# Personal Debt, Guarantor & Debt Collector



## AyCaramba! (11 Dec 2013)

Hi all,

*The facts:*
Over the course of a few years I was only working part time (13 hours p/w) and for minimum wage - earning roughly €130 per week. Initially I took out a loan for €5k to cover bills/rent I owed. I only paid interest on this loan.

This loan was subsequently topped up twice until the total amount owed was roughly €18k. No more than the interest was ever maintained on this loan as I couldn't afford any more. 

This loan and its top ups have a signed guarantor. The guarantee covers the entire balance of the loan. As costs went up and my income remained the same, I stopped the payments of the interest on the loan. This happened shortly after the 2nd top up.

I sent a number of letters to the bank stating that I could not pay anything toward the loan, making it clear that my circumstances absolutely could not support it. I was told that when the loan went into default, the guarantor would be pursued for payment. 

Fast forward to the debt being handed to a debt collection agency. They made the usual threats of legal action, so I called to see what information they had exactly. The bank had not told them the loan had a guarantor for the full value. They said they'd contact the bank about the guarantor. 

Fast forward to now and I have received a letter from the debt collection agency stating that the debt has not been serviced with them and that they were giving final warning and chance to pay before pursuing me legally, would seek a judgement against me and could possibly send a sheriff around to gather what assets I have (I have absolutely nothing of value - I rent in an address that the bank and debt collection agency do not have knowledge of, do not own a vehicle, do not have any particularly expensive possessions). The letter came in my name and mentioned nothing of the guarantor.

*Some interesting filler:*
The guarantor is a senior member of the bank which issued the loans. The guarantor also handled all the paperwork for the loans. One of the top ups for the loan was actually signed by the guarantor alone, signing both our names. The contracts were witnessed by members of the same office in the bank. Members who I've never known or met personally. I can't recall signing a single contract with a witness there in person. 

The guarantor, with access to my personal accounts, stated on these accounts that I had an income of €15k. I never claimed this myself nor did I ever provide statements to show this. I was earning €130 per week, averaging about €7k per year. The top ups were initially rejected or disputed, it was through the actions/connections/pressure of the guarantor that they were approved. 

At the time I had a credit card debt with the same bank of roughly €2k which I was maintaining minimum payments on and only €130 per week in money moving through my account. The loans were taken out under the personal promise by the guarantor that if I should have difficulty maintaining the payments on the loan, that they would cover the payments for me until a time that I could continue paying it myself. When this happened, the guarantor did not follow up on the promise and the loan went into arrears and default. 

I have served the bank with a Freedom of Information Request previously and got "all" the documents they had, which curiously excluded the first loan application and first application for a top up (the one on which my name was not signed by myself). All that remains is a copy of the third top up and letter of guarantee. 

It is absolutely clear that the bank in question have done absolutely nothing to try and sort this out with the guarantor (a senior staff member) themselves. The fact that they passed this to a debt collector without mentioning the guarantee is very disturbing.

I am not in contact with the guarantor anymore, but they are still at the same company and personal address as they were when this began.

*Questions:*
What should I do now? My credit history has been destroyed, and I can live with that, but the threat of a judgement being made against me is unsettling to say the least. 

Should I contact the collection agency? I do not wish to acknowledge the debt as I understand doing so would "reset" a clock regarding the debt, however I understand that proper procedure follows that they take action against the guarantor, including legal action / judgements, yet it appears that the bank and the collection agency seem to want to conveniently circumvent the guarantor and target me personally.

What are the consequences of a judgement being taken against me internationally? I intend to emigrate in the near future and have no problem building credit from scratch when re-located, but will a judgement here have consequences in Canada, US, HK or AU?

Is this a matter for a solicitor? I haven't a lot of money so the thought of losing a case and being liable for massive fees on top of a judgement isn't a good one, but from my lightly informed legal knowledge the contracts made and subsequent actions taken (what seems to be the bank circumventing its own procedures in favour of a staff member, on a number of occasions throughout this debacle) seem to be dodgy at best. 

Any and all advice is greatly appreciated.


----------



## Time (11 Dec 2013)

They are under no obligation to go after the guarantor.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Dec 2013)

Hold on a moment.

You did receive this money I presume? 

You took out a loan knowing you could not pay it.  You took out top-ups knowing you could not afford them.

In effect, you were defrauding the bank. 

All the stuff about the guarantor, and the witnesses is irrelevant. 

You owe the money. You don't seem to want to pay it. Hopefully, they will get a judgment against you. 

Brendan


----------



## wbbs (11 Dec 2013)

I was thinking exactly the same as Brendan as I got to the end of your story.  You got and spent the money, yes?


----------



## cremeegg (11 Dec 2013)

I am often surprised at the different levels of sympathy extended to posters with debt problems on AAM.

Some posters seem to receive endless sympathy and understanding and others very little.

In every case they borrowed the money and are having problems paying it back.

It seems to me that posters who include details of their health difficulties and any other difficult personal circumstances get more sympathy than those who confine their postings to   the facts around their borrowings.

In this case if the borrowers signature was forged on original loan application by a member of he bank staff, and this can be proved or even if the paperwork is "missing" I would think that the bank would be very slow to appear in court to stand over the loan.

What the Op does not tell us is WHY the senior member of the bank staff acted in this manner.


----------



## wbbs (11 Dec 2013)

It just depends on how the story reads, I know I always have less sympathy for someone trying to figure how to get out of a debt by passing the blame for getting it elsewhere rather than someone who takes responsibility for spending the money and looking for help with best solution.  

I know, six of one, half dozen of other to the tax payer who will end up footing the bill for the banks.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Dec 2013)

cremeegg said:


> I am often surprised at the different levels of sympathy extended to posters with debt problems on AAM.
> 
> Some posters seem to receive endless sympathy and understanding and others very little.
> 
> .



I am surprised that you are surprised. 

The level of sympathy depends on the story. 

This person deserves no sympathy.  They borrowed the money knowing that they could not repay it. They are trying to stick the guarantor for it. It sounds like someone trying to spite an ex. or at least an ex-friend. 

This gets zero sympathy from me.

I keep my sypathy for the people who are in genuine difficulties and who are trying to resolve them.


----------



## Curlysue76 (11 Dec 2013)

I know people like this person. Run up huge debts and then try to get out of repaying them. Grow up and pay what you owe. I realise it might take a long time to repay but by sounds of it this person hasn't even tried to repay. 

Why do people think they can borrow money knowing they won't be able to pay it back?


----------



## Palerider (11 Dec 2013)

There is more to this that we have not been told, as a former banker I can not imagine signing as guarantor for a customer unless I had an intimate relationship with that person, even then it would be plain wrong.

The Op got the money and owes it period....

IF there was a guarantor and that person still works in the Bank then what they did IF they actually did sign needs to be raised by letter to the Bank. If OP is correct the Bank may not persue them and they should investigate the case, we really have no need for bankers who act in the manner outlined by the OP..


----------



## Gerry Canning (11 Dec 2013)

To the {Hang him he borrowed} and the {poor chap brigade}.
If half of what he says is true.

1. Bank official or officials need sacking.
2. Questions need to be asked of Bank Officials, on what grounds did they advance money?.
3. Aycaramba , may well have been stupid to consider the loans , but surely it is up to bank (professionals ) to check repayment capacity?
4. If Aycaramba can GENUINELY not afford to repay , then the debt dies. 
5. If there is NO real prospect of repaying there is little point in breast-beating over Aycaramba and that he must repay etc ,(that said I have REAL ongoing sympathy with the proposition of why do the rest of us have to repay for him)
6. In short it is a mess .
7. From experience would that be AIB ?


----------



## Time (11 Dec 2013)

So basically this person got a bank employee to go guarantor for them, defaults and wonders why the bank is going after them and not the guarantor?

As I said earlier there is no obligation to go after the guarantor at all. It looks like they will get their pound of flesh from the OP and rightly so.


----------



## Gerry Canning (11 Dec 2013)

Time; If they got {their pound of flesh} from OP , so be it, no issue.

But if as Aycaramba says he has no assets what is the point in chasing him? His credit rating is already shot, a judgment will have no bearing on him emigrating.

Wbbs; If the Bank went after guarantor , then maybe the rest of us would not have to pay.
This case stinks on too many levels !


----------



## AyCaramba! (11 Dec 2013)

cremeegg said:


> What the Op does not tell us is WHY the senior member of the bank staff acted in this manner.



Due to the parties involved, it's a very personal matter cremeegg. The circumstances in which this arose should never have come about in the first place but I'm not here to look for sympathy or try to rally people to my side, I'm just looking for advice regarding the details of the situation. 



Palerider said:


> IF there was a guarantor and that person still works in the Bank then what they did IF they actually did sign needs to be raised by letter to the Bank. If OP is correct the Bank may not persue them and they should investigate the case, we really have no need for bankers who act in the manner outlined by the OP..



Thanks for this. I believe that this is something that I've to raise with the bank at a very senior level but the question is whether to do it through a solicitor or write to them with the details first myself and see if they're willing to engage me on the matter.



Gerry Canning said:


> To the {Hang him he borrowed} and the {poor chap brigade}.
> If half of what he says is true.
> 
> 1. Bank official or officials need sacking.
> ...



1. I'm glad you said this.
2 & 3. I don't believe a credit check was ever carried out in the case of the top ups. I'll verify with the ICB shortly. In any case, the question of how a very young person with a very small income, who already is servicing a debt almost 5x the size of their monthly income, was afforded an additional €18k in credit is one for senior management to answer and if that's in front of a judge so be it, but hopefully it can be resolved before it comes to that. 
5. I'm not looking for the debt to be burdened on the tax payer, I'm looking for the guarantor to service the guarantee made. 
6. Yes, it's an absolute mess.
7. I can neither confirm nor deny.

I didn't take out, or spend, the money "stupidly". It was out of sheer desperation, a very much last resort, and was done in order to secure a roof over my head (rented, not bought). As I said, it's a very personal matter and I won't get into specifics as I'm not looking for sympathy, but every other avenue was pursued before I sought credit.



Gerry Canning said:


> Time; If they got {their pound of flesh} from OP , so be it, no issue.
> 
> But if as Aycaramba says he has no assets what is the point in chasing him? His credit rating is already shot, a judgment will have no bearing on him emigrating.



I'm glad to hear that a judgement would not have consequences abroad. I have absolutely no assets of any resale value and that's something the sheriffs may be disappointed to find if it should come to that. I would prefer this be settled though, and once that is done I can look at settling matters with the guarantor if needs be.



Gerry Canning said:


> Wbbs; If the Bank went after guarantor , then maybe the rest of us would not have to pay.
> This case stinks on too many levels !



I'm glad the stench of the case is apparent.

To those who advised explaining the circumstances to the bank itself, at what level should contact be directed? Should I contact them myself outlining how things have transpired, or go through a solicitor? 

Burgess & Co who merely popped by to wish me ill luck, thanks for taking the time out of your clearly hectic days to step on a person when they're already down. I've purposely left out the more personal side of this story as I'm not looking for sympathy here, just objective answers to the questions posed of people who at least claim to be somewhat knowledgeable in the area. 

Obviously such objectivity is beyond some here and so be it, but I'm very grateful of those who have expressed an objective opinion on the matter thus far.

Question: If I'm to contact the bank about how this transpired and the details involved, who should I contact? If the staff member in question is, for example, at branch management level, at what level above them should I be dealing with and how do I get the details of said parties? Thanks.


----------



## Gerry Canning (11 Dec 2013)

Suggest; 

It is with a debt management company, stay with only the fact that you owe money that you cannot simply pay back.

Unless they see repayment capacity it isn,t too likely they will go for judgment . That is further down the road.

I see little point in creating waves within Bank (normally just creates stress for everyone, not resolution)

See what Debt Management ACTUALLY do not what they say they will do.

{if you ain,t got repayment capacity , let them see it}


----------



## cremeegg (11 Dec 2013)

Curlysue76 said:


> Why do people think they can borrow money knowing they won't be able to pay it back?



To take this question at face value rather than regard it just as a "Why oh why".

The answer is simple, people think they can borrow money knowing they won't be able to pay it back because it is true, they can. It is not even very difficult.

If you borrow thousands, even tens of thousands on an unsecured basis, say from a credit card company, then turn around and say sorry I can't pay it back, there are effectively no consequences.

You may be taken to court, and the court may make a payment order against you, but that order will only be for an amount you can afford, your ongoing reasonable living expenses at a generous level will be prioritised ahead of your creditors. 

This is the way the people we elect choose to run our country.

The cost is borne by the rest of the population, in the past by the other customers paying more in charges and interest to the banks, now since the banks were overwhelmed, the costs fall on us as taxpayers.


----------



## cremeegg (11 Dec 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I am surprised that you are surprised.
> 
> The level of sympathy depends on the story.
> 
> ...



We have no idea what the story here is, what the relationship between the OP and the guarantor was. And I think she is perfectly entitled not to tell us.

I am very cautious about people who pour out their personal troubles in the hope of gaining sympathy for their financial decisions. 

I have a lot more respect for people who outline their situation and ask for advise on their options.

On what basis do we offer our advice. On the basis of what is best for the country or some moral principle, or the questioners selfish best interest.

I think every one should be given the same information.


----------



## cremeegg (11 Dec 2013)

Time said:


> So basically this person got a bank employee to go guarantor for them, defaults and wonders why the bank is going after them and not the guarantor?
> 
> As I said earlier there is no obligation to go after the guarantor at all. It looks like they will get their pound of flesh from the OP and rightly so.



Surely if the OP has no assets it is most unlikely that the banks will get their pound of flesh?

I should say that most of my knowledge of what happens when a creditor is taken to court comes from your own excellent posts on other threads.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Dec 2013)

cremeegg said:


> We have no idea what the story here is, what the relationship between the OP and the guarantor was. And I think she is perfectly entitled not to tell us.
> 
> I am very cautious about people who pour out their personal troubles in the hope of gaining sympathy for their financial decisions.
> 
> .



She(?) has told us what we need to know.
She borrowed money fraudulently. 
She doesn't want to pay it back.
She wants to hang a former friend of hers.

I have seen different versions of this before.  In one case a solicitor undertook to pay the proceeds of the sale of a house on behalf of a client to the Irish Nationwide. The solicitor just gave the client the money.  The client told the Irish Nationwide to sue the solicitor or the Law Society to get their money back.


----------



## Gerry Canning (11 Dec 2013)

If Op is lying , so be it , I have no issue.
...........................................................

If the facts as distinct from the {sympathy} end are half true , there are serious questions for official.  If Ops facts are flawed ,sympathy won,t change the fact that  Op is in trouble anyway.
.................
Cremeegg + Brendan , I hear you.


----------



## AyCaramba! (11 Dec 2013)

Gerry Canning said:


> Suggest;
> 
> It is with a debt management company, stay with only the fact that you owe money that you cannot simply pay back.
> 
> ...



So I should contact the collection agency? Although it will formally acknowledge the debt? The last contact I had with them was in January where I talked to them about the guarantee they were never informed about, for whatever that's worth. 



cremeegg said:


> We have no idea what the story here is, what the relationship between the OP and the guarantor was. And I think she is perfectly entitled not to tell us.
> 
> I am very cautious about people who pour out their personal troubles in the hope of gaining sympathy for their financial decisions.
> 
> ...



Thank you, the objectivity is appreciated. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> She(?) has told us what we need to know.
> She borrowed money fraudulently.
> She doesn't want to pay it back.
> She wants to hang a former friend of hers.
> ...



Brendan, I'll refer you to a note made in my original post:



> The loans were taken out under the personal promise by the guarantor  that if I should have difficulty maintaining the payments on the loan,  that they would cover the payments for me until a time that I could  continue paying it myself.



I did not set out to take money and run. I was put in a position whereby I required money urgently, to keep a roof over my head above all else, and the credit was taken out on the following grounds:

All the loans and top ups were interest only from the start. I felt that I could maintain the payments on this interest and would start paying the principal when I had higher earnings. I took these loans out on a personal guarantee, from the same person who acted as guarantee on the loans, that should I be in a position whereby I am not able to service the interest payments, that they would until I could return to servicing them again.

If I had thought, for an instance, that when my ability to service the interest on these loans diminished, that the person guaranteeing both the payments and the overall loan would outright refuse to continue the payments until the point of default and debt collection agency involvement, then I would have never agreed to sign the loans in the first place.

You insist on assuming things or calling on anecdotes to suit your own agenda here. Your posts here are completely devoid of any actual substance and seem to be merely serving some bizarre fetish for high horsemanship so I won't engage you on the matter any further. 



Gerry Canning said:


> If Op is lying , so be it , I have no issue.
> ...........................................................
> 
> If the facts as distinct from the {sympathy} end are half true , there are serious questions for official.  If Ops facts are flawed ,sympathy won,t change the fact that  Op is in trouble anyway.
> ...



There isn't a word of a lie in any of my posts. I've stuck to the facts and have asked that others do so and thankfully some of you, including yourself Gerry, have and once again that's much appreciated.

Although you said that contacting the bank would merely serve to create waves within the bank and would not provide resolution, I think I'm going to go ahead, draft a letter and make enquiries as to whom it should be directed toward. 

The contracts made, how they were made, along with some of their subsequent disappearance, is something the bank itself should be made aware of and be let deal with. If I've to resolve the debt issue with the collection agency, so be it, but there's only positive outcomes to making the bank seniority aware of the conduct or dealings of its staff.

Thanks again for the genuine advice being given.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Dec 2013)

> The loans were taken out under the personal promise by the guarantor   that if I should have difficulty maintaining the payments on the loan,   that they would cover the payments for me until a time that I could   continue paying it myself.



Then, what is the problem? 

Contact the guarantor and ask him to pay your debts. 

If not, sue him for performance of his contract with you.

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (12 Dec 2013)

AyCaramba! said:


> .
> 
> I didn't take out, or spend, the money "stupidly". It was out of sheer desperation, a very much last resort, and was done in order to secure a roof over my head (rented, not bought).
> 
> ...


 

Who told you that if you defaulted the guarantor would be pursued? You mention the loan was for an emergency rental situation, but the initial loan was for 5K, you know this doesn't make sense? All anyone needs to rent is one months rent and one months deposit, and in some rentals landlords are prepared to forgo full deposit if it will come later.

Why did the guarantor sign the application for the second top up, how do you know he did? Do you have a copy of it? Why did you allow him to do so? Why did you borrow a third time if you couldn't afford it, you mention you defaulted very soon afterwards.

You state that the guarantor falsified your income, why did you let him do this?

In relation to the personal promise of the guarantor. Are you saying that both of you had a side agreement wherein he agreed to pay off your loan if you couldn't? Why would he do that? What is most surprising is that the guarantor helped you out with the first loan, and knowing you couldn't live on 130 euro allowed you to continue borrowing. Did he not have to sign for the 2 top ups?

Why are you hiding your location from the debt collection agency? Wouldn't it be better if they pursue you and end up with zero from you and then it's the end of the matter? You're only delaying the inevitable, why not engage, show you have zero income and no assets. If you do that I cannot see why they would even bother going to court. And then you're off the hook, and if the debt collection agency has not been told to pursue the guarantor, maybe he too will be free of this debt. Wouldn't that be a good result for everybody. 

No if there is a judgment against you it will not show up abroad. So you needn't worry about that. And if you do as outlined in the previous paragraph and deal with the debt collectors there might not even be a judgment. 

Why do you find it disturbing that the bank is not pursing the guarantor. You speak as though the bank and debt collection agency are pursing you personally and this is a bad thing, but if they are so what, you took the loan, you certainly spent it, you knew you couldn't pay it back, yet you feel they shouldn't pursue you because of the guarantor. Isn't that the banks business. Why do you want to get the guarantor into trouble, he might risk losing his job. Is that a nice thing to do to someone who apparently tried to help you out. Or do you blame him for you having the loans?

You mention that you had a debt of 5 times your income before the first loan. So about 3K, is that separate to the credit card debt.

I'm completely lost as to why you'd want to hire a solicitor and even more worryingly, you have no money to pay a solicitor, so why on earth would you consider it, and to what end?

You are contradictory in this: You state you would never have taken out a loan if you thought the guarantor would never have paid it off if you defaulted, but that is always a possibility, yet you said that you had tried all routes to get money before borrowing, and it was a case of necessity and desparation. Does that not mean you would have done anything to get a loan?

I don't agree that you've stuck to the facts, there is a lot missing.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Dec 2013)

I am going to try to put myself in Ay's shoes to see if I could justify this.

I face losing my accommodation because I can't pay the rent. 
My girlfriend says not to worry, she will organise a loan in the bank and I will only have to pay interest on it. She says if I get into difficulties, she will look after it. (She doesn't want me to lose my flat in case I move in with her) 
That's fine, I borrow the money. 
Then we go again some time later. 
Then we go again and bring the full amount to €18k

We then split up and it's not amicable. We are not in contact. 

Yeah, I would probably tell the bank to go chase the guarantor.  I would probably tell them that she rode roughshod over the system and she put down the wrong salary so that I would qualify for the loan.

While I would enjoy spiting my ex, I would realise that the bank is going to get a judgment against me. But sure wouldn't it be worth it?


----------



## Bronte (12 Dec 2013)

I don't agree BB, where is personal responsiblity? Fair enough one could have made a mistake on the first loan, but to dip in twice more? And they also had a large debt to service. I accept when young we can do foolish things. At least with the first loan it seems they could service the debt, I assumed about 9 euro a week, based on 5K at 10% interest only. And no accommodation needs 5K. What one would need in Dublin would be what, 1K deposit and 1 K rent. If it's a single person, it would be a lot less.


----------



## stephnyc (12 Dec 2013)

fair play, Brendan, for trying to play devils advocate here


Bronte - my guess is that maybe there were arrears owing? possibly money owed to family? 


there is a definite sense of rolling up 'lifestyle' debt into further & further loans and some unspoken wish to see the ex-friend suffer this loss - and though we dont know the full story, i can see why posters are unsympathetic

would it help to treat it as 2 separate queries?
1) the OP should work with the debt collector, show they have no means & hopefully extract themselves from this situation
2) should the bank official be pursued? I think once step 1 is exhausted, this may happen naturally. There may be merit in the bank having an internal investigation, but I think for the OP to pursue this would just be vindictive.


----------



## AyCaramba! (12 Dec 2013)

Bronte said:


> No if there is a judgment against you it will not show up abroad. So you needn't worry about that.



Wonderful! thank you.



> I don't agree that you've stuck to the facts, there is a lot missing.


I have stuck with the facts. What yourself and some others here seem to be craving is more gritty details of personal turmoil to get your special jollies from. Hell, frustrated with not being able to pull himself off over someone else's troubles, Burgess has repeatedly resorted to very wide of the mark assumptions and making up stories that seem to be as good as mental pornography for him. It's absolutely desperate.

Why X did Y is irrelevant here and it's a shame you and others can't understand that considering you deem yourselves fit to give financial advice on what are fact based matters and indeed spend quite a bit of time and energy fulfilling this self-belief.

The quality of this site and the advice available on it has been made more than apparent here so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Dec 2013)

It is the _lender_ who has the choice to pursue either creditor or guarantor. The fact that the guarantor is a bank employee does not alter this.

In certain circumstances, a guarantee may be discharged, for instance, if there was a material change in the loan(s) agreement. In other words, the guarantor may be relieved of the debt if there was a substantial change in the agreement between creditor and lender.

I agree that some people may appear to be unfairly judgemental perhaps, but I do not think that Bronte is in that category. Her questions seem to be a genuine attempt to understand how or why you got into this situation in order to provide you with appropriate advice.

For instance, an important question would be whether you applied for the loans under duress from another party and whether proof of this was indisputable.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Dec 2013)

Sophrosyne said:


> For instance, an important question would be whether you applied for the loans under duress from another party and whether proof of this was indisputable.



You can be quite sure if there was any element of duress, Ay would have noted that in their first post. 

If she had borrowed the money to pay off her guarantor's debts, it would be a completely different story.

But she borrowed the money "to keep a roof over her head".


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2013)

AyCaramba! said:


> The quality of this site and the advice available on it has been made more than apparent here so I'll leave it at that.


 
Translate, I came onto this site knowing what it was, but I said this in my first post:

_Any and all advice is greatly appreciated. _

Then when everybody responded, and they responded in a fairly consistent manner as per their other postings on AAM, you criticised all those who had pertinent questions, and who might have appeared negative, from your viewpoint, and you thanked and praised those who were positive. All the while claiming that you could not divulge certain unspoken of facts because of personal turmoil. 

It seems you only came on here to here to hear a certain viewpoint, that which suits you, I'm probably coming across harshly to you, but you seem to have a vindictive steak against the guarantor, and I didn't want to use that word, but another poster already did, but I did think it. You will know if you read my posts that I am no fan of bankers in particular. So in the absense of your giving us the actual reasons you have a major gripe with the guarantor, you can only expect to get the responses you have. 

You are anonomous, we will never know who you are, so there is no need for smoke and mirrors. I've found on AAM that some people do not give the full story, and even those that do, well we don't ever hear the other side, and there are always two sides to every story.

And you are wrong, what X did to Y is most pertinant. It's the root of your problem. If you decide to divulge it, then maybe we can help you. No need for graffic details. Or mental pornography as you refer to it. Never knew financials was so exciting, but Fifty shades it ain't.


----------



## Gerry Canning (13 Dec 2013)

Bronte; 

I am with you on this.
We can only go on a short presentation.
We will bring our own biases to bear (none of us perfect) 

Sometimes we can be a bit strident, but I do not see any personal vindictiveness from posters. (sometimes home truths!)
Indeed often nuff ,posters accept they were over the Top but @ least in AAM there is  forum to BLOW!
And even if a post is wrong it is still valuable to get views.
Vive La Difference!! 

Most posters are anonymous , so their opinion/advice is not couched in jargon but is a short clear attempt at a genuinely held view or advice.


----------



## cremeegg (17 Dec 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> You can be quite sure if there was any element of duress, Ay would have noted that in their first post.



How do you know?

Some people like to portray themselves as victims, others do not.

It seems to me that those who tell a difficult back story to their financial difficulties get a more sympathetic hearing here on AAM.

We have no idea whether these stories are true or exaggerated.

I know if I had financial difficulties arising from difficult personal circumstances I would be happy to seek advice around the financial aspects, but I would not like to discuss my personal difficulties.

The person who cannot or does not want to tell a personal hardship story should receive the same hearing as someone who tells a tear jerker which may be completely untrue.


----------



## 44brendan (17 Dec 2013)

Very interesting case. OP does appreciate the sympathetic responses, but who can blame her for that. Falsification of signatures on documentation is an issue, but should not restrict leagl proceedings, provided that the money was issued to the OP. It was obviously both a naive and irresponsible series of transactions by all parties. Bottom line is that unless OP has a reasonable income or assets a judgement will be irrelevant and produce nothing. Any problems that arise are likely to revert back to the guarantor. The lesson to be learnt here, is don't go guarantor for a bank loan, unless you intend paying it back ultimately yourself!!


----------



## Gerry Canning (17 Dec 2013)

I see no advantage in contacting Bank over their staff actions. Remember it was senior staff who havelanded Ireland in trouble.If (am not saying it is) your reasoning is vengeful don,t do anything.

It still ends up with , what can you reasonably afford?
If you can afford nothing , show the figures and leave others to decide what to do.
From my experience ,if you havn,t funds/assets,, Banks/Debt Collectors take that on board and move onto debtors they can get funds from.

The good thing about AAM posts is that people do give opinions , some might not be kind , but no malice intended. Sometimes the harder posts are the best.


----------



## Jim2007 (17 Dec 2013)

AyCaramba! said:


> Although you said that contacting the bank would merely serve to create waves within the bank and would not provide resolution, I think I'm going to go ahead, draft a letter and make enquiries as to whom it should be directed toward.
> 
> The contracts made, how they were made, along with some of their subsequent disappearance, is something the bank itself should be made aware of and be let deal with. If I've to resolve the debt issue with the collection agency, so be it, but there's only positive outcomes to making the bank seniority aware of the conduct or dealings of its staff.



Of course it depends on the wording of the letter, but with a letter like that in their hands the bank might feel inclined to make a complaint of fraud against the two of them...


----------



## AyCaramba! (20 Dec 2013)

Sophrosyne said:


> I agree that some people may appear to be unfairly judgemental perhaps, but I do not think that Bronte is in that category. Her questions seem to be a genuine attempt to understand how or why you got into this situation in order to provide you with appropriate advice.
> .



I'm not here for personal relationship advice. Why X did Y is personal detail that has no bearing on the facts of the situation now.

Anyway, since last posting I've got my credit history from the ICB. The loan in question is marked down as "C" for "Completed", with €0 outstanding money and has been since August 2011.

Why this is, or why none of the arrears appeared on the report, or why the payment history hasn't anything negative on it I do not know but I assume this means that the business with the bank in question is done.

I'm now considering how to handle the collection agency. If they've bought the debt and aren't collecting on behalf, as the case seems to be, I'm not sure what powers they have to bring legal action against me?

If I consider the guarantor paying the guarantee to be essentially a no go, what should my next play be?


----------



## Gerry Canning (20 Dec 2013)

Ay  caramba.

1. ICB showing clear does not necessarily mean Bank is finished. For whatever reason it isn,t showing ? so be it , there is still a loan you have not paid. If it was paid the DEbt collectors would not be on your case.C for completed is not necessarily (gone away). It may mean they have sold your debt.ie THEY are paid!
2. The Debt Collection Company may either be managing or probably bought the Debt from the Bank, I would think they now have ownership of it.
3. I suggest let the Debt Comp know your present circumstances , again if you have NO money they are normally ok.If you wish ,tell them there was a guarantor issue.
4.All Brontes observations I have seen on AAM are not prying , just trying to assist..


----------



## AyCaramba! (20 Dec 2013)

If the bank has sold on the debt then it's done with on their part?

I've currently got a small income. I'm considering offering the debt agency to settle for 1/3rd of the amount owed, paid over 2 years. Although I hold the guarantor almost totally responsible here, for reasons you guys will never pry from me, I just want to get this issue put to bed and get on with my life and unfortunately I think the guarantor is flaky enough that they would genuinely rather see the two of us being dragged into a court room and have judgements put against than to settle our issues privately.


----------



## Bronte (3 Jan 2014)

AyCaramba! said:


> I'm considering offering the debt agency to settle for 1/3rd of the amount owed, paid over 2 years. .


 
Don't offer your max, rather try and find out how much they will settle for first.


----------

