ivorystraws
Registered User
- Messages
- 480
Don't understand what you are saying - has the Debtor got a debt management company to look after paying his creditors (like MABS). Are they not paying the full debt - why would you not want to be paid?
Of course you can refuse if too little and you believe they have more money available - why not take the money without making any agreements just taking it as part payment if not the full amount.
It is legal, but any payments made or attempted to be made but refused by the creditor would certainly count in your favour if they do manage to get you in front of a judge.
I would suggest that any payments that you are able to make to them if refused that you put them on deposit with another financal institution or credit union so that they are available when you get to court.
If you use the credit union you may have enough of a history and shares built up by the time it gets to court to raise some extra cash to bring it to a conclusion without a judgement.
non legal opinion only, good luck
If I was a creditor I would refuse to negotiate with anyone charging a fee for the service, as it reduces the money available to pay me. In general, these fee charging debt advisors have a bad reputation. They are not regulated as far as I know.
If I was a creditor, I would want to talk directly to the borrower and deal with them. I am the secured lender so I don't have to participate in any debt settlement, especially if the LTV is below 100%.
If someone pays in money on behalf of a debtor, I would accept it. But if the debtor was in arrears I would pursue them for the arrears or ask them to come in and talk to me.
Permanent tsb are being very ethical and responsible in their approach, other than not accepting the actual payment.
PTSB may have a policy of not accepting payments from debt managers but a bank would be on a sticky wicket if a debt manager is acting as an appointed agent for their client and the bank is made aware of this.
Debt managers act on authorisations from their clients (debtors) to make payments on their behalf to their multiple unsecured creditors. They charge a fee for the service which is more often a % of the amount paid or alternatively a flat fee based on the number of creditors. Unsecured creditors may discontinue legal debt collection or continue with it - generally they realise they are being paid what the debtor can afford and discontinue legal debt collection. They also realise that rushing to be the first in the queque court ordered instalments can be self-defeating given the costs involved etc.
Debt management services are unregulated here. They are licensed and regulated in the UK by the OFT where the sector has long established reputable firms operating under regulatory guidlines and approved codes of conduct. These firms provide voluntary debt management agreements and are also involved in providing IVA services (non-court based personal insolvency regime).
The commercial debt management business model shares costs between debtor and creditor. In countries, where well established, creditors recognise the process is cost effective when compared to traditional debt collection activities. And are prepared to consider earned disharges or debt write downs where agreements are adhered to.
MABS is a free service to both the debtor and creditor but who is funding MABS - the taxpayer. In effect the taxpayer is subsidising costs that creditors should be paying for. Which may be one of the reasons why a bank would have a policy of not accepting payments from debt managers - if they do then they are bearing the cost through lower payments then they think they would achieve either in the courts or through a tax payer funded system such as MABS.
@brendan : are you confusing debt advisors with debt managers - the latter arrange for agreements to pay mutiple unsecured creditors. Why is a policy of not dealing with debt managers ethical and responsible? It could be self-interest could it not?
@brendan : are you confusing debt advisors with debt managers - the latter arrange for agreements to pay mutiple unsecured creditors. Why is a policy of not dealing with debt managers ethical and responsible? It could be self-interest could it not?
Kaplan asked
No, I don't think I am. Ivory Straws agrees that a lot of these firms are disreputable. Clients should be discouraged from dealing with them and maybe ptsb is helping the client be telling them to deal directly.
That way, there will be more available to pay the creditors.
From a self-interest point of view, the mortgage provider doesn't really need to participate in these settlements as the loan is secured.
I might be biased. Quite a few of these guys spam askaboutmoney offering their services or claiming to be satisfied customers. I am not going to waste time trying to assess which ones are reputable and which ones are not. I would just avoid them all. I suspect that PTSB has arrived at the same conclusion. They are telling the client " come in and talk to us. You don't need an intermediary".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?