Panorama

[Skippy]

Is anyone else watching this? It's about how the lenders are recouping their money.

They're also talking about debt avoidance websites and it'll be interesting to see whether they condone or condemn it.

[freelili]

They always look for uncommon examples and extreme cases, so I dont pay them too much attention.

I was approached once by one of these programmes to take part in something to do with special schools. I soon realised they pick the bits they want to dramatise the reality.

[karenanne23]

I have just watched it.
It was frightening about the charging orders but it did come to light that one guy who owed Nat West £20000 actually had 8 properties and had not made any attempt of an offer of payment.Nat West withdrew their threat to force a sale and he sold his property himself.
People like him make it worse for other genuine cases.[:(!][:(!]

[Skippy]

I must admit I had no sympathy for the guy with 8 properties! How could it not occur to him to sell one of them to pay his debts? If I could have done that I would have done so in a shot. It's because of people like him that genuine cases get a hard time.

[Adam Davies]

Hi
I really feel that this debt avoidance is going to taint the industry, especially when it has been aired on National TV
I really have no time for people or companies that try to avoid debt repayments because of technical loopholes.
Regards

[Skippy]

I felt that the programme made it clear that they weren't condoning the couple they interviewed. At the end of the programme it turned out that although they had managed to get £100k of debt written off they actually owed around the same in legal fees.

[Adam Davies]

Hi
Yes I did have a chuckle at that.
Regards

[liberta]

It was an interesting programme and did show both sides of the story to a certain extent -the lady who nearly had her house reposessed because of a debt for a sofa and the one trying to sort out her step father's debts.

I am only sorry that CCCS (I presume that this was the debt advice charity they were referring to) or another debt advisor was not able to air their views on the programme in addition to the BBA.

[Skippy]

I actually think it would have been better if the programme had been an hour instead of half an hour. I think there was a lot more that they could have covered.

I hope something is done about the debt collection agency they visited, the ones that say they will hound you until you pay.

[LoneRanger]

What channel was this on?

[Skippy]

It was on BBC1 at 8.30 last night.

[LoneRanger]

Thanks Skippy. Might have to watch it on catch up then. Sounds interesting.

[kalla]

The battle between Debtors and Creditors are getting nasty in the era of Depression, the gloves are off and an IVA or BR protection is the only thing keeping proceedings civilised.

The 'CO order' with the 'order of sale' is a new creditor tactic and that's enough to scare people with a roof. Banks are now running out of goodwill with all their tireless chasing and final demands and they will aways get their man sooner or later. Even a traffic ticket unpaid will be persued by dilligent debt chasers.

The couple featured on Pana'even if they got off paying the 100K[no legal cost] would not have been able to have that debt entry cleared in their credit file....only the credit agencies and the Banks can remove it and it would take another potential 'landmark' case that all credit firms would fight at all cost to win...like the bank charge case still rumbling on in slow motion and I see the banks over turning OFT early successes.

An IVA is a nice compromise to keep debtors and creditors civil.

[go_4_broke]

I agree with Andy that pursuing 'technical write offs' by finding loopholes in the Consumer Credit Act may be a bit below the belt but it could be a good tactic to use against an agressive creditor. It also serves notice on lenders generally that they need to play by the rules.

I'm not sure why the media has suddenly 'discovered' Charging Orders. These have been around for donkeys years and have been heavily used by some creditors in the past. What's far more worrying is the proposed change in the law to allow creditors to get Charging Orders without first having a CCJ in place.

This stands to breach the general rule that there is actually not a lot creditors can throw at you that can't be defended in some way, if only to buy time.

And in a phrase I find myself using more and more these days, there could be worse to come.

An article in the Telegraph today states 'The High Court has ruled that families could see their homes sold from under them by mortgage lenders after two missed payments, reinforcing legislation from 1925 that gives loan providers the right to seek homes of people in arrears without a Court Order'!!!

I don't know the full basis of this but will put it in the blog when I find out.

Vince Cable said the ruling was 'extremely alarming' - unsurprisingly !

[karenanne23]

Yes
just when the goverment are supposed to be encouraging lenders to be more sympathetic.[:(]