Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[rumpelstilzchen]

Normally the debtor would have received a notice of assignment. They know someone else has the right to collect but very often they refuse to accept it.
One other point. It isn't the debt that is sold. It is the rights under the original contract. This is where the GOOFs go wrong. They believe the sale pays off the debt.

[Burnaby49]

Ever thought of running for office? You'd fit right in.

I don't see the point of continuing this since you obviously won't give a straight answer, it's a simple question, even Skeleton gave a yes/no, I'm not asking you to comment on the letter, but trying to establish why you seem to be giving me the impression that asking for proof is wrong. If you want factual stories then try this one for size, small credit card debt, offers of token payments while I got myself back on my feet to the credit card company were refused, eventually they stopped sending me letters. 8 years later one of the big debt collectors contacts me telling me to arrange repayment of the outstanding balance, as I owe it to them now, you tell me what I should have done, and i.'ll tell you what I did, and the result.

This has nothing to do with the letter, I'm asking your opinion on what you would have done in my situation.

If you see no point in continuing this why are you continuing this?

I entered this discussion in my role as moderator to stop what looked like an impending flame war. I have no intention of entering into a discussion with you about whatever point you are trying to make about asking for proof. I'm not playing guessing games about what you did in a past scenario because you past history is of no interest to me.

[Skeleton]

Normally the debtor would have received a notice of assignment. They know someone else has the right to collect but very often they refuse to accept it.
One other point. It isn't the debt that is sold. It is the rights under the original contract. This is where the GOOFs go wrong. They believe the sale pays off the debt.

Everyday is a School day mate, I never knew that, but their again I read the debt is sold on GOOFY, should have known to check.

[Forsyth]

If you want factual stories then try this one for size, small credit card debt, offers of token payments while I got myself back on my feet to the credit card company were refused, eventually they stopped sending me letters. 8 years later one of the big debt collectors contacts me telling me to arrange repayment of the outstanding balance, as I owe it to them now, you tell me what I should have done, and i.'ll tell you what I did, and the result.

I would assume the response went something on the lines of:

"You know, if the credit card company had accepted my generous offer to pay them 5p a month eight years ago, they would have been £4.80 richer, I would have owed them a lot more money thanks to the accrued interest and, most importantly, the debt would have been kept live and you could now make good on your threats to take me to court. As it is, it's time expired so while I technically owe you the money there's bog all you can do to actually make me pay it."

I suspect there may have been another sentence on the end of that, but I'm struggling to find a version that's suitable for polite correspondence - a reference to the response in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) seems it might fit there.

[Pox]

while I technically owe you the money there's bog all you can do to actually make me pay it.

And this is exactly what doesn't sit well with me.
So many of the FMOTHLanders and GOODFreers talk about 'remaining in honour' when they know, in their heart of hearts, that they owe the money.

At the end of the day, if an organisation fails to recoup from their debtors, those of us who do settle our debts ultimately end up covering the shortfall.

The fee schedules for rates per letter/hour/phone calls are designed to threaten and intimidate.

Proof of debt, wet signatures and such nonsense - in most cases and IMO, an attempt to evade ones debts using what amounts to a loophole in much the same way that the lawyer, Nick Freeman (http://www.nickfreemansolicitors.co.uk/) has got many a famous face off motoring charges (including a not so famous friend of mine who was drunk as a skunk behind the wheel).

I have a great deal of sympathy for those that are at the end of their tether due to what must appear to be insurmountable debts but cannot condone the approaches recommended by GOODF and other FMOTHL type sites.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The problem with the GOOFs is they believe that even if you can afford to pay you are not obliged to.

[Pottapaug1938]

Last fall, I had a temporary job with a credit counseling service. My job was to contact creditors and see if my company's payment proposals had been accepted. In most cases, they were; and if the interest rate was not reduced to 0%, it was often dropped substantially. If the proposals weren't accepted, then often a counter-proposal was made which, even if accepted as made, gave the debtor a break.

Both then, and earlier in my life when money was tight, I found that most creditors are willing to work with people to avoid a debt going into collections. Yes, there are some sleazy creditors and collection agents out there; but most are quite reasonable. I suspect that many of the GOODF people are those who 1) have tried this process and have failed, often because they can't or won't stick to the agreements made on their behalf, 2) who are so deeply in debt that they perceive their only choices as bankruptcy or GOODFism, or 3) those who hear these crackpot fantasies and decide that they can beat their debts and have more money to blow on themselves by drinking the kool-aid.

[FatGambit]

If you want factual stories then try this one for size, small credit card debt, offers of token payments while I got myself back on my feet to the credit card company were refused, eventually they stopped sending me letters. 8 years later one of the big debt collectors contacts me telling me to arrange repayment of the outstanding balance, as I owe it to them now, you tell me what I should have done, and i.'ll tell you what I did, and the result.

I would assume the response went something on the lines of:

"You know, if the credit card company had accepted my generous offer to pay them 5p a month eight years ago, they would have been £4.80 richer, I would have owed them a lot more money thanks to the accrued interest and, most importantly, the debt would have been kept live and you could now make good on your threats to take me to court. As it is, it's time expired so while I technically owe you the money there's bog all you can do to actually make me pay it."

I suspect there may have been another sentence on the end of that, but I'm struggling to find a version that's suitable for polite correspondence - a reference to the response in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) seems it might fit there.

Close, I had offered £3 a month, so when the DCA came calling, I asked them to clarify their position, respectfully (none of this I'm going to charge you £150000 if you dare write again), a week later they wrote back to me, confirmed it was statute barred and they had ceased collection activities. Had I responded how it seems everybody bar one here thinks people should, then I would of been on the hook for a ton of money I still didn't have, but I questioned their position and they admitted there was nothing they could do.

I do not see anything wrong with that, the law works both ways and it's there for a reason. The posts on this page just make it appear there's a deep seated bitterness here towards anybody who uses the regulations and such to their advantage, instead of cowling over at the first asking.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Pottapaug1938 wrote:

3) those who hear these crackpot fantasies and decide that they can beat their debts and have more money to blow on themselves by drinking the kool-aid.

Such as Tom Crawford. After getting involved with the GOOFs he decided he was not obliged to pay what he owed.

[notorial dissent]

I think the main problem with the goofies is that they have long gotten past the point where being civil, cooperative, and trying to work out an arrangement is anything but a distant memory in the back window, always assuming they DIDN'T start out that way to begin with. I think the majority and certainly the diehard ones are not in to trying to anything other than get out of the situation they are in with the least skin off of them, and of course it won't work based on their efforts.

[Bones]

Close, I had offered £3 a month, so when the DCA came calling, I asked them to clarify their position, respectfully (none of this I'm going to charge you £150000 if you dare write again), a week later they wrote back to me, confirmed it was statute barred and they had ceased collection activities. Had I responded how it seems everybody bar one here thinks people should, then I would of been on the hook for a ton of money I still didn't have, but I questioned their position and they admitted there was nothing they could do.

I do not see anything wrong with that, the law works both ways and it's there for a reason. The posts on this page just make it appear there's a deep seated bitterness here towards anybody who uses the regulations and such to their advantage, instead of cowling over at the first asking.

I was going to let this topic drop but I think some of us are talking at cross purposes, which is easy to do on a forum.

The above is very different to what happens on a daily basis on GOODF. You were not required to repay the amount that you owed for a good legal reason being that it was statue barred. On GOODF, they come up with all this crap about once a debt is sold its been paid, all that crap about 3 letters (Canadian case confirms is rubbish). GOODF is all about debt avoidance for the sole reason of not wanting to pay.

People like Colon and co, recommend the latest snake oil scheme that comes along and actively encourage people to commit fraud (such as the DD scam).

For the average GOOFer even when it is shown that they legally owe the debt, they will still try every BS scam and theory out there not to pay it

[Pox]

I do not see anything wrong with that, the law works both ways and it's there for a reason.

Please can you tell me the reason for the law in this case?


You were not required to repay the amount that you owed for a good legal reason being that it was statue barred.

'Good legal reasons' maybe, but does good legal reasons = good moral reasons?.

P.S. Not taking the moral high ground here, just askin'

[Forsyth]

'Good legal reasons' maybe, but does good legal reasons = good moral reasons?

I usually take the approach that the law defines the minimum standard of acceptable behaviour for someone to participate in society. If it was unacceptable for someone to do something and this was having a significant impact on society then people would approach their MP to change the law, similarly if a law was excessively burdensome.

It's taken a huge amount of time and effort for people to define what acceptable behaviour is as closely as we have today, and it's still far from perfect. Defining additional higher levels of universal idealised behaviour above the requirements of the law is probably best left to those who have to do so (doctors, ministers of religion, etc.) and they seem to struggle.

[Bones]

'Good legal reasons' maybe, but does good legal reasons = good moral reasons?.

P.S. Not taking the moral high ground here, just askin'

Talking morals is like talking about politics... Always going to end in argument

[Greengrass]

I wasn't sure whereabouts to post this. Must admit I have had many a good chuckle at some of the goings on in a lote of the threads on here. Having had a some spare time today I decided to look through some of the newspapers and came across a snippet by Kelvin McKenzie in the Sun - I won't spoil the fun by listing some links but will let you Google the following yourselves and wonder if any of it could be directed at those that are discussed.

Have a search for - Dunning Kruger effect

[Pox]

'Good legal reasons' maybe, but does good legal reasons = good moral reasons?

I usually take the approach that the law defines the minimum standard of acceptable behaviour for someone to participate in society. If it was unacceptable for someone to do something and this was having a significant impact on society then people would approach their MP to change the law, similarly if a law was excessively burdensome.

It's taken a huge amount of time and effort for people to define what acceptable behaviour is as closely as we have today, and it's still far from perfect. Defining additional higher levels of universal idealised behaviour above the requirements of the law is probably best left to those who have to do so (doctors, ministers of religion, etc.) and they seem to struggle.

Thanks for this - don't think I will be approaching my local MP though! You obviously haven't met him

As for what defines 'acceptable behaviour' and despite what the law says, sometimes I do feel that a moral conscience is lacking - statute barred, lack of a deed of whatever, lack of an original contract signed in red ink blah blah, at the end of the day, money was loaned or a service provided or a utility used which should be paid for.

I repeat that I have sympathy for those in a debt hole.

I don't think that this translates as a wish for 'universal idealised behaviour' which I am quite happy to leave to those that 'have to do so'.

[Pox]

'Good legal reasons' maybe, but does good legal reasons = good moral reasons?.

P.S. Not taking the moral high ground here, just askin'

Talking morals is like talking about politics... Always going to end in argument

Point taken, I don't do arguments, so will bow out disgracefully.

[noblepa]

I do not see anything wrong with that, the law works both ways and it's there for a reason.

Please can you tell me the reason for the law in this case?


You were not required to repay the amount that you owed for a good legal reason being that it was statue barred.

'Good legal reasons' maybe, but does good legal reasons = good moral reasons?.

P.S. Not taking the moral high ground here, just askin'

I don't know what the laws in the UK are regarding collection of very old debts, but here in the US, at least in most states, there are limits to how far back a creditor or collection agent can go back. I think the reasoning is somewhat similar to that for statutes of limitations for crimes. It gives a person a chance to get out from under what could otherwise be a life-ruining situation.

If one incurs a debt and finds themselves in a situation in which they are unable to repay it, it can be a downward spiral that you can literally never recover from. By putting limits on such things, it gives a person a chance to turn their life around and dig their way out of the hole they found themselves in.

Is there a moral obligation to repay the debt, even though there is no legal obligation to do so? I think that's up to each of us to decide if we find outselves in that situation. Some people do voluntarily repay such old debts. Some don't.

If a debtor doesn't clean up their act and simply uses the reprieve to get themselves into more debt, shame on them. If they use it to regain control of their finances, good for them. That is an outcome that is good for society. It has restored the debtor to being a productive, responsible member of society. Having a large number of people living in crushing poverty due to excessive debt that can never be repaid is not good for anyone.

[Skeleton]

In the UK it depends what the debt is for. If it is for an unsecured load, IE credit cards, store card, personal loan etc, then provided their has been no contact, they become statute barred under the Limitations Act after 6 years. If the Creditor goes to court and gets a County Court Judgement before the 6 years is up however, then the debt can still be enforced after 6 years. If a debt becomes statute barred It wont stop some of the tougher DCA's asking the question after 6 years though, Its up the debtor to point out (prove) the debt is statute barred.

For Council Tax, a Council should not go to court and ask for a liability order more than 6 years after the first bill was sent.

Mortgages are limited but it depends on the type of mortgage as to after what period. Mortgage shortfalls are complicated (having been there) Pays to get advice and not of the Goofy kind.

Their is no time limit for Income Tax, VAT, or other duties. National Insurance though is not classed as a tax and is therefore statute barred after 6 years.

[Dr. Caligari]

Good legal reasons' maybe, but does good legal reasons = good moral reasons?.

P.S. Not taking the moral high ground here, just askin'

As a lawyer, I have been paid to argue that some very large corporations were not legally obligated to pay things that some people might say they were morally obligated to pay. So I have no problem with less well-off people asserting the statute of limitations on their credit card debts. If that's all there were to GOODF, I would have no problem with that website. Unfortunately, most of the posts there are pushing nonsense theories that will make the debtors' situation worse. (Tom Crawford, anyone?)