Pro's and Cons

[Enforcer]

Re: Pro's and Cons

Talked with my daughter about this. She would qualify for DRO, but we have now gone past the 2 year mark towards SB by not answering any letters and changing her phone number. Clarity are now writing to her new address asking for info. As usual the DCA's are chasing the smallest account first. In the bin, no reply. If anyone goes for CCJ this option is open to her. Will wait!

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Pro's and Cons

I have no experience at all with DROs DMPs or any of the other "schemes" designed to enslave ordinary folk. I only know how to fight them and I will go down kicking up hell regardless. However I would not worry about the SB limits. Its already down to 5 years in Scotland and in EU countries on the European mainland most are down to 3 years. I have heard rumours that using the same legislation that was used to keep Quatada here, we may get a ruling in the consumers' favour from the same court. I hate the EU but Britain would then have little option but to comply or leave the EU, its that serious. By the way it is a fundamental principle in English Common Law and pretty much any law system that Jurus prudence applies that you cannot as a free citizen be made victim of retroactive, retrospective law.

regards
G

Thanks G, is this something in the pipeline that you know of, as it would be interesting and relevant to know ? I was being a bit facetious regarding retrospective statute changes, but thanks anyway for clearing up the point for me. There can't be many who fit the qualifying requirements for a DRO when you look into it...it's as if they don't want anyone to be able to use it. Maybe I should check if the OC's want to settle before I venture any further...they sold my £7k debt for £300 or something, so that's a negotiating starter maybe.. Time to have a think now perhaps....

[garlok]

Re: Pro's and Cons

But as we all know, or as some are finding out under the Tories, one thing promised yesterday doesn't mean it will still be a promise tomorrow...so statute can be changed and SB could be made 10 years...or more... (The NHS is safe under the Tories). The unknown factor, and maybe the only thing that is causing me to defer further thought, is the impact of having a marker on my CRA file with regards to a DRO...is that worse than a Default...does anyone have any experience of life with a DRO on their CRA file ?

I have no experience at all with DROs DMPs or any of the other "schemes" designed to enslave ordinary folk. I only know how to fight them and I will go down kicking up hell regardless. However I would not worry about the SB limits. Its already down to 5 years in Scotland and in EU countries on the European mainland most are down to 3 years. I have heard rumours that using the same legislation that was used to keep Quatada here, we may get a ruling in the consumers' favour from the same court. I hate the EU but Britain would then have little option but to comply or leave the EU, its that serious. By the way it is a fundamental principle in English Common Law and pretty much any law system that Jurus prudence applies that you cannot as a free citizen be made victim of retroactive, retrospective law.

regards
G

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Pro's and Cons

Interesting comments. However under the Limitations Act once the 6 years are done it becomes Statute Barred. End of. Theoretically Parliament has spoken and the courts at any level have no jurisdiction to grant an order against you. Statute means just that Parliament's will and the Supreme Court even, have no authority or jurisdiction to overturn Statute Law. I believe the complications come as more and more creditors try to prove acknowledgment/payment during the 6 year period. Elsa may remember a time over on CAG when the statutory payment for a s78 request was even being used as a "payment" and "acknowledgment in writing" of the alleged debt. There is also the small matter of interpretation, for that read unlawful manipulation of the Statute Law by both lawyers and judges to rule in the Establishment's favour. Ah well that's just me.

regards
G

But as we all know, or as some are finding out under the Tories, one thing promised yesterday doesn't mean it will still be a promise tomorrow...so statute can be changed and SB could be made 10 years...or more... (The NHS is safe under the Tories). The unknown factor, and maybe the only thing that is causing me to defer further thought, is the impact of having a marker on my CRA file with regards to a DRO...is that worse than a Default...does anyone have any experience of life with a DRO on their CRA file ?

[garlok]

Re: Pro's and Cons

Interesting comments. However under the Limitations Act once the 6 years are done it becomes Statute Barred. End of. Theoretically Parliament has spoken and the courts at any level have no jurisdiction to grant an order against you. Statute means just that Parliament's will and the Supreme Court even, have no authority or jurisdiction to overturn Statute Law. I believe the complications come as more and more creditors try to prove acknowledgment/payment during the 6 year period. Elsa may remember a time over on CAG when the statutory payment for a s78 request was even being used as a "payment" and "acknowledgment in writing" of the alleged debt. There is also the small matter of interpretation, for that read unlawful manipulation of the Statute Law by both lawyers and judges to rule in the Establishment's favour. Ah well that's just me.

regards
G

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Pro's and Cons

There's no one answer to fit all, there are so many things to take into consideration, in my view.
Eg, how far down the SB route you are already
On what basis the account is UE...how watertight? Other factors-default notices-which DCA and how aggressive
State of mind or health and ability to deal with hassle etc etc

In some cases whereby the "debtor" fits the criteria and depending upon the above and other aspects, then yes a DRO may be a quicker, easier route..

Thanks Elsa..and for the link which is very informative.

The immediate downside I see is the marker on your credit file, which lasts 6 years and obviously could impact on any financial transactions one might wish to enter into (rental agreement for a property maybe). If you have a clean CRA file this is a big step backwards for those of us who have already gone 6 years with a marker on file...but are now clear of that. Against this is the possibility at a future date of a CCJ I suppose...

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: Pro's and Cons

There's no one answer to fit all, there are so many things to take into consideration, in my view.
Eg, how far down the SB route you are already
On what basis the account is UE...how watertight? Other factors-default notices-which DCA and how aggressive
State of mind or health and ability to deal with hassle etc etc

In some cases whereby the "debtor" fits the criteria and depending upon the above and other aspects, then yes a DRO may be a quicker, easier route..

[cardiac arrest]

First of all let me say I haven't really thought too deeply about this, but...what are the pro's and cons of going down the UE and possibly SB route as apposed to taking out a DRO ?

On the face of it, one takes 6 years and a fair bit of hassle, while the other (DRO) takes a few quid and 12 months with a 'guaranteed' write off at the end of it.

I am obviously missing a few things here although I realise not everyone will satisfy the DRO criteria regarding assets etc, but if your assets fit it to the qualifying criteria for a DRO is this a better route to take ?