later date.

MIG's were automatically added to some types of Mortgage loans.

I said from the outset that misselling was unacceptable!

I am thinking about getting a bow and arrow, not too sure about being Robin Hood as he spent much of his time in the woods with some rather large, rather strange men in tights.

so many lines, and no more time left!:D

All the best - genuinely:) - and remember to gloat over us moralistic types when you're sitting on your island! (Just make sure you pay up front for it!):eek::p

I'm going to stop following this thread now, feel in need of some fresh air!

PS - might help if you think of me as Geoff#2 - don't blame 'Namesake' (GRD) for my posts! Think of it like a tag team!

GRDCredit

8th July 2009, 14:58

I said from the outset that misselling was unacceptable!

Can I question your misspelling of mis-selling. It is generally accepted that mis-selling is the correct spelling of mis-selling although misselling is unfortunately creeping into common usage. Interestingly misspelling is considered the correct spelling of misspelling even though it would seem to have the same derivation of the misspelling of mis-selling and logically the correct spelling of misspelling should be mis-spelling but that would be to misspell misspelling. Hope that is clear.

Geoff

(What do you mean I have got too much time on my hands this afternoon!)

LowcostPR

8th July 2009, 15:46

Here's my two cents:

Whenever people ask me about "claims management companies", I always suggest they treat them with the same manner as they would treat anyone claiming to be a Nigerian General with £20,000,000 to deposit in their bank.

They will not "write off" the debts, merely convince the creditor to stop chasing the debt. I have not read through the whole of the thread so I am not alleging that EssexCountryMan has said the following, but this is standard in the industry to claim the following:

Claiming that you will get "compensated" by the creditor for premiums already paid. Not going to happen as the debt was not "mis-sold" (I'm not going to argue with this point. It was not mis-sold in the correct sense of the term, merely the wording in a small part of the credit agreement was slightly incorrect).

Claiming that you will have the info wiped from your credit history. Again, not going to happen. As the debt was not mis-sold, it will still show as "balance owing, shot settled". This is a "bad mark" as it shows to any future creditor that you have not paid your debt and you are either a defaulter (bad) or have used a claims management company (credit worthiness suicide).

Claiming that 85% of credit agreements are unenforcable. Bearing in mind the law change was merely 27 months ago, how they can quote this with a straight face is beyond me. Trust me, the cases this applies to are amazingly tiny. Also bear in mind that the average person who would seriously be looking at this will be in serious financial difficulties (hey, it's always easier to "convince" those who are in a desperate situation) and if you cannot pay contractual payments, then you cannot do claims management as the agreement would have been defaulted anyway and you are still legally obliged to pay the money (law of obligation).

Also bear in mind that I used to work in the debt industry and I cannot explain in words just how hated Claims Management companies are (sorry EssexCountryMan, but they are). Creditors are not scared of them, they loathe them as they try and convince ordinary people to squirm out of debt and then leave them in real trouble.

I can always remember the debtors who had gone into debt management after going to a Claims Management company. They normally had, say, 12 creditors and 11 of them had a CCJ with either a Warrant Of Execution (bailiffs to you and me) a forced Order for Sale (the courts foreclose on their house) or an Attachment of Earnings (your employer pays the debt and deducts it from your salary, meaning your boss is fully aware of your debts). The reason for this is because anyone going through claims management is clearly trying to squirm out of their debts, and the creditors want to make sure they get their money back, and quite rightly.

What I find interesting is this article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/borrowing/article6243235.ece) in the Times. Especially this part:

"In reality, cases have simply ground to a halt as banks and lenders up their game and become more clued up on the Consumer Credit Act and subsidiary legislation. It’s now extremely inappropriate and misleading for any company to promise to write off balances in light of this judicial move.”

I so love the irony that, by you coming on here claiming the creditors have been misleading people, you are misleading them according to the above judge.

I'll be waiting for the FSA to bring in all the necessary legislation that will make starting a claims management company harder than starting a bank.

Sorry if this sounds personal, it isn't as such. However I've seen too many hard working people screwed over by claims management companies to have anything even close to a neutral opinion of them.

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 15:48

:)
Good bye Geoff #2 it was fun, which ever Geoff you were or intended to be. May your God go with you.....best not to leave him lying around or Her depending on your viewpoint.

I will take the title of the longest introduction.

Geoff #1 have you ever read the letter about " The Dam Beavers" I think that you would enjoy it immensely. I would be happy to supply you with a copy.

On another matter can anyone tell me where I can get one of those "moral vacuums" Zeno was banging on about, my Dyson has been playing up and I am looking for an alternative. Are moral vacuums expensive ?

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 15:50

I am busy reading and will reply soonest.:eek:

LowcostPR

8th July 2009, 15:51

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 17:00

Whenever people ask me about "claims management companies", I always suggest they treat them with the same manner as they would treat anyone claiming to be a Nigerian General with £20,000,000 to deposit in their bank.

It is fair to say that I am not a Nigerian with £20m,

They will not "write off" the debts, merely convince the creditor to stop chasing the debt. I have not read through the whole of the thread so I am not alleging that EssexCountryMan has said the following, but this is standard in the industry to claim the following

Claiming that you will get "compensated" by the creditor for premiums already paid. Not going to happen as the debt was not "mis-sold" (I'm not going to argue with this point. It was not mis-sold in the correct sense of the term, merely the wording in a small part of the credit agreement was slightly incorrect).

A debt that is unenforceable due to certain conditions not being met can mean that someone with a loan could be relieved from repaying the debt. An unenforceable agreement does not make the agreement invalid, a common misconception. It means that the lender cannot enforce it without a court order.
Compensation would only be possible if an agreement put the borrower at a disadvantage and a judge made that decision and felt compelled to rescind the agreement, I do not advocate telling people they will get compensation although in rare cases it would be possible.

Claiming that you will have the info wiped from your credit history. Again, not going to happen. As the debt was not mis-sold, it will still show as "balance owing, shot settled". This is a "bad mark" as it shows to any future creditor that you have not paid your debt and you are either a defaulter (bad) or have used a claims management company (credit worthiness suicide).
An application for a declaration of unenforceability, coupled with a request for an injunction to prevent the lender blacklisting the borrower is a potent and effective response in this situation.

Claiming that 85% of credit agreements are unenforcable. Bearing in mind the law change was merely 27 months ago, how they can quote this with a straight face is beyond me. Trust me, the cases this applies to are amazingly tiny. Also bear in mind that the average person who would seriously be looking at this will be in serious financial difficulties (hey, it's always easier to "convince" those who are in a desperate situation) and if you cannot pay contractual payments, then you cannot do claims management as the agreement would have been defaulted anyway and you are still legally obliged to pay the money (law of obligation).

Most of the lenders cannot even produce an original signed agreement, they have been so lax that they store them by the thousands with no way of retrieving any particular copy. We do not take on clients with defaults, it is possible however to make an arrangement with lenders to reduce payments and continue then with a claim. Also if a lender cannot produce a signed copy of an agreement within 12 days to the borrower then the loan is in dispute and the borrower does not need to make his repayments until the dispute is rectified,although we recommend they continue servicing the debt at that point.

Also bear in mind that I used to work in the debt industry and I cannot explain in words just how hated Claims Management companies are (sorry EssexCountryMan, but they are). Creditors are not scared of them, they loathe them as they try and convince ordinary people to squirm out of debt and then leave them in real trouble.

We are not here to scare creditors, we are here to legally challenge their agreements, I note that many are not taking cases to court to avoid the publicity should they lose, they make settlement outside court. I can stand being loathed by lenders, I myself dislike with a passion some of the debt management industry that rip people off with IVA's and debt management that sees a majority of the borrowers money going to them and not the lender.

I can always remember the debtors who had gone into debt management after going to a Claims Management company. They normally had, say, 12 creditors and 11 of them had a CCJ with either a Warrant Of Execution (bailiffs to you and me) a forced Order for Sale (the courts foreclose on their house) or an Attachment of Earnings (your employer pays the debt and deducts it from your salary, meaning your boss is fully aware of your debts). The reason for this is because anyone going through claims management is clearly trying to squirm out of their debts, and the creditors want to make sure they get their money back, and quite rightly.

People trying to avoid debt if they can afford to service their debts will ultimately avoid people like yourself who it seems want to make them squirm because of their difficulty and often due to changed circumstances.

What I find interesting is this article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/borrowing/article6243235.ece) in the Times. Especially this part:

"In reality, cases have simply ground to a halt as banks and lenders up their game and become more clued up on the Consumer Credit Act and subsidiary legislation. It’s now extremely inappropriate and misleading for any company to promise to write off balances in light of this judicial move.”

I am afraid the article you refer to was incorrect and no doubt funded by lenders with an interest in it going to print. No case have been stopped,stayed or ground to a halt. This was such bad reporting that Judge Halbert of the Chester County Court has himself voiced his anger at being misquoted. He has had his words put on the Ministry of Justice website last month to clarify what he actually said. No cases are being held up because of it.

I so love the irony that, by you coming on here claiming the creditors have been misleading people, you are misleading them according to the above judge.

Read all the news about this case and as I have said you will find that the judge believes the public have been mislead by the press reporting his words. What he did say was that it was high time the lenders shouldered their responsibilities when they were found to be at fault. The irony is that you expect to come here and talk about something of which you have a little knowlledge of and that can spread half truths born out of the fact that you are not doing proper research.

I'll be waiting for the FSA to bring in all the necessary legislation that will make starting a claims management company harder than starting a bank.

I do not think the FSA will become as involved as you think, although I agree with you that there are far too many cowboy firms setting up and the Ministry of Justice seem ill equipped to slow this process down.

Sorry if this sounds personal, it isn't as such. However I've seen too many hard working people screwed over by claims management companies to have anything even close to a neutral opinion of them.

That is why I am here, I do not take things personally and you have given me an opportunity to get my point across.

Essexcountryman

8th July 2009, 17:05

Additionally I had a man from a Claims Management company come to a network meeting I was at once to give a presentation on what he does.

I have never seen a man brought swiftly down to Earth as much as him by a whole room. Either he had no idea what he was talking about (he claimed everything I posted above) or he knew and assumed we were all mugs.

He has now gone out of business and is himself bankrupt. This is because he was reported him to the OFT for practicing debt management (negotiating reduced payments with creditors) without a Consumer Credit Licence.

Not having a Consumer Credit Licence while practiving debt management is like being a taxi driver without having a driving licence.

It sounds like he had some selling skills but was short on knowledge, several of the larger companies in my industry have got their salespeople brainwashed and looking forward to the fortune they will make.

I have some knowledge and I will make some mistakes but I will not deliberately mislead anyone, if I do not know something I will do the research and where needed issue a retraction or apology.

Essexcountryman

9th July 2009, 10:44

:cool:

Lowcost came out from his corner swinging huge hay makers left and right, he looked like a heavy weight of old "Sonny Liston" (lied about his age).

But he was no match for the Louisville lip of the new contender EssexCountryman who was floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee.

"Now Clay swings with a right...What a beautiful swing.and the punch raises the bear .Clear out of the ring..Liston is still rising.and the ref wears a frown For he can't start counting Till Sonny comes down"

Zeno and the 2 Geoff's where are they now;

Zeno has opened up a new tax clinic in the Bahamas.

One of the Geoff's is currently in California hosting a spelling bee TV show.

The other Geoff has now opened his own Claims Management company in Bournemouth, due entirely to the average age of the inhabitants there Geoff is offering an express claims service.

It is fair to say that nobody has ever seen the 2 Geoff's together and it is widely believed that they are in fact one person or twins.

Zeno

9th July 2009, 10:53

Zeno has opened up a new tax clinic in the Bahamas.

I wish...

This is getting wearisome. Can you not post a thread on another topic so we can argue about something else?

Essexcountryman

9th July 2009, 11:07

There are other threads:)

faz

9th July 2009, 11:38

come on girls put your handbags away now.

YODspica

10th July 2009, 02:17

Welcome to the forum,

GRDCredit

10th July 2009, 05:24

Welcome to the forum,

How can you do that without a smiley!

Essexcountryman

10th July 2009, 08:48

:)

Yodspica Thank you.

You see there are some nice people on here that have manners, I am starting to get a bit of a tingly glow about this place possums

Makes you just want dash out and buy everyone a coffee and a nice glazed donut !!:):):):)

I may come out of my shell a bit after this, usually I am the shy retiring sort but c'mon lets mingle a bit:redface:

Geoff....I knew you would never leave me.....is there room on your horse for 2. no innuendo intended just a Rolf Harris line. Not that there is anything wrong with Rolf Harris you understand...or Australians.

I love Australians, especially the indigenous ones they look so cute standing on that big orange rock in the middle of nowhere, are they looking for a soul mate do you think. Bit of a daft place to start but you have to admire their persistence.

If any of you business gurus need a daft script for your website I am a freelance comedy writer in my spare time.

Essexcountryman

10th July 2009, 08:55

Geoff

If I had feelings they would be hurt !

Only Zeno has done that this week, straight off to confession Zeno...go on off you go.

Zeno

10th July 2009, 09:38

Is that picture supposed to be a wolf? Very appropriate but could you not find one of a rabid jackal?

(Why not go to "time out" and give us your 2p on Michael Jackson?)

Essexcountryman

10th July 2009, 09:58

:)

It is indeed a Grey Wolf, for some inexplicable reason I am drawn to them.

The lone Wolf:cool:

Going to give M Jacko thread a look see.

Essexcountryman

10th July 2009, 10:18

The following is something your old collegues may need to pay heed to as they try and stitch up the unsuspecting victims and sign them up for a debt management program or worse an IVA perhaps.

Are you referring cases for debt management or IVA? If so, you could be at risk of accusations of professional negligence.

If you have failed to check whether your clients’ debts are enforceable, or whether they exist as a result of mis-selling, you could be liable if you recommend them for debt management or IVA.

I had to chuckle at the thought of so many pious fellows now having to go and check to see if a client actually owes the debt legally, before they could stitch the poor sods up with an IVA that they will most likely not be able to keep up payments on. You know the IVA system where most of the money actually goes to the debt management company not to the lender. You are not the good guys, you are the real sharks circling the pool....I and many of my honest colleagues are in the lifeboats pulling them from your jaws.
Now that is Irony

:):):)

GRDCredit

10th July 2009, 12:14

I think I might have found you a friend (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=116858)

Geoff