Are the Banks/government to blame for the rise in sites like GOODF

[letissier14]

I do. Sadly, instead of getting the kind of financial instruction from my parents they should have provided I ended up learning the life lesson of where my financial comfort zone is through the hard route: personal experience in making mistakes. But... how many are taking personal responsibility for their choice even if they still blame the Banks?

For example: Prior to loosing your job at the time, was your debt load at a level where you were pretty much spending everything you made on debt and weren't able to put money aside for a rainy day? After your experience, have you kept your debt levels down enough that you could still build a financial nest egg in the event you end up out of work again?

You don't have to answer those questions, but if you aren't building that financial "emergency fund" for a rainy day (or year) then I'd suggest you haven't quite yet learned from the previous mistake. If that's the case, isn't it your responsibility to be putting something aside each pay check for the future? If you're not doing that, taking care of your responsibility for your future financial well being, then can you really put all the blame on the Government/Banks/Other Creditors if you run into trouble again?

To be honest I lived from week to week to make sure I covered everything. I never had an education in finance and from the minute I turned 18, I had credit thrown at me. It was easy money with a minimum to pay back each money. I mean what could go wrong....

I actually saved £12k for a deposit on my mortgage, but was told by the financial advisor not to waste my money
and he would get me a 100% endowment mortgage. There was I living at home paying my mum £160 a month and then all of a sudden I was paying £1000 a month for my mortgage (when the interest rates hit the all time high) and another £110 a month for the endowment (which when matured would pay my mortgage off and give me a nice little sum on top) plus another £50 per month maintenance charge for my flat. I was taking home approx £300 a week at the time and my Mrs was earning about £120 a week.

Fast forward to today... am debt free and am very careful with money. I only use credit cards to pay for holidays etc and then pay it off in full the following month. If I can't afford anything, I don't buy it, as I simply refuse to do credit these days. I also put 10% of everything I earn away.

So I agree with you that if I got into financial trouble again, the only person I could blame would be me.

And that was my biggest bugbear on goodf when helping some people with debt, especially those that I was helping repair their credit file, they would often ask me " how long before I can get credit again? - Nooooo you don't want credit again I would say ..................... Some people will never learn.

[mufc1959]

At work we've seen a massive rise in the last 18 months or so in people using FOTL arguments to try to get out of paying debts. I'm a firm believer in people accepting responsibility for their decisions. I've had to pay for my house, car, telly, etc. Why should someone who's borrowed money to buy those things then be allowed to walk away from paying for them?

Most of the people using FOTL arguments - probably 90% - have only recently found GOODF. They all send the same letters in claiming tacit agreement, estoppel, and some even send in bills. The documents all have identical paragraphs about the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, the nature of money, securitisation - and there's a particular document we see probably 4 or 5 times a week that has the same little diagram on page 2 allegedly showing how securitisation is illegal.

Once you get them on the phone the majority of them haven't a clue what securitisation or estoppel is, they've no idea of the legal concepts behind contracts and can't argue their position. Some admit they've just copied letters off the internet. They're usually the ones that are easy to deal with as they soon abandon the woo and come to a payment arrangement.

The ones who stick to their guns - either because they've been told by GOODF that this will definitely work, or because they're fully woo-ed up anyway - are impossible to work with. They leave us with little alternative but to go to court.

99% of the cases that I deal with that go to court result in the customer abandoning any FOTL arguments. A few file defences using White Rabbit arguments about securitisation, assignment, no money's been loaned, yadda yadda yadda. They get nowhere with those arguments. If they stick to their guns in court, there'll be an order for possession.

I've dealt with probably 12-15 evictions in the last 18 months where the customers have refused to abandon the woo. And they were all cases where the borrowers' position wasn't so untenable that we couldn't have agreed an arrangement to pay. We tried and tried to get them to come to an agreement, but they were adamant that they didn't owe anything because we hadn't been able to 'prove' we'd ever lent them anything. Madness.

It's true there are a lot of people who are pissed off at the way the country and the economy's been run. But the woo simply doesn't work where secured loans (which I deal with) are concerned.

On the other hand, I don't agree with lenders/DCAs trying to recover unsecured debts that they know they shouldn't be chasing. I'm talking about statute-barred mortgage shortfall debts or unsecured loans, pre-2007 CCA cases where there are no documents, that kind of thing.

[letissier14]

You want to stop poverty, you need to work from the top downwards

Not surprisingly: again, I disagree.

Personal financial responsibility starts with the individual. All personal responsibilities start with the individual. There's a powerful over-riding force guiding each and every human being: Free Will.

No one can force another human being to be financially responsible. We have to make that choice for ourselves and if we choose not to be financially responsible, we have no right to place the blame on someone else when we're financially stressed.

In an ideal world I would agree with you, but we don't live in an ideal world. To be financially responsible people first need to be taught the skills to do that. Banks and governments have a responsibility for this too.

You can't start throwing around credit cards and then after a few payments double the amount they are allowed to borrow without some repercussions along the way. If you are not taught about handling money and the possible risks and rewards that come with it, you are stating at a disadvantage.

[letissier14]

At work we've seen a massive rise in the last 18 months or so in people using FOTL arguments to try to get out of paying debts. I'm a firm believer in people accepting responsibility for their decisions. I've had to pay for my house, car, telly, etc. Why should someone who's borrowed money to buy those things then be allowed to walk away from paying for them?

On the other hand, I don't agree with lenders/DCAs trying to recover unsecured debts that they know they shouldn't be chasing. I'm talking about statute-barred mortgage shortfall debts or unsecured loans, pre-2007 CCA cases where there are no documents, that kind of thing.

I agree that far too many people are being brainwashed with the FMOTL argument and no amount of explaining or proving to them that it doesn't work, will stop them.

When TC lost his case I was one of the first to tell him to go get legal advice and try and do a deal with the building society and for that I was kicked from their group and have been harassed every since. They will simply not listen to anything anyone says to them and in my opinion they deserve everything they get.

We should all take responsibility for our decisions, including those banks who threw money at people without a second thought.

I help people every day and it saddens me that so many people are being harassed by debt collectors when like you say, they have no legal right to be chasing them.

I actually think it is getting worse and just today I had a woman ring me who had the bailiffs at her door with the police threatening to break in over council tax and this was because the council had refused her offer of £150 per month and said it was out of their hands - absolute joke

[Joinder]

Financial prudence and taking responsibility for your debts and repaying them is right.
Pity the Banks didn't show the same prudence and responsibility when THEY got themselves in debt.

[Joinder]

As Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England said...
"The Bankers who caused the crash got away with it"

Even he didn't attempt to blame debtors, irresponsible homeowners etc, he nailed it.

[Hyrion]

In an ideal world I would agree with you, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Totally agreed. And it's in this non-ideal world where the average individual seems to think if they can get away with doing something they know is wrong but benefits them, they'll do it.

Don't believe me? Take a poll of the people you know on the following question:

• You go to a bank machine connected to the bank that services it, punch in your pin, and hit a withdrawal of 40. You collect your card, the receipt and the money. You notice you got 60. You look over your receipt and it says 40. What do you do with the extra 20?

Of those I've polled, almost all - over 95% - say they'd keep the extra money. It doesn't matter why they would keep it. The facts are simple:

• 1: It does not belong to them, a mistake deserves to be corrected

• 2: They know who it belongs to

• 3: They can easily return it

They know that the right thing to do is return the error - but, for one of however many reasons they can think of, they keep it instead. Because ultimately they know they benefit from the choice and it's pretty much impossible to be accused and convicted of theft on a transaction of error - not to mention only they have knowledge of.

And... what is the overriding force that allows people to make that choice? Free Will!

To be financially responsible people first need to be taught the skills to do that. Banks and governments have a responsibility for this too.

No... they don't. If the Bank and Government has a responsibility to teach you about being financially responsible then you equally have a responsibility to help the other party in your agreement to ensure all of their interests are taken care of so the two of you enter into the fairest possible agreement that can be had.

When your employer is giving you a raise, do you just accept that raise? Or do you consider how the business is fairing in the market, how your salary compares with like businesses and careers that match yours - and if you find your employer is going to pay you too much you say no thank you? Of course you don't do that. It's your responsibility to look after your best interests when negotiating your salary. It's your [potential] employer's responsibility to look after their best interests when negotiating what they will pay you.

In the same context: It is your responsibility to be aware of how much financial risk you're willing to take on. It's the Banks responsibility to sell you a product/service.

Just like a gym membership. If you pay for the yearly gym membership but never use it - that's not the fault of the gym. They made the facility/services available, they charge you for the use - it's not their responsibility to either make you use your membership or cancel it because it's unused.

You can't start throwing around credit cards and then after a few payments double the amount they are allowed to borrow without some repercussions along the way.

That's the product/service they provide. It's up to you to decide whether or not you are going to borrow more. It's your responsibility to do the basic math to see how long it'd take you to pay off a 100 debt with an interest rate of 19% paying a minimum 2 per month. And yea... the Bank/Credit Company who is providing you that credit is fully aware of the repercussions such as repossession. But if that happens, if you put yourself in over your head and they end up having to repossess, it's you that just learned about a repercussion on your side of the agreement.

If you are not taught about handling money and the possible risks and rewards that come with it, you are sta[r]ting at a disadvantage.

Totally agreed - but don't you think at least one of your parents should have helped you understand those advantages and repercussions during a time when they could help you deal with those? Out of everyone else in your life, it's your parents who have the greatest best interests to help you become prosperous. To help you succeed.

And the greatest of those best interests - the most powerful - is that while they supported you for the first 18 years of your life before you became a self-guiding adult (or whatever the legal age is in your particular jurisdiction) when they've moved into a state of age where they need your help to take care of them, you'll be able to - but only if you are prosperous enough.

The first unit of society, the first and most powerful rung that makes the difference between you being completely on your own or being part of a group who benefit together: is the family unit.

The Banks don't have such a strong interest in your financial prosperity and neither does the Government. It's also not their responsibility anymore then it's mine to help you financially succeed. Good people will do everything they can to help - as long as the person being helped doesn't end up dragging them down with them if that's the direction they're going in and even then some (I used to be one) will still help. But that's not a responsibility and, as a result, there's no just cause to blame someone because they can't, won't or are unable to help in time of need when they don't have that responsibility.

To make sure my perspective is clear: Does the Government share in the responsibility when a core financial component of Society ends up in such dire straights that a recession occurs when it's their own regulations that helped in creating that? Absolutely! But that doesn't decrease - in the slightest - the parents and individuals responsibility of their own financial well being.

[Pox]

And that was my biggest bugbear on goodf when helping some people with debt, especially those that I was helping repair their credit file, they would often ask me " how long before I can get credit again? - Nooooo you don't want credit again I would say ..................... Some people will never learn.

Going back to your original question-

reading through the lines, I get the impression that you think governments and banks may be responsible (to a greater or lesser extent) for the amount of debt that some people find themselves in which leads them to sites such as GOODF.

You mention above some people hope to get themselves out of the mire (for free), only to get themselves in the mire again -

could it be that sites such as GOODF are the bad boys here as they encourage people to get into debt by giving their audience the impression that it is simple to get out of?

The poster in this link only took out his card this year

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 29&t=93388

Haining is saying - go for it ( the three letters that is) - what sort of 'responsible' is that?

[mufc1959]

Years ago when I was struggling on £6K a year as an articled clerk (trainee solicitor) an acquaintance gave me a bit of advice I've never forgotten.

He said "pay your bills first because a friend or neighbour will always make you a sandwich."

That is absolutely true. I would never, ever ask a friend to lend me money to pay a bill. But people are usually willing to set another place at the table and stretch the dinner out a bit further.

[Pox]

The 3 letters on goodf do have some standing on the fact they require the creditor to prove that the debt exists or that they are legally allowed to collect it. If it can't be proved, you can refuse to pay the debt and this is covered under the consumer credit act.

In my experience most people offer to pay but after being constantly hounded by the creditor they feel like they have nothing to lose and simple refuse to pay.
.

The three letters -

If a creditor can't prove a debt by providing a copy of the agreement and they write it off, do you think that this is morally wrong? Is it a bit like 'getting off on a technicality'?

Being hounded by a creditor -

I am sure that it must be very distressing to be 'hounded' but most, if not all of those doing the 'hounding' will have performance related pay and targets to reach in order to receive bonus payments or even keep their jobs, in some cases.
Maybe some thought should be given to those who may get themselves into debt or lose there home because they didn't 'hound' enough?

[NG3]

Exactly, Pox.

I'm not defending banks here, I've no vested interest in them, but they're all to frequently being used as a convenient excuse.

To many people behave irresponsibly, run up huge debts, try to shirk them, at vast cost to the rest of us, mumble something about banks, then rinse and repeat.

It's only one step short of blaming Jews, blacks, or some other convenient catch-all scapegoat.

I'd rather deal with the problems than attack strawmen.

Yes, there are elements of the banking sector that have negatively impacted our economies, there are also elements that have positively effected it (although one-trackers never mention that), likewise good and politicians, laws etc.

People need to scratch the surface and go deeper, instead of just lashing out.

[wanglepin]

The question hasn't changed at all.

To answer your question. GOODF does offer an unbalanced view (though some of us tried to keep it realistic) but mypoint was more saying if the Banks/governments etc were more helpful, less people would even comes across sites like goodf in the first place.

It has and it has now "slightly" changed again for a second time from - Are the Banks/government to blame - to - if the Banks/governments etc were more helpful.
I only asked you does you question include Freeman On The Land sites?
This is why I said your original question was "slightly loaded".

I can answer your question immediately if I know exactly what it is your clearly asking.
-

[Pox]

They leave us with little alternative but to go to court.
.

I am pleased that you do go to court but as it appears that you are dealing with secured loans ( mortgages?) I guess it's a no brainer if there is enough equity?

What is irking to me is the companies who make a commercial decision not to chase so that those of us who do settle our debts end up making up the shortfall because some user 'loses the name' or uses some other ruse.

[Joinder]

Exactly, Pox.

I'm not defending banks here, I've no vested interest in them, but they're all to frequently being used as a convenient excuse.

To many people behave irresponsibly, run up huge debts, try to shirk them, at vast cost to the rest of us, mumble something about banks, then rinse and repeat.

It's only one step short of blaming Jews, blacks, or some other convenient catch-all scapegoat.

I'd rather deal with the problems than attack strawmen.

Yes, there are elements of the banking sector that have negatively impacted our economies, there are also elements that have positively effected it (although one-trackers never mention that), likewise good and politicians, laws etc.

People need to scratch the surface and go deeper, instead of just lashing out.

"Irresponsibility", and " running up huge debts " are exactely the things our banks did.

[Joinder]

Years ago when I was struggling on £6K a year as an articled clerk (trainee solicitor) an acquaintance gave me a bit of advice I've never forgotten.

He said "pay your bills first because a friend or neighbour will always make you a sandwich."

That is absolutely true. I would never, ever ask a friend to lend me money to pay a bill. But people are usually willing to set another place at the table and stretch the dinner out a bit further.

I love those pearls of wisdom, they are always a good guide to the correct way in life, although a baguette would be more filling

[NG3]

Exactly, Pox.

I'm not defending banks here, I've no vested interest in them, but they're all to frequently being used as a convenient excuse.

To many people behave irresponsibly, run up huge debts, try to shirk them, at vast cost to the rest of us, mumble something about banks, then rinse and repeat.

It's only one step short of blaming Jews, blacks, or some other convenient catch-all scapegoat.

I'd rather deal with the problems than attack strawmen.

Yes, there are elements of the banking sector that have negatively impacted our economies, there are also elements that have positively effected it (although one-trackers never mention that), likewise good and politicians, laws etc.

People need to scratch the surface and go deeper, instead of just lashing out.

"Irresponsibility", and " running up huge debts " are exactely the things our banks did.

Do two wrongs make a right?

[letissier14]

Totally agreed - but don't you think at least one of your parents should have helped you understand those advantages and repercussions during a time when they could help you deal with those? Out of everyone else in your life, it's your parents who have the greatest best interests to help you become prosperous. To help you succeed.

And the greatest of those best interests - the most powerful - is that while they supported you for the first 18 years of your life before you became a self-guiding adult (or whatever the legal age is in your particular jurisdiction) when they've moved into a state of age where they need your help to take care of them, you'll be able to - but only if you are prosperous enough.

The first unit of society, the first and most powerful rung that makes the difference between you being completely on your own or being part of a group who benefit together: is the family unit.

The Banks don't have such a strong interest in your financial prosperity and neither does the Government. It's also not their responsibility anymore then it's mine to help you financially succeed. Good people will do everything they can to help - as long as the person being helped doesn't end up dragging them down with them if that's the direction they're going in and even then some (I used to be one) will still help. But that's not a responsibility and, as a result, there's no just cause to blame someone because they can't, won't or are unable to help in time of need when they don't have that responsibility.

To make sure my perspective is clear: Does the Government share in the responsibility when a core financial component of Society ends up in such dire straights that a recession occurs when it's their own regulations that helped in creating that? Absolutely! But that doesn't decrease - in the slightest - the parents and individuals responsibility of their own financial well being.

Oh I do apologise for the fact that my parents didn't bestow upon me any financial awareness.

Come to think of it, it was pretty poor that my dad decided to leave school at 12 years of age to be the main bread winner of the family, for his mum and 3 sisters after his dad had died suddenly and not concentrate on his education.

And it was very thoughtless of him to not try and get a better education when he was drafted into the Army at 17 years of age to fight in the 2nd world war before he was transferred into the Navy, and then for his frigate to be used as a decoy at D-Day to draw the enemy fire from the shore.

And then it was really stupid of him to get a job on the docks shoveling carbon black without any protective clothing which later resulted in COPD.

And then what can you say about my mum... brought up in outer hebrides but moved to London at 17 to try and get a better standard of living because of how poor they were at home.

Stupid woman taking 3 jobs, working 15 hours a day bringing up 3 boys and giving them everything she didn't have.

How selfish of her not to educate us in financial matters. How will I ever forgive her ignorance. It doesn't matter that she had no qualifications, she should have known better.

Oh well at least they are now departed from this world and didn't have to witness too many of my financial mistakes. If I only lived in a world which was just black and white and simple, surrounded by such perfection.

Geez what are people on these days

[Pox]

Oh I do apologise for the fact that my parents didn't bestow upon me any financial awareness.

How selfish of her not to educate us in financial matters.

Your parents sound like admirable people, they may not have sat you down and started to talk bank accounts and credit to you but from what you have said, their example was one of responsibility.

In itself, this is a lesson for life and is applicable to financial matters as well as a host of other matters.

You are fortunate - imagine if you had Haining (just one of many) as role model.

[Daft Ada]

I orginally found out about Quatloos via GOODF.

I had just started a new job and 3 months in, I serioulsy injured myself and ended up being on sick leave for 5 months.

I was only being paid SSP which just covered my mortgage (and I mean just)
I started looking for ways to save money and ways I could prepare myself for possible repossession proceedings.

I raed some stuff on GOODF and watch some videos and thought that I could use this stuff if times became really tough.
I then found Quatloos and all the good information on here describing the drawbacks to the GOODF "miracle cures"

Luckly, I had saved my pennies for a rainy day and was able to support myself through this tough time and I am proud to say that I have paid all my bills etc and not claimed so much as a penny in support from the government/tax payer.

Why was I able to do this?

I like to think that this is because I am not a greedy man and don't need the latest smartphone or sky TV.
I think greed and people not being able to get their priorities in the right order is to blame for a lot of debt and sites like GOODF seem to feed on this and some posters on their are after a bit of qdos and will make totally impractical suggestions to help which will ultimatly lead to more misery further down the line.

We need more site to help people get out if debt but not for free.
Take some responsibility for you actions, make sacrifices, get off your backside and stop thinking everyone owes you something.

sorry for the rant but freeloaders really get my goat

[Hyrion]

Oh I do apologise for the fact that my parents didn't bestow upon me any financial awareness.
...
How will I ever forgive her ignorance.

You read way too much into what I wrote.

I was talking about the responsibility to teach you about financial responsibility - even through example if not words - and who that responsibility falls upon. And from your description, it looks like both parents may have provided you with great financial examples to learn from. A teacher may be available but that doesn't mean the student will learn.

1st level of responsibility: Your Parents

2nd level of responsibility: Yourself - sadly, this usually falls into that section referred to colloquially as "the hard knocks of life"

No one else has any responsibility tied to teaching you about financial responsibility unless they ended up being a legal care giver at some point - for example, if your parents had passed on when you were 6 and your aunt raised you from that point.

I never spoke to the perspective of whether or not any particular individual - your parents or anyone elses - was or was not a good teacher. So your interpretation of that in what I wrote is just that: yours. Unless you can point to some specific statement I made along the lines "your parents were awful parents" <- in other words, other then in the context of who has responsibility to teach what, point out where I judged.

If you interpreted the following as a "judgement":

Totally agreed - but don't you think at least one of your parents should have helped you understand those advantages and repercussions during a time when they could help you deal with those?

Then I point out that it was a direct response to your point of:

If you are not taught about handling money and the possible risks and rewards that come with it, you are sta[r]ting at a disadvantage.

It wasn't meant as a judgement but an identification of who has the responsibility to teach you about financial responsibilities.