Page 1 of 2
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:18 pm
by go_4_broke
Hi All
Just wondering if anyone has had any experience with so called 'technical write offs'. This is where a debt is written off because the agreement is found not to be compliant with the terms of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.
There was a TV program about this a while ago and since then it seems to be a 'growth industry' with lots of companies and websites springing up offering to do this - for a fee of course. However hard evidence of success seems to be very thin on the ground. If there was success with certain agreements it should be becoming general knowledge by now - for instance 'All LLoyds credit cards between 1995-2000'.
So if you have had some results (or not) with this please reply!
Best Regards
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:32 pm
by rayb
Hi,
Have not had any experience personally but have heard loads about this and I would not touch any of these companies with a bargepole.
Personally I see it as an excuse to get out of a debt that you have made and therefore it should not be allowed but this is just my view!!!
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:33 pm
by Skippy
I agree Ray, and I don't think it's something that should really be discussed on the forum as at the end of the day it's debt avoidance.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:37 pm
by kallis3
We've had one or two threads about this before.
It is debt avoidance, as Skippy says, and is not something this forum advocates in any shape or form.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:52 pm
by go_4_broke
I wouldn't be advocating anyone doing this from cold.
However I think it may have a role in legitimate debt solutions, for instance the threat of losing the right to collect any money may bring an awkward or harassing creditor into line.
It is a bit 'below the belt' but as for it being 'debt avoidance' this could also be applied to bankruptcy, or, potentially, any debt solution that does not involve returning 100% to creditors.
P.S. - I thought discussing things was generally what forums were FOR !
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:04 pm
by animaleyes76
there's loads on this on another reputable site. type **stephen got a slapped bottom, and probably deserved it** into google and you'll find it.
Am i allowed to say that? Hope so, I dont advocate it myself but I agree with the last poster
i should clarify i meant that when i said i "agree" i mainly meant the way a lot of creditors behave i can partly understand why some people would use the method, not that it makes it right though...
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:23 pm
by kallis3
I'm afraid I don't agree with you go4broke.
Those of us in IVA's are paying back what we can manage to pay back, and some manage to pay back in full what they owe.
Bankruptcy involves paying back some money for three years, and can involve the loss of your house and other assets.
The writing off of loans, as far as I am concerned, involves people who are rubbing their hands at the prospect of not having to pay anything else and having no penalty upon their record.
It shouldn't be allowed!
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:32 pm
by Skippy
I agree with Jan.
I went BR, not through choice but necessity and don't consider myself a debt avoider. I am paying back as much as I can afford in an IPA, and although I didn't lose my home, if I'm asked I will forever have to declare I've been BR, which could affect my chances of getting a mortgage.
I may have been able to get my debts written off in the manner you describe, but I wouldn't have considered.
The reason I said it shouldn't be discussed on the forum is that it might encourage people who would have taken other, legitimate debt solutions to get out of paying anything back on a technicality - plain wrong.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:35 pm
by animaleyes76
Hey Jan
I agree too.. but sadly the loop exists. It would be a shame not to at least talk about it, whether it is right or wrong. That is really a seperate discussion
However, i can also see that the site should show the right way to do things etc and in no way condone it.
I hope that i come across as being in that "camp" because i am not. I believe people should pay as much of what they owe as they can, but have to admit i was desperate enough at one point to think about using that method because I thought there was no other option. I was going to do it myself as I had read enough to know where i stood.
In the end I found some information that let me make an "informed" choice and I'm glad i did because entering an IVA WAS the right choice for me

)
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:41 pm
by go_4_broke
I appreciate that for someone who is doing their best to complete an IVA, to come up against someone who may have had all their debts 100% written off via a technical loophole would be somewhat gutting.
However the law is the law and there is nothing you, I, or anyone else can do about it, and I would personally find it difficult to blame the less scrupulous for taking advantage.
Which is why I want to get to the bottom of what is really going on, because it may be all hocus-pocus, but there's no smoke without fire as they say.
And in the provision of debt solutions all practioners are going to come up against people who have questions about this - I'm afraid it is well and truly out in the wider world and limiting discussion here would have absolutely no effect on that.
P.S. Thanks for the reference animaleyes - very informative!
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:50 pm
by Skippy
I think you hit the nail on the head their G4B when you mention unscrupulous people - they are the ones that shouldn't be encouraged, as they are the ones who make the rest of us suffer.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:50 pm
by kallis3
I wasn't having a go at you animaleyes.
I just don't think it is the right topic to discuss on this forum.
I would not be 'gutted' that they had had their debts written off, I would be annoyed that they had seen fit to address their problems in that way and I would be disgusted with them!
I don't want to give any new people on here the idea that they should not be trying to pay back any of their debts.
I am rather hoping in the not too distant future, that this 'loophole' will be well and truly closed.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:52 pm
by animaleyes76
Hey Jan, i didn;t think you were having a go.
I was actually just thinking of editing THE post of mine but it seems it's already done.
Woops.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:53 pm
by Skippy
I wasn't having a pop at you either Animaleyes, and I only removed the reference as what the people were saying was basically dishonest and I don't want any newbies thinking the forum condones that sort of thing.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:54 pm
by animaleyes76
yup, no probs. i edited your edit too.. ;op some of the links you get if you DO put that in google are funny as!