Are the Banks/government to blame for the rise in sites like GOODF

[letissier14]

I orginally found out about Quatloos via GOODF.

I had just started a new job and 3 months in, I serioulsy injured myself and ended up being on sick leave for 5 months.

I was only being paid SSP which just covered my mortgage (and I mean just)
I started looking for ways to save money and ways I could prepare myself for possible repossession proceedings.

I raed some stuff on GOODF and watch some videos and thought that I could use this stuff if times became really tough.
I then found Quatloos and all the good information on here describing the drawbacks to the GOODF "miracle cures"

Luckly, I had saved my pennies for a rainy day and was able to support myself through this tough time and I am proud to say that I have paid all my bills etc and not claimed so much as a penny in support from the government/tax payer.

Why was I able to do this?

I like to think that this is because I am not a greedy man and don't need the latest smartphone or sky TV.
I think greed and people not being able to get their priorities in the right order is to blame for a lot of debt and sites like GOODF seem to feed on this and some posters on their are after a bit of qdos and will make totally impractical suggestions to help which will ultimatly lead to more misery further down the line.

We need more site to help people get out if debt but not for free.
Take some responsibility for you actions, make sacrifices, get off your backside and stop thinking everyone owes you something.

sorry for the rant but freeloaders really get my goat

I agree with you. Only today I was dealing with a woman who had got into trouble with her council tax because of her partner and she had no idea about it until letters arrived.

She contacted the council explained that she had just gone back to education and offered them £150 per month to clear the debt.

The council refused and set the bailiffs on her. Bailiff turns up today at 3pm and stays there until 6pm when she arrived home. In between her arriving her home, as she was travelling back from London, the bailiff is hounding the woman's pregnant daughter and threatening her with a locksmith to break in. Bailiff also calls the police who are sat there for over 2 hours wasting everyone's time on a civil debt.

Lady gets home and explains situation to bailiff and offers him £150 per month with first payment immediately. Bailiff refuses and threatens to get locksmith again and then clamps her car which is on finance. The woman is in a right state.

She gives me the bailiffs phone number and I phoned him. 5 minutes later he has accepted her offer and unclamped the car.

This is what I mean about councils, banks, bailiffs etc not wanting to help with genuine people who want to pay. They break the rules and intimidate people because they know they can get away with it.

[wanglepin]

You are fortunate - imagine if you had Haining (just one of many) as role model.

He did once upon a time.

[letissier14]

You are fortunate - imagine if you had Haining (just one of many) as role model.

He did once upon a time.

No I didn't

[Hyrion]

a woman who had got into trouble with her council tax because of her partner and she had no idea about it until letters arrived

In trouble in what way? Did the partner go down the OPCA route, send WeRe cheques, other inappropriate/illegal behavior?

In other words: were there factors involved in which the council/bailiff had reasonable grounds for their decision on how to proceed?

This is what I mean about councils, banks, bailiffs etc not wanting to help with genuine people who want to pay. They break the rules and intimidate people because they know they can get away with it.

Do they all break the rules?

Or are you only dealing with those instances where there are bad apples to deal with and you don't see all the other situations where the councils/banks/bailiffs are helping people?

The point being: how can you claim the "group as a whole" are bad if you only see a small portion and are not taking into consideration those scenarios where the individuals involved who are part of the councils/banks/bailiffs are actually working with the person in financial stress?

[NYGman]

I was going to say a similar thing, There are good and bad everywhere, and while you hear about the bad, you won't hear about the ones that get help. So all that is left are those that have a bad experience, who turn to other avenues for help.

[Hercule Parrot]

The question I'm asking is why so many people are finding their way to goodf and similar sites, and the answer to that in my experience, is the genuine lack of help out there.

Both CAB & National Debt Line are seriously under funded in terms of finance, training, support and good advice. To contact a solicitor is beyond the finances of most people in debt.

Banks, bailiffs, councils and debt collectors don't follow the guidelines set out to help people and are very unhelpful in general.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. In the middle of a period of austerity, the UK population is still saturated with emotionally manipulative advertising for shiny status goods, people are constantly told that they must have the latest iphone, the biggest TV, the newest Xbox. And their kids must have them too, mini-ipads and laptop computers, Sky TV in every room etc.

Then we have the enablers, cynically exploitative firms like Brighthouse, Wonga and Cashconverters, who will extend usurious credit to any single mum on benefits. They hide the real costs behind 'fun' marketing and deceptive pricing, and they try to load more debt at every opportunity. Secured loans are offered with the knowledge and intention that the borrower will be unable to meet the payments, and their home can be seized.

The present system still relies too much on gulling people into risky levels of credit, leaving no margin for a disaster like illness or unemployment. And yes, when they find that they can't cope there isn't much help. Some CAB offices are excellent, but many are now struggling to cope. Creditors can be ruthlessly aggressive when they think the customer is sinking - concerned only with getting their pound of flesh.

The CAB budget needs to be doubled or tripled, so that honest, panicking people can get sensible advice quickly.

[Joinder]

Exactly, Pox.

I'm not defending banks here, I've no vested interest in them, but they're all to frequently being used as a convenient excuse.

To many people behave irresponsibly, run up huge debts, try to shirk them, at vast cost to the rest of us, mumble something about banks, then rinse and repeat.

It's only one step short of blaming Jews, blacks, or some other convenient catch-all scapegoat.

I'd rather deal with the problems than attack strawmen.

Yes, there are elements of the banking sector that have negatively impacted our economies, there are also elements that have positively effected it (although one-trackers never mention that), likewise good and politicians, laws etc.

People need to scratch the surface and go deeper, instead of just lashing out.

"Irresponsibility", and " running up huge debts " are exactely the things our banks did.

Do two wrongs make a right?

Never. But both wrongs should be acknowledged, especially as the other wrong is a very BIG wrong in comparison.

[Normal Wisdom]

The question I'm asking is why so many people are finding their way to goodf and similar sites, and the answer to that in my experience, is the genuine lack of help out there.

Both CAB & National Debt Line are seriously under funded in terms of finance, training, support and good advice. To contact a solicitor is beyond the finances of most people in debt.

Banks, bailiffs, councils and debt collectors don't follow the guidelines set out to help people and are very unhelpful in general.

Some CAB offices are excellent, but many are now struggling to cope. Creditors can be ruthlessly aggressive when they think the customer is sinking - concerned only with getting their pound of flesh.

The CAB budget needs to be doubled or tripled, so that honest, panicking people can get sensible advice quickly.

The budget at my local CAB is being reduced next year and it is already overstretched.

[letissier14]

In trouble in what way? Did the partner go down the OPCA route, send WeRe cheques, other inappropriate/illegal behavior?

In other words: were there factors involved in which the council/bailiff had reasonable grounds for their decision on how to proceed?

Why would the first thing you automatically think of, be that the person would be going down the OPCA route, WeRe cheques or similar? Most people in debt have never heard of OPCA or WeRe Bank.

In this case, her husband who had been paying all the bills, had lost his business due to a very large company going bust on him and owing him a small fortune, and therefore he was robbing Peter to pay Paul, just so that he could make the mortgage payments and other essential things like food and heating.

The council ignored her reasonable offer of payment and demanded she pay it in full or the bailiffs would be involved, which is what of course happened. The bailiff clamped her car even though he knew it was on finance and also threatened her with a locksmith to break in, when he had no legal right to do so.

Unfortunately this is not a one off situation is happening on a daily basis all around the country to many people.

Or are you only dealing with those instances where there are bad apples to deal with and you don't see all the other situations where the councils/banks/bailiffs are helping people?

The point being: how can you claim the "group as a whole" are bad if you only see a small portion and are not taking into consideration those scenarios where the individuals involved who are part of the councils/banks/bailiffs are actually working with the person in financial stress?

I don't base my findings on a whim or pluck them out of the thin air. They are based on facts readily available from most debt charities and government departments and also the sites I help on, where my inbox is normally always full of people wanting help. Genuine people in dire financial situations.

Just a few facts ...........

Stepchange:
Since 2010, StepChange Debt Charity has seen a 372% rise in the number of people we've helped with council tax arrears. Only payday loans grew faster as a client debt in that time.

The charity is calling on the government to implement changes to help people with the growing arrears crisis tipping families into problem debt. Our clients now owe an average of £832 in Council tax arrears, an increase of £157 since 2010.

Eight in ten clients got in touch with their council about the arrears, but a majority of them faced threats of legal enforcement or demands for unaffordable lump-sum payments from the Council:

62% of people had still been threatened with court action
51% had been threatened with bailiffs
Only 25% were offered an affordable payment option
Only 13% were encouraged to get debt advice.

The British economy is recovering, but many families are still waiting to see their household finances return to a genuinely steady footing.

Many are living on the edge, with 21 million people in Britain struggling with their bills, 18 million worried about making their income last until payday, and some 2.9 million people are in severe problem debt.

Many more families could find themselves falling into problem debt as they struggle to deal with shocks and changes without resorting to credit unsustainably. This leads people into a ‘debt trap’ where stress and anxiety compounds people’s difficulties and makes it harder for them to get back on their feet.

The consequences of debt – lost jobs, homes, broken relationships, mental health and support needs – leads to social costs of £8.3 billion.

We’ve found councils will often take aggressive action to recover Council tax debts, and not just as a last resort. 62% of people we spoke to had been threatened with court action, while 51% had been threatened with bailiffs (or sheriffs as they’re known in Scotland). Unbelievably, only 13% were encouraged to get debt advice.

The impact this has on individuals and families is immense, adding to stress and anxiety, negatively impacting on health, and putting strain on family life. With people facing charges of £310 for a bailiff/sheriff issuing a letter and visiting their property, what started off as relatively small debts can soon spiral out of control.

CAB
Citizens Advice reveals changing face of debt as consumer credit issues shift into arrears on essential household bills

Council tax debt is now the most common debt problem reported to Citizens Advice overtaking credit cards, new figures reveal today.

The charity expects to help with 191,400 of council tax debt issues in 2014/15 - a 20 per cent increase on 2013/14.

Half a million more people summoned to court over unpaid council tax, after benefits scrapped

MP's

Labour MP seeks tougher rules for debt-chasing bailiffs - Bailiffs chasing council tax arrears must be placed under much stricter rules to avoid abuse, a Labour MP has warned. Yvonne Fovargue proposed a change to the law which would allow people to challenge a council which instructs bailiffs against them and create an ombudsman for people who feel mistreated to appeal to.

The Makerfield MP said recent reforms to laws on bailiffs had not gone far enough and moved a 10-minute rule motion to introduce the Regulation of Enforcement Agents (Collection of Council Tax Arrears) Bill.

She told MPs: "This Bill won't solve everything but it will help. It will put existing good practice guidance for councils and bailiffs from the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice into a statutory footing and it will introduce an ombudsman scheme for bailiffs.

"Together these measures will provide a stronger impetus on councils and bailiffs to offer a sustainable repayment plan for people in arrears and avoid pushing them into the debt trap - it's no use asking somebody on a low income to pay £370 by the end of the day.

She added .......Local councils are too ready to call in the bailiffs when people fall into arrears on their council tax bills. This is despite guidance which is meant to encourage local authorities to look towards establishing affordable repayment plans in such situations and avoid the bailiffs.

"This Bill gives people a stronger right to challenge councils to offer an affordable repayment option before instructing the bailiffs."

She added: " The bailiffs, despite recent reforms, continue to use unreasonable methods such as aggressive behaviour and intimidation. They charge unreasonable fees and they misrepresent their powers in order to gain entry to collect goods.

"This Bill would ensure that when bailiffs are instructed, they conduct collection activities in a reasonable and fair way. Crucially, for the first time it will give people access to an independent ombudsman to secure redress when the bailiffs fail in their duty.


It is a massive problem and only getting worse

[wanglepin]

and also threatened her with a locksmith to break in, when he had no legal right to do so.

And we all know don't we , that Ceylon Mark Haining tells his sycophantic followers that

"locksmiths cannot break your door in under any circumstances".

19:26.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqUhR4n ... g&index=91

[letissier14]

and also threatened her with a locksmith to break in, when he had no legal right to do so.

And we all know don't we , that Ceylon Mark Haining tells his sycophantic followers that

"locksmiths cannot break your door in under any circumstances".

19:26.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqUhR4n ... g&index=91

Seriously what is your problem?

This particular incident has nothing to do with Ceylon and for the record a bailiff can't use a locksmith on a liability order for council tax and can't enter a locked house either.

So I suggest you take your hatred for Ceylon and confront him with it, rather then having childish little snipes at me all the time.

Ever since I have been on Quatloos you have made many little snidey comments about, or to me, simply because I was once a MOD on Goodf, and to be honest, it is wearing pretty fucking thin now.

[fat frank]

why should the council accept payments after it has gone to court, as far as council is concerned people have had the chance to pay but haven't, but shock horror want to pay now

people are keeping bailiffs in work,

[NigelJK]

Boy oh Boy where to start.

It's hard not to get political about some of this so if I stumble over the line my apologies to the mods beforehand. For the record I'm a firm believer in the old adage that the only problem with political jokes is that they get elected. No major Party in the UK is exempt from blame (and before I start blaming anyone it is pointless unless those responsible for the clear up learn the lessons). Gordon Brown may down in History as the one that killed the Labour ideal stone dead, not to mention putting in place a string of measures that made the crash in this country possible.
The current lot are trying to deal with a 'debt' problem in exactly the same way that you and I would. i.e. don't spend outside your means, I for one don't want my Generation to go down as the one that spent my children's heritage and my Grandchildren's heritage.

There is a large elephant in the room here and that's our glorious mass media, who are (and were) happy to promote both sides of the inverse virtuous circle of mass debt. My step son came to us for a loan the other day (for a genuine reason I'll not go into here). So we started talking about their finances. How much is your mobile phone (top of the range iPhone on contract)? How much is your Sky subscription? And on and on. Why are all of these (heavily advertised - both directly and indirectly) 'products' needed? Why get into debt for them? He was not happy. There's too much to go into here about that reaction (and I'm no Psychologist any more than I'm a Financier or Lawyer) but his 'disappointment' at getting sound advice says it all really.

I've 'worked' since I was 13 (as a paperboy, where I learnt a healthy disrespect for the media in general) and I've made my fair share of mistakes. I had my first home repossessed (and I could easily blame the Labour government of the day, but would it have helped? Nope) but now own my own home outright. I've never fallen for the marketing hype (there's another thing 'hype' was always a bad thing in my day and now it's all the rage, as they say over there 'go figure').

There's plenty of blame to throw around but none of it will help those that fail to help themselves.

[Hyrion]

Definition of Example: a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule

In trouble in what way? Did the partner go down the OPCA route, send WeRe cheques, other inappropriate/illegal behavior?

Why would the first thing you automatically think of, be that the person would be going down the OPCA route, WeRe cheques or similar?

You presented an extreme situation:

This is what I mean about councils, banks, bailiffs etc not wanting to help with genuine people who want to pay. They break the rules and intimidate people because they know they can get away with it.

Extreme claims require extreme proof. You wouldn't want someone to claim your you're* a serial killer resulting in you being locked away for the rest of your life without some form of extreme evidence to back the claim made against you.

I've seen plenty of broad claims myself and there are plenty of broad claims in the history of man. And, as a general rule, at best they tend to be seriously exaggerated. Additionally, it's my experience that people who exaggerate also tend not to want to disclose the reasonable grounds backing the response they received.

So... I asked a question to try to get clarification on what was really happening. Is the situation in England as bleak as your present? Are the local Government authorities responsible for making policy getting that out of control? Where's the Crown guidance in this situation? Can the people appeal to the Crown after having collected many examples of such inappropriate behavior in order to get some semblance of reasonableness back into the situation?

These are all representative of the kinds of valid questions people should be asking when someone presents a pretty bleak picture of leadership.

And... what's the best example to use when someone presents an extreme position? An extreme example of course. Did I think the persons involved went down the OPCA route or send WeRe cheques? I have no idea if they did, I have no personal knowledge of the situation you were describing. But it was a very clear example of what I hope you would understand as being such highly inappropriate behavior (at best) that it could reasonably result in repossession proceedings and/or bailiffs coming for a chat.

As I clarified:

In other words: were there factors involved in which the council/bailiff had reasonable grounds for their decision on how to proceed?

As a result, I'd suggest you had read - again - too much into my example and made assumptions about my thoughts and intent that weren't accurate.

• 80% contacted council

• 62% were still threatened with court action

• 51% were threatened with bailiffs

• 25% were able to negotiate an affordable payment option

• 13% were encouraged to get debt advice

Thank you! That's the kind of information I was looking for in order to get a more realistic understanding of the situation.

Working towards getting an Ombudsman in place to help curtail abuses by Councils

Again, thank you! That helps clarify.

From that information, in my humble opinion:

• 1: It does appear too many of the individuals working with Councils that are tasked with handling arrears are too readily willing to jump passed attempting a reasonable payment plan

• 2: At least some members of your Government recognize the problem and are trying to do something to help alleviate those issues.

I agree with you that there is a significant issue involved.

There's still factual information missing from the picture, but there's also sufficient information to conclude that the situation isn't as bleak as my impression of how you've presented it indicated.

* I proof read and proof read and something still slips through.

[letissier14]

Lets be honest....

Doesn't matter what I say or produce in evidence, you will always come up with a difference of opinion based on your own views.

I'm quite happy helping people in need on a daily basis and that's all what matters to me.

I'm starting to question why I ever come on Quatloos in the first place with all the negativity and superior people commenting.

Just remember those that look down on people have the potential for the greatest fall. Lets hope you don't ever get in debt through no fault of your own.

[Hyrion]

• 80% contacted council

• 62% were still threatened with court action

• 51% were threatened with bailiffs

• 25% were able to negotiate an affordable payment option

• 13% were encouraged to get debt advice

There's an interesting saying:

• There's lies, damn lies and statistics

I wonder if the stats presented were of "the total number of people that contacted StepChange Debt Charity" or "the total number of people who contacted council".

Let's say the 62% identified above are only associated with the 8 out of 10 people who contacted council. Then a more accurate representation is:

• 80% contacted council

• Of those, 62% (or 49.6% of the full 10) were still threatened with court action

• 51% - or 40.8% of the whole (otw), were threatened with bailiffs

• 25% - or 20% otw, where able to negotiate

• 13% - or 10.4% otw, were encouraged to get advice

[rosy]

[....]

I've 'worked' since I was 13 (as a paperboy, where I learnt a healthy disrespect for the media in general) and I've made my fair share of mistakes. I had my first home repossessed (and I could easily blame the Labour government of the day, but would it have helped? Nope) but now own my own home outright. I've never fallen for the marketing hype (there's another thing 'hype' was always a bad thing in my day and now it's all the rage, as they say over there 'go figure').

There's plenty of blame to throw around but none of it will help those that fail to help themselves.

I agree with this. My ex-husband and I started out in a rented room with shared kitchen and bathroom while we saved a deposit for a house. We bought a big, run down Victorian semi for £15k with a £3k deposit (in 1985) and all we had was a cooker, a fridge, a dining table, two dining chairs and a bed - all of which we bought second hand for pennies. No curtains or sofa or TV, we saved up for all of those while we did the house up. Nowadays many young couples want to start out in new-build houses with all the latest gadgets and brand new furniture, and are willing to take on crazy amounts of debt to fund this aspirational lifestyle.

Unfortunately my ex stopped being financially responsible during our marriage and got us into huge debt that he is still in today, and some of which I ended up with after the divorce, but I have almost entirely repaid my portion by scaling everything back, despite having to give up work four years ago through ill-health.

On the Moneysavingexpert debt-free board, the first thing the regulars advise for people in debt is to slash their outgoings. Change to a cheap PAYG phone, cancel the Sky tv subscription, shop in the discount supermarkets etc, cancel magazine subscriptions and other extras. Sell what you don't need. Apply for benefits if you are eligible. Then contact the lenders and the debt charities (which should be much better funded), pay priority debts (mortgage/rent, council tax, utilities, food) and with help from the debt charities divide what is left among the debts using snowballing to get rid of the highest interest rates first. If their credit rating is not yet damaged, get as much debt as possible onto low rate deals. But never, ever take out more debt to 'solve' the problem.

Yes, some lenders did make irresponsible loans, and some borrowers took out irresponsible borrowing. But nobody forced either of them to do it (perhaps other than those vulnerable by reason of mental incapacity), and it has to be repaid no matter how unfair it seems compared with tax avoiders and recipients of bail-outs.

I think financial responsibility, including how to live within one's means and the true cost of debt, ought to be taught as part of PHSE/citizenship classes in school as well as it being taught by parents/guardians to their children.

[FatGambit]

I'm a bit late to the party but...

The 3 letters on goodf do have some standing on the fact they require the creditor to prove that the debt exists or that they are legally allowed to collect it. If it can't be proved, you can refuse to pay the debt and this is covered under the consumer credit act.

In my experience most people offer to pay but after being constantly hounded by the creditor they feel like they have nothing to lose and simple refuse to pay.
.

The three letters -

If a creditor can't prove a debt by providing a copy of the agreement and they write it off, do you think that this is morally wrong? Is it a bit like 'getting off on a technicality'?

As opposes to being morally wrong to lie to an unsuspecting debtor that they must now pay 'company x' instead of 'company y' but offering up absolutely no evidence to support that claim, even when ordered to by a Judge?

If 'company x' cannot get their ducks in a line, that's their problem, not the debtors, the debtor should shoulder no more guilt than the company attempting to bully them.

BTW, on the subject of parents teaching their kids financial responsibility, they can only teach that if they have the experience themselves to pass on, my mum and dad were war babies, my mum never had a credit card until she was 55, and my dad still doesn't have one at 74, they couldn't impart any advice to me even if they wanted, so yes, the government, through education should have done that, not teach me absolutely nothing about handling finances then letting some shark give me a credit card at 18 while I earned £35 a week on a yts scheme - so yes in answer to the original question, the rise of sites like goodf is directly related to the conduct of governments and the banking industry.

Generally people bahave by example, if the Governments and Banks showed a bit more responsibility, then Joe Bloggs might too.

[Hyrion]

I assume you're responding to my post as you have not clarified in any way who you're refering to. But since I was the most recent person who responded to your evidence, I think it's a reasonable assumption.

Doesn't matter what I say or produce in evidence, you will always come up with a difference of opinion based on your own views.

I agree with you that there is a significant issue involved.

Point being: it seems I did agree with you at least on one point. That can't reasonably be understood as "always come up with a difference of opinion".

Lets hope you don't ever get in debt through no fault of your own.

I don't think people understand the misery and depression that can often result from being in debt, which is then compounded with the constant threats of legal action and lack of help from creditors.

I do.

Point being: already happened - and while external factors were involved that I had no control over that were a large influence on what happened, I don't accept it was "through no fault of my own". So I can't honestly claim that factor as I take responsibility even for the lack of knowledge I currently have as I'm an adult and have full responsibility for myself.

Just remember those that look down on people have the potential for the greatest fall.

Interesting that you take the perspetive that I'm looking down on others because I seek a better understanding of situations instead of accepting what someone is telling me at face value. I've learned - through costly experiences - that people don't always tell me the full truth. Seeking clarification is not looking down on others.

Let's cover a few points following the history of the thread up to now.

• 1: When we were discussing who had responsibility to teach financial responsibilities, you responded as though you took that personally as though I had judged your parents and found them wanting. It's like you're not actually bothering to try to understand what I author, but are simply drawing conclusions that you want to draw. You still haven't responded to my request to point out where I had authored judgement.

• 2: During my attempt to better understand the extreme position you were presenting, I asked questions and you responded making it clear you thought I automatically think of others in trouble as OPCA. I've now clarified that showing both that it was a clear example and that my understanding of what you were saying had increased... but again, it's like you didn't bother to read any of that.

• 3: You've presented a conclusion on whether or not we can agree on anything - again, as though you have not read my statement that I agreed with you on at least one factor

• 4: You've presented a persepective hoping I don't end up in debt through no fault of my own even when I responded to your previous point on debt and stress indicating I've already faced such.

• 5: You've presented your position that I look down on others, and I've done nothing but seek clarification.

I'm begining to seriously wonder about your intent. You're presenting some - not all, but some - of the markings of a troll.

[FatGambit]

I wasn't responding to you no, just generally observing, but I do agree, schools should teach financial responsibility at a young age, I've tried to with my son and he often asks why am I teaching him it, shouldn't it be the schools job?

As I said it can be hard for a parent to teach their child about certain things, my dad would,t be able to tell you what compound interest or what a minimum monthly payment was, as he's never experienced either.