Did the lemders ever write off amy debts

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

I have heard that lenders had at some point written off approx three hundred thousand debts incurred during the property price dump of the early 90's. Has anyone else heard this? If so do you know of where I find out more about it.

-- Time Heath (tim@computerlogistix.freeserve.co.uk), January 14, 2001


From what I have learn't what you say is true although I have no idea of full deatils or where they can be got. I have been told on many occasions that the vast majority of these debts were written off around 1993 as is was 'most unlikely' that any recovery could be made. The reason that all of this has resurfaced now is two fold. The market etc is good and most of us are supposed to have disposable income - if anyone has excess please send it my way and secondly that these debts have been 'purchased' by agencies who are on very high commision rates for what they get so they don't care how they go about it. The rate that is thought by those I have spoken to is around 50% - the most hihgh level person who confirmed this was my MP Bob Russell.

So yes the debts were 'written off' but only so the budgeting etc of the lenders could be balanced and that there were no shadows over their books thus incresing shareholder value/profit etc. The chasers get most of the money but the lenders get some too which is all extra pocket money for them.

As the debts were written off perhaps this is why documents are not forthcoming - they might have been disposed of!!

-- Matt (mattyc@ntlworld.com), January 15, 2001.

Matty's answer is pretty good.

There is certainly evidence that lenders no longer have the documentation they need to back up their cases in court. Many documents appear to have been discarded when lenders were taken over by other lenders. One lender is thought to have lost the bulk of its documents in two separate document warehouse fires. Others have never got around to bringing all the documents relating to specific properties together. In these cases, if you bought a house through the lender's southern district head office and the southern district was later merged into the Midlands district, the southern district's house-purchase paperwork may still be in a warehouse in Hampshire and subsequent documents, copies of letters about you might be in the documents warehouse in Banbury, with nobody too sure that it is worth spending the time trying to collate them.

You are forcing them to spend time collating them when you ask them for documentary proof. Unwillingness to spend money is one of the reasons why you often do not receive any co-operation over this. But that works in your favour, of course, because an uncooperative lender cannot easily win a court case against you.


-- Lee (repossession@bigfoot.com), January 15, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ