# Debt agency contacting you at old address?



## marfsmal (8 Jul 2013)

Hey all,

I contacted a debt agency by email about 2 months ago to inform them of my new address and they confirmed receipt of same and said they had 'noted' it. I clearly stated I no longer live at my old address.

Were they to contact me at this old address some time after they confirmed they had taken note of my new address, do I have any grounds to take a case against them?


----------



## staff (8 Jul 2013)

Why does everyone want to sue someone these days?  Seriously - change of address!!!


----------



## dereko1969 (8 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> Hey all,
> 
> I contacted a debt agency by email about 2 months ago to inform them of my new address and they confirmed receipt of same and said they had 'noted' it. I clearly stated I no longer live at my old address.
> 
> Were they to contact me at this old address some time after they confirmed they had taken note of my new address, do I have any grounds to take a case against them?


 
What damages to your name or reputation would you have suffered by them sending a letter or knocking at the door of that address?


----------



## marfsmal (8 Jul 2013)

Of course there would be damages to reputation were that letter to be accidentally opened, etc. or were it to be not properly closed when it arrived at the address which often happens.

From what I understand they would be breaking the law if they contacted me at an old address, be that by post or by turning up at that address. 
They are legally obligated to update their records with new contact information.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2013)

staff said:


> Why does everyone want to sue someone these days?



Presumably to escape from their debts? 

A woman on the other side of the road stared at me in a funny sort of way  today. Have I a case against her for anything?  Maybe some solicitor who is not too busy would take it on a no foal, no fee basis. 

Brendan


----------



## marfsmal (8 Jul 2013)

And what's highly confidential about you walking down the other side of the street Brendan?


----------



## Jim2007 (8 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> Of course there would be damages to reputation were that letter to be accidentally opened, etc. or were it to be not properly closed when it arrived at the address which often happens.



Yes but the question is did you suffer actual monitory damage or not?

Judges to do not take kindly to people who wast the time of the courts and you could well end up have cost awarded against you even if you were in the right!

Furthermore you should not be surprised if the debt collection agency go out of their way to make the whole process as painful as possible as a result of your prating about!


----------



## marfsmal (8 Jul 2013)

Brendan mentioned above how people might do this if they want to escape their debts- well, when you have repaid principal, and lots of interest on top, anyone can hold their head up high. I know I can when I walk down the street.

The bubble has burst for the banks.

@Jim- monetary damages suffered by the nation?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> well, when you have repaid principal, and lots of interest on top, anyone can hold their head up high.



Do you owe them the money or not? 


If you don't owe them, they shouldn't be chasing you at either address.


----------



## so-crates (8 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> Of course there would be damages to reputation were that letter to be accidentally opened, etc.


Not necessarily, you would need to be able to show that you in particular suffered damage to your reputation by someone else accidentally opening your correspondence. 
I rented a place in the UK recently which had been home to someone who had not settled all his debts - based on some of the correspondence looking for any information on the whereabouts of a previous tenant (generally speaking electricity providers and gas providers are not looking for you because they want to give you money back!). Does that mean that my viewing such correspondence amounts to a damage to the reputation of a person I have never met? Or is it a reasonable measure for them to try and track that person down? Given that he has essentially stolen from them I cannot see how their action is damaging.  



marfsmal said:


> or were it to be not properly closed when it arrived at the address which often happens.


That is a bit of a generalisation! Exactly how often does it happen that your post is partially open? I suspect it is much rarer than you imply.



marfsmal said:


> From what I understand they would be breaking the law if they contacted me at an old address, be that by post or by turning up at that address.
> They are legally obligated to update their records with new contact information.


And if they do so you can complain and insist they update their records, if they repeatedly use your old address to contact you and ignore your information then perhaps you could consider following up on the legal penalties. But there always has to be some allowance for mistake. 

Also you appear to be mixing up the civil and the criminal in your thinking. The civil aspect would be damage to your reputation if any of their actions could be deemed damaging by a judge - by no means certain. The criminal aspect would be the record keeping.


----------



## marfsmal (8 Jul 2013)

Thanks so-crates. This is hypothetical for now. I'm trying to learn as much as possible about the area of personal debt. I really don't like what has happened to this country and really resent the divide.


----------



## so-crates (8 Jul 2013)

You'd be a strange person marfsmal if you liked a hangover and Ireland is currently suffering the mother of all hangovers. I am not sure which divide you are referring to though.


----------



## marfsmal (8 Jul 2013)

The PI Bill hasn't even come into force yet, 5 years on, which says it all. That it is _deliberate_ on the part of the government who gladly bought into the EU's austerity drive and do everything as they are told to do and yet at the same time they are getting away with it. Who is calling for speedier implementation of this legislation? Two names spring to mind- Jill Kerby and Eddie Hobbs.

The divide as I see it is between the conservatives and those who think the little guy should pay, and those of us who supported Morgan Kelly in 2010 when he said we should default and recover more quickly. It is so apparent all the time whenever you talk to people and sadly I have to interact with lots of camp 1 on a regular basis.
Camp 1 tend to believe Enda Kenny when he says that ATM machines would close and that we would be a 3rd world country if we did what Morgan Kelly advised.

And you have some seemingly intelligent people in Camp 1. So what hope, for the country, the people, then?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2013)

Normally we delete posts which go way off topic. 

But as you are taking your own thread into a rant, we will leave it.


----------



## Jim2007 (8 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> The PI Bill hasn't even come into force yet, 5 years on, which says it all. That it is _deliberate_ on the part of the government who gladly bought into the EU's austerity drive and do everything as they are told to do and yet at the same time they are getting away with it. Who is calling for speedier implementation of this legislation? Two names spring to mind- Jill Kerby and Eddie Hobbs.
> 
> The divide as I see it is between the conservatives and those who think the little guy should pay, and those of us who supported Morgan Kelly in 2010 when he said we should default and recover more quickly. It is so apparent all the time whenever you talk to people and sadly I have to interact with lots of camp 1 on a regular basis.
> Camp 1 tend to believe Enda Kenny when he says that ATM machines would close and that we would be a 3rd world country if we did what Morgan Kelly advised.
> ...



Well if I had any doubt about your first post, it seems clear now - avoid your debts and let your neighbour, work colleagues and relations carry the can through extra taxes!


----------



## marfsmal (9 Jul 2013)

As stated Jim, principal and interest have been paid back already.

Should I pay back 20k for what was a 5k loan to ensure my neighbours, work colleagues and relations don't get an increase in taxes?


----------



## Jim2007 (9 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> As stated Jim, principal and interest have been paid back already.



Well if you have paid it back, why are they still after you???



marfsmal said:


> Should I pay back 20k for what was a 5k loan to ensure my neighbours, work colleagues and relations don't get an increase in taxes?



You are the one that decided to take out the loan and you are the one who got the benefit from it, no one else agreed to carry it for you, so yes!


----------



## marfsmal (9 Jul 2013)

It's known as cumulative interest Jim.

And pitting one small fish against another one is no longer currency here either. People are far more aware now, not just me


----------



## Jim2007 (9 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> It's known as accumulative interest Jim.
> 
> And pitting one small fish against another one is no longer currency here either. People are far more aware now, not just me



One small fish expecting all the other small fish to foot the bill for his mistakes is what we have here!  No matter how you dress it.  Enough said I think.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> As stated Jim, principal and interest have been paid back already.
> 
> Should I pay back 20k for what was a 5k loan ...?



I haven't heard of accumulative interest before. Did you know about it before you borrowed? 

In Ireland lenders are obliged under the Consumer Credit Act to show the APR and the total repayments on the loan agreement.  Did they do so? 

Was it an Irish lender? 

Who is the lender? 

What was the APR? 

What was the period? 

If you have not been charged in line with the agreement, then you should be challenging it, rather than trying some spurious counter-claim? 

If they have not complied with the Consumer Credit Act you should challenge it.

But you have really no case by simply ranting about banks.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Jul 2013)

In this post from a few years ago, you asked about not paying a Credit Card debt at all, and you were appalled that "with the level of white collar crime in this country" someone who didn't pay their debts who had a judgement against them would have it in the public domain.

It seems that your problem is with a  Bank of Scotland/Halifax credit card. 

Very unlikely that interest charges would bring it from €5k to €20k unless you paid nothing at all over a very long period.  Even late payment charges would be unlikely to bring it up to that. 

However, if they had to take legal action against you for recovery, they would certainly have added significantly to the cost.


----------



## Luternau (9 Jul 2013)

> And pitting one small fish against another one is no longer currency here either. People are far more aware now, not just me



This really is the strangest thread. If you have paid back the loan in full, then the bank/debt collection agent would not be contacting you. From previous posts, about DRO you can't or don't want to pay your debts. ( not sure which) 

If its the latter, Your options are limited. What happened to your decision to apply for bankruptcy? Though it's a small amount, that's what you said you would do. Seemed odd to me.

I don't get the rant about banks and the crusade to undo all injustices done but thats your opinion.


----------



## marfsmal (9 Jul 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> In this post from a few years ago, you asked about not paying a Credit Card debt at all, and you were appalled that "with the level of white collar crime in this country" someone who didn't pay their debts who had a judgement against them would have it in the public domain.
> 
> It seems that your problem is with a  Bank of Scotland/Halifax credit card.
> 
> ...



Brendan, if you had looked up my posts properly you would have seen that I have more than one debt! In my reply above I didn't say anywhere that the 5k was one single debt. I had 2 credit cards during the boom (and my youthful) years. Cumulative interest on 18% interest credit cards over a number of years (since getting the card) does eventually bring it up to 20k. 

Can't _really _see a judge awarding costs against me..

Since you are the owner of this website you really should make an effort to look up posts properly if you are to start insinuating what debts I have and where.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> Since you are the owner of this website you really should make an effort to look up posts properly if you are to start insinuating what debts I have and where.



Quite the opposite in fact. I did say "_It seems_ that your problem is with a  Bank of Scotland/Halifax credit card. "

You should post the full details and not go off on rants. 

You are asserting that a €5k debt became €20k.  I won't believe this until you give us the information to show how it happened 

Brendan


----------



## marfsmal (9 Jul 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Quite the opposite in fact. I did say "_It seems_ that your problem is with a  Bank of Scotland/Halifax credit card. "
> 
> You should post the full details and not go off on rants.
> 
> ...



I don't see how they are rants... it is all very relevant to my personal situation. It seems to me that you fail to see the sea change that has occurred in Ireland- people are not in fear of the banks now and people are clear on what happened- i.e. where the money came in from and why.

You and I won't ever agree on this and I'm not interesting in arguing any further. This is your website and I will leave you to it, and say the best of luck to you all.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> The PI Bill hasn't even come into force yet, 5 years on, which says it all. That it is _deliberate_ on the part of the government who gladly bought into the EU's austerity drive and do everything as they are told to do and yet at the same time they are getting away with it. Who is calling for speedier implementation of this legislation? Two names spring to mind- Jill Kerby and Eddie Hobbs.
> 
> The divide as I see it is between the conservatives and those who think the little guy should pay, and those of us who supported Morgan Kelly in 2010 when he said we should default and recover more quickly. It is so apparent all the time whenever you talk to people and sadly I have to interact with lots of camp 1 on a regular basis.
> Camp 1 tend to believe Enda Kenny when he says that ATM machines would close and that we would be a 3rd world country if we did what Morgan Kelly advised.
> ...



Sounds like a rant to me.


----------



## Luternau (9 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> I don't see how they are rants... it is all very relevant to my personal situation. It seems to me that you fail to see the sea change that has occurred in Ireland- people are not in fear of the banks now and people are clear on what happened- i.e. where the money came in from and why.
> 
> You and I won't ever agree on this and I'm not interesting in arguing any further. This is your website and I will leave you to it, and say the best of luck to you all.



You are ranting.

People that did nothing more than buy a house are living in fear of their future and what the banks want from them or may want from them.

Meanwhile, you try to blame the banks for your woes. You had two credit cards - you applied for them, you used them, not the bank.

Rather than take responsibility, you try to blame the banks, the government and your youth. 

I am sure if you wanted to engage with your creditors you could work something out. But going by you account of your conversation with MABS-it's everybody elses fault but yours or you are right and everybody else is wrong....

The circumstances may have changed but the game is the same-if you borrow money-you are obliged to pay it back.


----------



## so-crates (9 Jul 2013)

The other thing to note marfsmal and it appears to be the bone of contention for you, is that there is always a cost to borrowing money. Credit cards happen to be a particularly expensive way to do so. 

You claim callow youth as the reason for your predicament but this problem would not have happened suddenly or overnight, so your claim is disingenuous - you chose to ignore the lesson of your early credit card bills (and frankly the content of the agreement) and now find that the cost to you is considerably more than you borrowed. 

Unfortunately, you cannot claim to have settled your debt if you have not paid back the agreed cost of the money you borrowed. That it continues to rack up the interest, that it exceeds the original amount borrowed is immaterial. It is what you agreed to and without superseding that agreement with something gentler on your pocket you have to abide by it. It may seem harsh but the trouble is, you weren't the only person who first got a credit card in the boom years, you weren't the only one to rack up a debt, you weren't the only one who has had to pay credit card interest - however not everyone else finds themselves in your predicament.


----------



## marfsmal (9 Jul 2013)

so-crates said:


> however not everyone else finds themselves in your predicament.



Apparently they are.. take a look at figures behind the new PI bill. All the different types of debts outstanding are listed.

Some are choosing to ignore it completely, some are paying back 5-20 euro a week, some more. Everyone's different but there are thousands upon thousands of people no longer happy to pay back principal and mountains and mountains of interest.

They just don't seem to be posting here!!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> They just don't seem to be posting here!!



It's odd isn't it?


----------



## Gerry Canning (10 Jul 2013)

MARFSMAL;
If your comments are meant to highlight the downright unfairness of hidden-unclear and unconscionable extra charges that lenders lump on ,particularly Credit Card and HP companies then that should be your thread. Please though, back it with facts. With respect ,your comments read like a rant. Normally Rants have reasons , so let us see the factual reasons.
You will be surprised 
.


----------



## marfsmal (10 Jul 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It's odd isn't it?



Surely I must be the only person with credit card debt who is finding it very difficult to clear!

Or...


----------



## marfsmal (10 Jul 2013)

salmon9077 said:


> MARFSMAL;
> If your comments are meant to highlight the downright unfairness of hidden-unclear and unconscionable extra charges that lenders lump on ,particularly Credit Card and HP companies then that should be your thread. Please though, back it with facts. With respect ,your comments read like a rant. Normally Rants have reasons , so let us see the factual reasons.
> You will be surprised
> .



Respectfully received Salmon. I didn't intend to go off on a tangent or 'rant', or whatever you want to call it, only people got personal with me and I responded in turn.

I asked a hypothetical question and then someone turned it around to say I must be asking the question in order to escape debt, etc.

Maybe their intentions were good, I seriously don't know.


----------



## Jim2007 (10 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> Surely I must be the only person with credit card debt who is finding it very difficult to clear!
> 
> Or...



Yes but the majority of those recognize that it is their responsibility as they entered into the credit agreement in the first place and are seeking advise on how best they can meet their obligations, if at all.  Which is very different to what you are doing.


----------



## Jim2007 (10 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> Respectfully received Salmon. I didn't intend to go off on a tangent or 'rant', or whatever you want to call it, only people got personal with me and I responded in turn.
> 
> I asked a hypothetical question and then someone turned it around to say I must be asking the question in order to escape debt, etc.
> 
> Maybe their intentions were good, I seriously don't know.



There is nothing to suggest that your original is in any way hypothetical!


----------



## marfsmal (10 Jul 2013)

Jim. I will endeavour to engage with you again. 

I have paid back the principal borrowed, I have paid charges when it went over the limit, late payment charge, etc. and I have paid bucketloads of interest which the bank now or did enjoy. Just as I too enjoyed the credit.

I had no previous experience with credit or loans and did not properly appreciate compounding and how the interest really piles up until I did a course in Finance from the University of Michigan and Coursera.org (which is free online), taught by Gautam Kaul. I noted monthly interest but didn't analyse it to see it for what it was.
From Bloomberg's Business Week:



> Kaul went a different route for the course he created for the online learning platform Coursera. He offered up a class that he says is just as intensive as what a Ross MBA student would sit through. As one reviewer of the course put it, Kaul gives fair warning that “you as the student are expected to work and that it’s going to be a lot of work.”





> I don’t believe in primers. I strongly believe that there is a certain fundamental base of knowledge needed—certain basics that you need to know.* I think you empower a person when you give them a taste of something like this.* My stance is that this is really high-quality exposure you can get for free and then follow up in a formal way, if that’s what you choose.



And empower me it did.

To be honest I'm as fed up as the next person listening to talk about white collar crime, etc. and as we all well know, talk is cheap. So I'm setting to acting and doing and being constructive and as helpful as I can be to others and it took a good little lesson with this to see the charade up close. I came from a quite protected middle class background and was naive as a consequence.


----------



## marfsmal (10 Jul 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I haven't heard of accumulative interest before. Did you know about it before you borrowed?



There are a few terms to describe it, before and after, etc.

But, in a word, *compounding*.

And no I didn't understand it properly.


----------



## Luternau (10 Jul 2013)

What has all this got to do with you owing money? You don't seem to deny that.

Have you tried to engage with the cc company? What did they say?

Everything else you are writing is off topic...and meaningless to your opening post.


----------



## marfsmal (10 Jul 2013)

As I already said, I wasn't the person who took the thread off-topic.
People immediately wanted to cast their ideas about my agenda, etc. so go lecture them about off-topic. Better use of your time if that's the point you want to make.


----------



## Gerry Canning (10 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> As I already said, I wasn't the person who took the thread off-topic.
> People immediately wanted to cast their ideas about my agenda, etc. so go lecture them about off-topic. Better use of your time if that's the point you want to make.


 ........................................................................................

Its too hot already today , so let,s cool it please.

Methinks your input, ,,,, is that BANKS suckered naiive punters into borrowing and then bled them on interest/charges/fees etc ,whilst they ignored Codes of Conduct.

If so , Maybe your Post should be at the supposed Gatekeepers in the Central Bank , they have a fine turn of phrase in Consumer Codes but they lack teeth in application.

Yes I distrust our Central Bank.


----------



## so-crates (10 Jul 2013)

@salmon9077
I think his point was, "if a debt collection agency or bank continue to contact  you at an address you have vacated do you have any recourse". I think that has already been answered.

@marfsmal
Can you be more specific (e.g. provide a link) as to which figures you believe refute my point? 
My point was quite simple really. While your case is not unique it isn't the norm either - which is I think what you are esssentially claiming in your response. People learn to pay off their credit card debt early because the rates are punitive. Not everyone does, nor do they do so at the same rate but that is no reason to justify not repaying according to the agreed contract.


----------



## marfsmal (10 Jul 2013)

so-crates said:


> @salmon9077
> I think his point was, "if a debt collection agency or bank continue to contact  you at an address you have vacated do you have any recourse". I think that has already been answered.
> 
> @marfsmal
> ...



On the first point, I'm female, and were any debt collection agency to harass me at an old address that they have confirmed in writing they know I no longer live at then I would take my chances in court for sure. And I would call it harassment if it happens more than once and were it to result in any damage to myself. But yes, one would have to allow for a one-off 'error' as you mentioned above.

On the second point: I know that credit card loans outstanding were at 1,500m in 2003, and 2,700m by 2011 which is from Central Bank report in 2011.
A lot of this is down to people being granted 2 or more credit cards each.

Are you trying to say that those people with 2 or more credit cards who might now be jobless, studying, working part-time, in and out of work, or unemployed, for example are all diligently paying back their credit cards every month, and that people with problems now are not the norm? 
That may have been the case in the past, but it isn't now.

Have you any figures to back your argument that my case isn't the norm?


----------



## dereko1969 (10 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> I have paid back the principal borrowed, I have paid charges when it went over the limit, late payment charge, etc. and I have paid bucketloads of interest which the bank now or did enjoy. Just as I too enjoyed the credit.


 
But you haven't paid off *all* the money you owe the bank and which was clearly spelt out in the terms and conditions of the credit card and to which you agreed when you took advantage of the credit line afforded you by the bank.

That is why you have a debt collection agency contacting you at an address provided to them by you, which is no longer valid, and you were seeking in your OP some angle from them doing this. As I already pointed out to you, there is unlikely to be any impact on your reputation as you do in fact owe the money, a statement of fact cannot be libellous.


----------



## marfsmal (10 Jul 2013)

dereko1969 said:


> But you haven't paid off *all* the money you owe the bank and which was clearly spelt out in the terms and conditions of the credit card and to which you agreed *when you took advantage of the credit line afforded you by the bank.*
> 
> That is why you have a debt collection agency contacting you at an address provided to them by you, which is no longer valid, and you were seeking in your OP some angle from them doing this. As I already pointed out to you, there is unlikely to be any impact on your reputation as you do in fact owe the money, a statement of fact cannot be libellous.



No. The banks took advantage of people's ignorance of finance and banking. Even basics such as compounding were and aren't properly understood by the 'masses' the CB and accountancy firms, etc. refer to. Even now how many people properly understand or appreciate the concept?  

Let me make this clear. There are far better 'angles' if you want to escape debt than to take an agencv to court for sending letter to an old address.. That's why I asked specifically about what to do in the scenario that a debt agency contacts you at an old address, and not about 'how to escape my debt'. Someone made a comment about my trying to escape debt and that has sadly dominated the rest of the discussion.
I only remain here to stand my ground and make my case because there are thousands experiencing something very similar to me.
You and others are struggling to understand this. Why? Do you like the idea that someone would try to go down that route in order not to pay their debt, or do you just like to argue it here and try to do me down? I don't know about you, but despite my financial problems, I still live a fulfilling life where it matters.

Re. the infamous T&C I agreed to. Yes, I signed those terms and conditions, but I simply did not understand APR.

*When I got other personal loans, namely one student and one car loan, they stated clearly what the total interest would be were I to pay the monthly installments over whatever the agreed term of the loan was.
And, I paid these back without any issues.*

My issue with credit card debt is that I did not properly grasp the perils and how interest compounds, accumulates, and accelerates. Added to that the other range of charges, it is really and truly the worst form of credit out there. But I did not know that at the time. I was right out of college, and as I said, I had a good middle class background and never struggled with money. While in college I had my weekly budget and I stuck to that- it was easy, low costs, and same week in week out. I worked during summers, saved, and it was simple.

Credit cards came in then with the boom times, and were given to people that really should not have been allowed to hold more than one at best.
The banks were negligent here also- so, why should I be the only one to pay? Or in my case, keep paying? They've got their principal, charges, interest and then some. I'm not interested in persecuting myself, balancing payments, falling behind, being stressed, etc. anymore.


----------



## Jim2007 (10 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> The banks were negligent here also- so, why should I be the only one to pay? Or in my case, keep paying? They've got their principal, charges, interest and then some. I'm not interested in persecuting myself, balancing payments, falling behind, being stressed, etc. anymore.



Here is the thing, you are an adult now and society grants you a lot of freedom to decide what you want to do, but that freedom comes at a price - responsibility!  You are and will be held to account for the consequences of your decisions.  You can not expect the rest of society to be responsible for ensuring that you make the right decisions nor pay the price when you do not.  Society could not function that way.

And now like never before, your default impacts everyone because the tax payer will be on the hook for it.  So you should not be surprised if most people are unimpressed by your default.

My guess is that you really will not get it until the day the sheriff's men knock on your door - if you are in Dublin or Cork, otherwise it will be the county registrar.


----------



## Luternau (10 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> As I already said, I wasn't the person who took the thread off-topic.
> People immediately wanted to cast their ideas about my agenda, etc. so go lecture them about off-topic. Better use of your time if that's the point you want to make.




That's a debatable point. Your are the one ranting here against the establishment.

Once again, you are happy to blame others but it seems you took the thread off topic yourself.

The question remains-have you ever tried to contact the cc company about paying this off and if so, what happened? Or did you just bury your head and hope they would never find you? Credit cards are not a thing of the boom-they are around before that. An irresponsible attitude to spending money is a thing of the boom and credit cards just accentuate that. It's alwys been said that cc interest rates are very high and to always pay the balance off.

You talk about other people on here or out there with debts-yes there are lots if them. But they are not here posting about not paying back-they are making every effort to pay as much as they can or broker a deal to pay it over x years. Yes they are annoyed with banks etc but by and large they say "I borrowed the money-I knew what that entailed". They would gladly pay less but they are not trying to gerrymander a situation where they can sue the bank because it's sending post to the wrong address.

Rather than slam others , post details about what you have tried to offer and what the banks may have refused etc. That way you might get more people on your side.

Everything else is irrelevant!


----------



## marfsmal (10 Jul 2013)

Jim2007 said:


> Here is the thing, you are an adult now and society grants you a lot of freedom to decide what you want to do, but that freedom comes at a price - responsibility!  You are and will be held to account for the consequences of your decisions.  You can not expect the rest of society to be responsible for ensuring that you make the right decisions nor pay the price when you do not.  Society could not function that way.
> 
> And now like never before, your default impacts everyone *because the tax payer will be on the hook for it.  *So you should not be surprised if most people are unimpressed by your default.
> 
> My guess is that you really will not get it until the day the sheriff's men knock on your door - if you are in Dublin or Cork, otherwise it will be the county registrar.



I've paid back the principal, charges, and interest. Where's the loss to the banks or the taxpayer Jim? 

What can the sheriff do to someone with zero assets Jim?
Jail? Bring it on!


----------



## marfsmal (10 Jul 2013)

Luternau said:


> Once again, you are happy to blame others but it seems you took the thread off topic yourself.
> 
> 
> Rather than slam others ,



How did I take the thread off-topic?
And who did I slam?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> I've paid back the principal, charges, and interest. Where's the loss to the banks or the taxpayer Jim?



and 



> Should I pay back 20k for what was a 5k loan




I will ask again.

You borrowed €5,000
You are being asked to pay €20,000 in principal and interest and charges 
Who was the lender? 
What was the APR? 
What was the term? 
How much were the charges?


If your figures are correct, and I very much doubt it, then they may have overcharged you in which case you are due a refund for anything you were overcharged within the last 6 years.


----------



## Jim2007 (11 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> I've paid back the principal, charges, and interest. Where's the loss to the banks or the taxpayer Jim?
> 
> What can the sheriff do to someone with zero assets Jim?
> Jail? Bring it on!



So if you have paid it all back, then why are the debt agency getting in contact with you at all???


----------



## marfsmal (11 Jul 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> and
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, Jim and So-crates make arguments that you don't ask they back up Brendan? I've provided figures from Central Bank report. It's not much, I can go to the trouble of producing more, but what have they provided in defence of their own arguments? 


I'll outline it for you but I'd like to see you also

*Ask Jim*: How I am leaving the taxpayer at a loss after having repaid principal, and interest

*Ask So-crates* How my type of credit card case is not the norm

Also, I am an ordinary salt of the earth individual with no connection to banks, central bank, etc. Can the other contributors say the same?
Do either of them (or indeed others) gain from my likes paying back endless amounts of interest after having repaid principal and interest?

Disclose all, please.


----------



## marfsmal (11 Jul 2013)

Jim2007 said:


> So if you have paid it all back, then why are the debt agency getting in contact with you at all???



Don't like to say it but you're sounding pretty vacuous at this stage Jim...
No means to defend your arguments, eh? Full disclosure here, eh?


----------



## Luternau (11 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> How did I take the thread off-topic?
> And who did I slam?



Me for one!

You are making spurious arguments here. It's not my thread or Jims or Brendans -it's yours! 

You quote generic figures from the CB-what relevance is this to your debt?

Give facts related to your case-otherwise what's the point of this thread? Unless you want it to be a rant....?

Let's forget about the taxpayer - why should borrowed money plus interest not be paid back in full to whom ever demands it? What makes your case different to a normal credit agreement?


----------



## casiopea (11 Jul 2013)

marfsmal said:


> Re. the infamous T&C I agreed to. Yes, I signed those terms and conditions, but I simply did not understand APR.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...



Hi marfsmal,

You have answered most of your own questions here.  You are responsible for the debt (not the tax payer) for the above reasosn that you list about yourself. You didnt understand APR.  I can emphatize your description above sounds a lot like me and something similiar did happen to me (I paid everything back in full). Not completely understanding something or the ramification of something doesnt mean its unfair though and indeed its part of life (it felt very unfair though - as I said I can emphatize).  The college section, managing your budget, your financial background are a bubble or cocoon and then when we move from that family / college environment into the next stages you are exposed to more opportunities and also more risk.  It has its upside and downside.



marfsmal said:


> Credit cards came in then with the boom times, and were given to people that really should not have been allowed to hold more than one at best.



Hmmm, its not that black and white - there were financial evaluations giving out credit cards and yes they could have been stricter but then there would have people on here moaning about the nanny state and not being able to take advantage of opportunities out there unless they are already very affluent.  We have to take some personal responsibility. 
A good life lesson is if something is too good to be true - then its not really true.

Good luck. I know it seems unfair (I genuinely was in your place) but its not - and unfortunately life really can be unfair sometimes.

Cas.


----------



## Gerry Canning (11 Jul 2013)

Marfsmal;
In answer to your original Question , have you a case for going after the Debt Company?

Simply, you don,t have a (winnable) case . The comments will mirror what a Judge will decide . I think as per Cas you have made your point. The Old Saying holds true ie Buyer Beware. That said ,we genuinely trusted our Banks!!.


----------

