Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Confessions Of A Debtor


Recommended Posts

For all the people saying how great a decision defaulting on your loan (really stick it to the banks) is I wonder if you will feel the same about all of these BTL empires which will start hitting the floor soon enough?

~S~

how we feel about it is not the point the system is setup to remove as much "feeling" as possible, for everyones benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the point being unless there is evidence to suggest/prove fraud the court is obliged to assume non took place.

Hi Rogi,

thanks for your post and I believe I understand your position. Regarding fraud, I agree with you.

the point is we will never know as the system was circumvented by the bailout.

interesting almost-answer! but what if you did know, the OP has used the reason for his change in his moral standpoint from normally paying the debt to now not paying it because of the banks/bankers behaviour, what IF the bank that he borrowed from was above board, dont you think it is rather a convenient out for the OP? You now also know that he has the money to give to charity.

And now I'm going to drag you into it - given what you know now about the OP by what he has posted (assuming all is true), what is your opinion of his behaviour? and do you not see any downsides to his decisions given his circumstances and options? you are perfectly free to post your moral position too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting almost-answer! but what if you did know,

i already said that i would understand if he wanted to pay the bank back i would also understand if he did not as he is perfectly within his rights to do both.

the OP has used the reason for his change in his moral standpoint from normally paying the debt to now not paying it because of the banks/bankers behaviour, what IF the bank that he borrowed from was above board, dont you think it is rather a convenient out for the OP?

the bailout was infinitely more convenient for the bankers.

You now also know that he has the money to give to charity.

what monies he has after he has made his agreements and so forth is not relevant.

And now I'm going to drag you into it - given what you know now about the OP by what he has posted (assuming all is true), what is your opinion of his behaviour?

i think he did the right thing broadly speaking.

and do you not see any downsides to his decisions given his circumstances and options?

sure but i also see upsides, it is up to him to decide how to balance his life priorities.

you are perfectly free to post your moral position too!

if you read through my posts it is pretty clear, i do not regard the non payment of any debt (with no fraud involved) as reason for moral outrage from anyone as the laws are clear and pretty much well used for the most part, as far as the bailout is concerned however this obviously has changed the landscape for people in a profound way and the fallout will be massive and ongoing for individuals and western civilization.

some people will use the bailout as an excuse to not pay (selfish greedy people who would not pay anyway)and others will use it (the outrage at the bailout) as a prop to there damaged moral sense then default and use any monies for good/get on with there lives, and others will simply do nothing except carry on as before.

Thanks for that, I begin to wonder whether it is all a wind up.

it would matter little if it was, as it serves to highlight an important issue and if it helps one person reading with debt problems to get help and realize that owing a bank some money is not the most important thing in there life, that they can get help and then get on with there lives, then all this posting was worthwhile.

Edited by uncle rogi
Link to post
Share on other sites

it would matter little if it was, as it serves to highlight an important issue and if it helps one person reading with debt problems to get help and realize that owing a bank some money is not the most important thing in there life, that they can get help and then get on with there lives, then all this posting was worthwhile.

Great post Rogi, sums the whole thread up nicely. And never mind the OP being on a wind up; Mr. GreenGreen has such a great offering that, even in this business environment, he can afford to dictate his client's payment terms based upon moral judgements he has made about them. Apparently.

eight

Link to post
Share on other sites

i already said that i would understand if he wanted to pay the bank back i would also understand if he did not as he is perfectly within his rights to do both.

the bailout was infinitely more convenient for the bankers.

what monies he has after he has made his agreements and so forth is not relevant.

i think he did the right thing broadly speaking.

sure but i also see upsides, it is up to him to decide how to balance his life priorities.

if you read through my posts it is pretty clear, i do not regard the non payment of any debt (with no fraud involved) as reason for moral outrage from anyone as the laws are clear and pretty much well used for the most part, as far as the bailout is concerned however this obviously has changed the landscape for people in a profound way and the fallout will be massive and ongoing for individuals and western civilization.

some people will use the bailout as an excuse to not pay (selfish greedy people who would not pay anyway)and others will use it (the outrage at the bailout) as a prop to there damaged moral sense then default and use any monies for good/get on with there lives, and others will simply do nothing except carry on as before.

it would matter little if it was, as it serves to highlight an important issue and if it helps one person reading with debt problems to get help and realize that owing a bank some money is not the most important thing in there life, that they can get help and then get on with there lives, then all this posting was worthwhile.

HI Rogi, thanks for your posts, I enjoy reading them and your understanding your viewpoint. As you have probably ascertained from my posts, I have concerns about the path chosen based not only on my own but others knowledge and experience (both in business and personally) that I feel will have consequences for the OP further down the track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Rogi,

thanks.

HI Rogi, thanks for your posts, I enjoy reading them and your understanding your viewpoint.

it's all good, thanks.

As you have probably ascertained from my posts, I have concerns about the path chosen based not only on my own but others knowledge and experience (both in business and personally) that I feel will have consequences for the OP further down the track.

yeah and those issues are for him to wrestle with and determine his path from here, he is after all an adult under no coercion, as any and all consequences can be dealt with and mitigated down the line should he want/need to on a risk/reward basis, such is life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Rogi, sums the whole thread up nicely. And never mind the OP being on a wind up; Mr. GreenGreen has such a great offering that, even in this business environment, he can afford to dictate his client's payment terms based upon moral judgements he has made about them. Apparently.

eight

Hi Eight, if I put my point across too abruptly, allow me to clarify my position:

I have had some experience with certain individuals / directors / companies who have behaved in an unprofessional way - e.g. ordering products/services which they clearly nevery planned to pay for, these parties were a very small percentage of our client base but still made up a decent amount of revenue e.g. enough to pay some staffs salary for a good few months. The amount of time in chasing payment and finally CCJS, letters to Companies House etc took up a considerable amount of time. On further investigation, in some cases we found out that they set up near identical company names, changed existing company names, winding companies up, re-establishing phoenix companies etc etc and walking away from various debts that they had. Nothing they did was illegal, but certainly problematic and time consuming from our position and in some of these cases no money was brought in. If any of these parties contacted us again, which some did, we obviously wanted to avoid the same happening again, so we would charge up front for services with little concession, essentially we had no trust in them as a company or director. If we didnt get the business, we didnt mind too much as we hadnt provided any products/services and possibly they didnt have the money, but if they paid they could begin to reestablish some trust.

These parties were a very small part of our business, but the time involved in trying to get our invoices paid was incredible. One positive from this is that we are now look more closely at new clients prior to providing services/products and as such we havent been stung by such large amounts since.

Some companies we discovered that the fault of non-payment was outside their control, interestingly they were also very upfront about their situation which was subsequently backed up by other discoveries on our part.

Again, I say that I am not so arrogant to say that our products are so outstanding and better than our competitors that allow us to cherry pick our clients, but why would we waste our time with people who we can see have little or possibly no intention of paying for products ordered?

I dont see any problem with having a moral judgement on someones previous behaviour and subsequently what their future behaviour may be, but irrespective of the moral point based on the facts with that client/director the offering that we would make would be weighed up properly to protect our company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the banksters' useless idiots (Uncle Rogi and a very few others excepted) are certainly getting their Arminis in a twist. Just to clarify, I'm not on a 'wind up' - before I leave in month's time I'll be splitting 1k bewtween 10 charities as for many years I donated thousands (and my parents tens of thousands), so as I won't be returning to the UK, I've made a personal decision to do this. Yes, I know it's an affront to your ponzi faith (whereby the banks should never lose on any loan) and most are busy either shovelling money in 'bonuses' to Cristal guzzling elitists or into their STR fund* but there we go. How many times do I have to repeat key points? Firstly, I was not in a position to repay the loan as I had £17 in the bank, secondly my parents did not guarantee the loan or have anything to do with it - my mother offered to pay it but I refused as banks like any other business make malinvestments and thirdly the bail outs for bust banks quite simply changed the rules of the game in my eyes. The irony of the bankster apologists and bail out cheerleaders who pre-dominate on HPC is that had the natural law of business had taken its course and RBS, HBOS, Lloyds gone to the wall, I'd have tried very hard to repay the loan - I think I'm not alone.

Anyway, I wish to return to the main reason I posted my anecdote. Anyone here who has unsecured loans and no assets (like myself) get yourself along to the CAB or a debt charity ASAP. Like a previous poster it was the best thing I ever did, both for my mental health and the future. DROs are discharged after a year and offer a way out so you can rebuild your life. I'm not qualified to comment on bankruptcy for large sums, but other people will be.

* Your desire to pick up a property on the cheap will sadly (or not) be thwarted as the banks are insolvent and their loan books will rapidly deflate - so unless your STR fund buys the property outright, you're gonna be disappointed as the soon to nationalised banks won't be lending. Meanwhile the banksters are clearing the tills with your money, oh the irony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I wish to return to the main reason I posted my anecdote. Anyone here who has unsecured loans and no assets (like myself) get yourself along to the CAB or a debt charity ASAP. Like a previous poster it was the best thing I ever did, both for my mental health and the future. DROs are discharged after a year and offer a way out so you can rebuild your life. I'm not qualified to comment on bankruptcy for large sums, but other people will be.

* Your desire to pick up a property on the cheap will sadly (or not) be thwarted as the banks are insolvent and their loan books will rapidly deflate - so unless your STR fund buys the property outright, you're gonna be disappointed as the soon to nationalised banks won't be lending. Meanwhile the banksters are clearing the tills with your money, oh the irony.

I don't think this good advice. You have ruined your credit history for a paltry sum. If that works for you that's great but I wouldn't advocate this approach. You can only speculate that people, with good credit, won't be able to pick up a bargain. I did it during the last crash.

I remember the interest rate spike in 1992. People in my office were all running around like headless chickens. Everyone seemed to be talking about handing the keys back to bank. Those that didn't were sitting pretty in 1995/1996 in the South of England. Your thinking is very short-term. One day you might see the folly of your ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see any problem with having a moral judgement on someones previous behaviour and subsequently what their future behaviour may be, but irrespective of the moral point based on the facts with that client/director the offering that we would make would be weighed up properly to protect our company.

fair enough, i have had dealings with the kind of people you are talking about and to be honest i was a lot less polite and diplomatic in the resolution of such borderline criminal behavior people like that do not always get away with there loot unscathed.

i can see how you would equate the OP's behavior with that type of person but i feel there is a distinction (in law and in fact) hence my posts.

And therein lies the importance of trust and morality. Because legally default is not wrong. But if people walk off with your goods without either intending to pay nor deciding not to pay even if they could, is a problem for society. It gums up doing busines. Good people go bust and bad people get rich. Moral hazards all round.

The problem is manifested in the terms and rates charged for credit. If someone does not pay - it is not free for everyone else and none of their business, but impacts on them directly. And if the bank goes bust, we all then pay as tax payers.

Much as we all hate banks.

again i broadly agree, however the trust and morality high ground gets swept away by bailouts, if the banks went bust the individual taxpayers would suffer only in relation to there exposure to the banks in question and assets can and would be distributed to offset the losses.

. Your thinking is very short-term. One day you might see the folly of your ways.

assuming a re-run of the 90's crash could well be a huge mistake.

good luck though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

assuming a re-run of the 90's crash could well be a huge mistake.

good luck though.

I'm not assuming anything but don't advocate trashing your credit history for such a small amount. If a proper crash materialises, like I think it will, credit history will be your best friend. Why throw all that away for 15 grand? Most of us don't have rich parents to correct our financial problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had some experience with certain individuals / directors / companies who have behaved in an unprofessional way - e.g. ordering products/services which they clearly nevery planned to pay for, these parties were a very small percentage of our client base but still made up a decent amount of revenue e.g. enough to pay some staffs salary for a good few months.

I've been on the receiving end of companies proclaiming cashflow problems. It's not nice when they nearly take out your company too. That is the reality in the real world. People assume there are no victims but there are. I got wise and sold off one debt. The debt collectors just turned up to the company every single day and sat in the company's reception. They got paid but that company went under 6 months later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not assuming anything but don't advocate trashing your credit history for such a small amount. If a proper crash materialises, like I think it will, credit history will be your best friend. Why throw all that away for 15 grand? Most of us don't have rich parents to correct our financial problems.

he is going to france, and a credit history can be repaired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

he is going to france, and a credit history can be repaired.

Credit history can be repaired but why trash it in the first place? You just close off all avenues to yourself in Britain. There's little merit in burning you bridges for a trivial sum. I would not advise anyone to follow the same path.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit history can be repaired but why trash it in the first place? You just close off all avenues to yourself in Britain. There's little merit in burning you bridges for a trivial sum. I would not advise anyone to follow the same path.

I'm really rather worried that anyone in a same position to myself reads your bankster mouthpiece posts and think they have no way out. I thought this intially and was told by family and friends about credit rating which is why I went into a debt management plan first off. For what? To bail out bust banks, to pay Banksters' Cristal bills hmmm no thanks. On this point, my opinion on the matter is more important than anyone elses as I've had experience.

I repeat. If you have unsecured debts, no assets and no income then get yourself into a DRO. You'll put your life on hold for a year (though it's a weight of your mind) but after that year you're free whereas these debt repayment plans grind on for years. Sure your credit rating is trashed but you can always repair it at a later date, as uncle rogi says if you wish.

Also agree with uncle rogi re this housing collapse bearing no relation to what happened in the early 90s. Back then HPC's beloved banks were not bust so lending could be resumed in a timely fashion. This deflationary bust will mean very cheap real estate but very little lending as the banks are insolvent. Still, you'll only have yourselves to blame by supporting your banking masters - Autumn 2008 was indeed a seminal moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really rather worried that anyone in a same position to myself reads your bankster mouthpiece posts

Sure your credit rating is trashed but you can always repair it at a later date, as uncle rogi says if you wish.

Still, you'll only have yourselves to blame by supporting your banking masters - Autumn 2008 was indeed a seminal moment.

I'm not a mouthpiece for any bank.

You hope you can repair your credit rating.

I will blame myself if I screw up. I won't blame the banks. If I borrow too much I don't have rich parents to bail me out. You are very fortunate that your parents can set you up with a mortgage-free home. Most people have to work for it. If I had a secure backup plan, in the form of rich parents, I could be reckless too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And therein lies the importance of trust and morality. Because legally default is not wrong. But if people walk off with your goods without either intending to pay nor deciding not to pay even if they could, is a problem for society. It gums up doing busines. Good people go bust and bad people get rich. Moral hazards all round.

The problem is manifested in the terms and rates charged for credit. If someone does not pay - it is not free for everyone else and none of their business, but impacts on them directly. And if the bank goes bust, we all then pay as tax payers.

Much as we all hate banks.

I disagree.

Default is legally wrong. That's why it leads to sanctions. Doesn't matter whether the sanction is civil or criminal. The question of whether the sanction has real effect is a different issue.

Like the economists and bankers, you speak about incentives rather than whether a decision is right or wrong. I know life is messy, but if it's all about incentives the system runs out of control and must end with everyone crowding toward the exit. That's the end of Rogi's logic.

Edited by okaycuckoo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit history can be repaired but why trash it in the first place? You just close off all avenues to yourself in Britain. There's little merit in burning you bridges for a trivial sum. I would not advise anyone to follow the same path.

bankers changed the rules on this too.

posters here have claimed a few times that people go bust, lose their everything, and a years later, straight out of bankruptcy, get back into a mortgage. Indeed, Ocean specialised in this type of deal...the rates were higher, but once youd got a few payments under your belt, you could switch.

Times are a changin though. Banks may not even trust each other again...and sooner than many would hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea that there is some kind of 'morality' connected to paying back loans looks laughably antique these days.

Observe our banking friends- do you detect any degree of moral sensibility there, at all? Of course not- they would not consider for moment that their behaviour should be constrained by such outlandish notions.

Or how about the CEO's of large companies- do you see any inhibition on their part as their 'compensation' rockets ever upward?

Morality, like taxes, are for the little people- so the 'moral' of the story seems to be that being encumbered by morality is foolish when it comes to such things.

Banks can and do walk away from deals that go sour- without a backward glance. They would claim such behaviour is just a sensible business decision.

So by the same logic a borrower walking away from debt- if it is in their personal interest to do so- is also simply making a sensible business decision.

If the last few years have taught us anything it's that morality, rule of law, even common decency are completely expendable in the face of the possibility that some very wealthy people might lose some money- that can never be allowed to happen, even if we have to tear down our society to prevent it.

In the end the only thing that really matters is the preservation of the ruling elite and their interests- if that means turning you and your children into debt slaves then it's a price worth paying. And bleating on about the moral obligation to pay back that debt is exactly what a good sheep does best.

Baaa! Baaa! :lol:

Edited by wonderpup
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

Default is legally wrong. That's why it leads to sanctions. Doesn't matter whether the sanction is civil or criminal. The question of whether the sanction has real effect is a different issue.

Like the economists and bankers, you speak about incentives rather than whether a decision is right or wrong. I know life is messy, but if it's all about incentives the system runs out of control and must end with everyone crowding toward the exit. That's the end of Rogi's logic.

there is no sanction for default...even in court the other party can get judgement for continued payment....hardly a sanction if you aint gonna pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit history can be repaired but why trash it in the first place? You just close off all avenues to yourself in Britain. There's little merit in burning you bridges for a trivial sum. I would not advise anyone to follow the same path.

I would not call £15,000 a trivial sum. I would think some one on an average wage may save that much in three years but only if they live like a monk. when fred goodwins company went down he got payed millions in pension and told not to do it again. why isn't this poor chap not given millions of taxpayers money as well it's only fair?

Link to post
Share on other sites

but if it's all about incentives the system runs out of control and must end with everyone crowding toward the exit. That's the end of Rogi's logic.

it is not my logic, it is just the way ponzi schemes (in one form or another) have always ended, at least for the last 3000 or so years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.