Default removed, but then...

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I am relieved to hear it , I would not want anyone following my advice, without being able to evaluate it for themselves.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I am relived to hear it , I would not want anyone following my advice, without being able to evaluate it for themselves.

All view points are worth receiving,and the debates they provoke are definately worthwhile in enhancing an understanding of things. Like I said, it's not a criticism in any way, and I hope, well I know, you understand that...for mere mortals, and given how many of us there are...I guess when we are drowning it is very tempting to grasp at straws..

Please don't stop chipping in will you...

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Not at all only my opinion as I said, and I don't have all the facts, I am sure Nidd does not mind a bit of friendly disagreement.

It is for you to decide which path to take, we all wish you luck whatever you do, and will support you in your efforts.

[alangee]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I must admit to not reading all the above posts, but I too have had issues with Sainsbury's Default Notices and them buying back the account from a DCA.

In January 2009 Sainsbury's sold my OH's account to a DCA. Prior to the sale a defective Default Notice was issued by Sainsbury's. In June 2009, we reclaimed the charges, and although they initially wanted to pass them over to the DCA, they finally sent us a cheque.

In 2010, we complained to Sainsbury's that the Default Notice was defective, so they should not have entered a default marker on my OH's credit record. I now know that a default marker and a DN are two separate issues, but at the time believed them to be one and the same. However, my argument must have been persuasive, because eventually, after some toing and froing, Sainsury's wrote back to say that they had recalled the account, removed the default, and offered £200 as compensation.

They also gave us two options on the account. Pay the full balance, or smaller monthly payments, and, provided we kept to the arrangement, would not issue a fresh default.

We refused the compensation, because the account had been terminated prior to sale. We told them that acceptance by us would enable them to reinstate the account, which they terminated, and we do not give our permission for that to happen.

My belief is that if an account is terminated, then your permission, or the courts, is needed for it to be reopened, perhaps Paul can comment on this.

We last heard from them in April 2011 in response to our rejection of their offer.

This post may not be of any great help, and many of ther points may have been covered, but we went through the same experiences. The only difference is that we were paid our charges prior to Sainsbury's recall of the account.


Alan

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

We will have to agree to differ here i think, in my view payment of 25p per week is better than the possibility of a charging order or even just a CCJ, unless the agreement was definitely unenforceable, and in my experience there is no such thing.

Ahh but I have facts, proof and hundreds of cases to back my point of view.

Sadly your opinion is like that MSE & CAG come up with. Ill never agree with this nonsense. Why on earth would anyone keep a debt alive unnecessarily like paying 25p? That point of view really isn't welcome here cos its against all we stand for, and incorrect in every sense.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Not at all only my opinion as I said, and I don't have all the facts, I am sure Nidd does not mind a bit of friendly disagreement.

It is for you to decide which path to take, we all wish you luck whatever you do, and will support you in your efforts.

I love healthy discussion and varying viewpoints but saying to someone to pay 25p is nuts. As cardiac spotted, he could pay that for 50 years then at that point the OC could try and enforce. Technically interest will keep the debt increasing so your £5k debt will be £25k at retirement.

Best to draw their hand long before that. If they take action so be it. It happens and in some cases it's for the best as the OC can't make silly threats like they do prior to court.

Others blag out 6yrs and get SB.

In this case the OP doesn't have his back to the wall so UE is deffo the way to go!

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

And yours of course.

Sounds like debt evasion to me.

The function of these forums should be to protect people from creditors who are being unreasonable, accepting £1 a month on a £6.5 k debt and suspending interests seems pretty damned reasonable to me.

I have read some of your hundreds of cases, they do not bear out what you say I am afraid.

However it is your forum, and you seem intent on keeping any alternative views silent.

So I will bid you A fond adieu

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Debt evasion?

The facts to dispel that notion;

1. The OC are in default of s.78
2. They've terminated incorrectly
3. Default notice is bad
4. Amount of default is wrong
5. Lots of unlawful charges
6. The OP physically can't pay

So that discounts your claim of debt avoidance.

It's not "my" anything. It's a user discussion board that welcomes views so long as those views are within the ethos of AAD. We're not like other forums. We don't do chance, we prefer to base help based on past experience and not once on the forum here or on my past at MSE would I ever suggest paying if you can't afford to and/or any payment made would be less than monthly charges applied to the account.

As its his only debt I asked about keeping it live but the OP cannot pay. So in this instance surely going for SB is the way forward. If they get heavy he can make a deal with any dca right upto the point of the day of any court action.

[ken100464]

Re: Default removed, but then...

My two pennyworth on this.

If Banks/DCA's were normal AND were reasonable then a forum like this wouldnt and couldnt exist.

People will say two wrongs dont make a right. But in this alternate universe banks push people to look for ways out not because they are debt evaders BUT because they cant pay.

I cant recall one poster who has come on here saying they can pay everything off if they wanted to but they choose UE because they want to evade the debt.

They have found a forum like this because they were looking for a way out of grinding debt.

A bank/DCA pushed them into researching debt. However once people have knowledge then things can snowball and perhaps debts that werent a problem before then get the same treatment.

Each poster is responsible for their own story. The elephant in the room thread nicely put that across.

But must admit you either do UE or you dont. Understand the view that a judge wont like but your trying not to be infront of a judge in the first place.

But for me my OH was on severe hardship and £1pcm. That didnt stop them taking her to court and neither would 25p. And the debt was alot less than the OP's.

Her mistake if she made one wasnt to kick, scream and make a fuss all the way to the courtroom. She didnt have knowledge to challenge them and make it difficult.

My gut feeling is that if you want to be paying token amounts you really only want to be for short term with a view to increase asap. If that is not an option then why prolong what is coming. Go UE fully and if they gonna take you they will. But you never know they may well have cocked up their paperwork.

And with guides such as these here at least you have a chance.

We didnt make the rules. The establishment did. Just they didnt think for one minute people could use them against them.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

So I will bid you A fond adieu

I've just emailed you - I do hope you don't take this very welcome constructive discussion the wrong way - we never learn if we don't discuss options so it's all good.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Generally they'll agree but on occasion we will have differing views, great! That's what makes us all unique. What may work for Peter may fail for Paul so varying opinions are welcomed here.

Please, don't take the above posts as any dig or command of power - I am a user, the same as you and 2000 others - I get things wrong, like you and 2000 others but the good thing about that is we'll learn from such posts, posters and associated help provided.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I was just going to say Ken, but you added it at the end...We don't make the rules, but the creditors and debtors have to work by them...if creditors break the rules, then they should suffer the consequences...just like a debtor does.

I hate the stigma attached to being in debt...and the judgemental attitude most people seem to have...it wasn't a choice.

I scrape by with a pension and benefits...and no assets..In 3 years I'll have my OAP to come..do I really want to hand all that over to a DCA who paid what, £600 for the debt account ? The DCA is not the injured party...so why would I act like they are ?

Why would anyone feel any obligation to pay £6000 to someone who only paid £600 for the account ? If it was the OC, then yes, but not a DCA.

Am I morally bankrupt because of my views...

[ken100464]

Re: Default removed, but then...

?

Why would anyone feel any obligation to pay £6000 to someone who only paid £600 for the account ? If it was the OC, then yes, but not a DCA.

Am I morally bankrupt because of my views...

If the OC was held responsible for the mess it makes then perhaps some of us wouldnt have got the credit we did.

The one decent creditor we have was the last one we managed to get credit with.

But how can you get a credit card and be defaulted within 9 months if they did their checks right.

There was a debt spiral going on and not one of them show any sympathy at all. All they wanted was the charges and interest bumping the spiral further and further out of control.

I quoted irresponsible lending at the last lender. Guess what not a peep since. They aint decent they are downright embarrassed

You aint morally bankrupt mate. The system that allows everything you see on here however IS.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

When I applied for my card..I gave all my details...salary, employer, outgoings etc etc..and got a £3000 credit limit. Over the next 3 years they bumped that limit up to £6,500 without so much as a question about my capacity to support it. Sure, you don't have to use it...but the more you pay off, the more they give you.

I quoted irresponsible lending too...but they said it was all in line with their lending policy at the time and I did have the option to refuse the increase...

[helmsman]

Re: Default removed, but then...

When I applied for my card..I gave all my details...salary, employer, outgoings etc etc..and got a £3000 credit limit. Over the next 3 years they bumped that limit up to £6,500 without so much as a question about my capacity to support it. Sure, you don't have to use it...but the more you pay off, the more they give you.

I quoted irresponsible lending too...but they said it was all in line with their lending policy at the time and I did have the option to refuse the increase...

We have all been there

[ken100464]

Re: Default removed, but then...

The most valuable client any bank can have is one who is just about able to pay the monthly payments but not make inroads into the principle.

They need to push people there. Yep we dont have to take it, some wont some will. Free will and all that. But they are there tempting you all the way along.

For everybody they dont temp enough there will be someone who has taken on too much.

But even more there will be countless thousands paying interest month in month out. And its these people they want.

People like us just cause em grief. Once they identify the troublemakers they wont really be to relaxed about lending again.

CRA's are just a method of working out what sort of client you are. Stacking the odds even further against us.

But they wont in time be particularly bothered about the pay up on time brigade either. Not enough money in that.

Sub-serviant cash cows are what they are after.