__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I thought I had addressed this? Let's leave aside the existence of free legal clinics that deal in stuff exactly like this every day. You don't need a lawyer. If you show up to court, and the other side fails to prove its case - for example, by not having the loan documents handy, or other convincing evidence that you owe what they say you owe - you don't even have to say a word. The case is getting thrown out. Now, if you want to say that there should be a mechanism in place for you to be better compensated for the waste of your time or even a penalty for going to trial with lawsuits that have no reasonable prospect of success, I'm open to those ideas. But this does not justify ignoring lawsuits. It should be pretty obvious that that is a terrible idea.
Moreover, even if you were right, from a principled standpoint, this only applies in cases where the person in question doesn't actually owe the money. The bookkeeping may not be good, and debt purchasers may just be buying a spreadsheet, but that's just bad records practice on their part. There are obviously exceptions, but most of the lines in that spreadsheet weren't pulled out of thin air. Those are bad records, but underlying those bad records are actual receivables on actual debt that people actually borrowed.
If you go to court to defend a lawsuit over a debt you actually owe, and win, it's you who gamed the system. You borrowed money and didn't pay it back. If you don't, if you ignore the lawsuit (for still no good reason I can see), and the creditor gets a default judgment against you... well, you borrowed money and didn't pay it back. That's what lawsuits are for.
My interpretation of the point of the piece was "the debt resale industry is inherently sleazy and corrupt, profiting off the backs of innocent people using underhanded shady tactics. Basically, they're a bunch of goat pimps."
Despite my protestations, as Resalien said, I haven't really stopped... but obviously we have different ideas about what is "irrelevant". Also, what the definition of "semantics" is; but I'll just stick with the OED on that one.
CHL, I think you are underestimating a couple of factors. Firstly, the fear of the uninitiated in the legal system. I think there are many people who are not educated on our system, are terrified of the prospect of showing up to court and are concerned about the cost of lawyers. In particular, if the debt had been cleared, the respondent might think, "well this is bogus, I don't need to waste my time". The piece specifically mentioned bad book keeping. If all there is one line on a spreadsheet, you don't think there might be errors? I don't think you can dismiss the idea of someone ignoring a lawsuit as someone who is simply a moron.
I also disagree with your assertion that it is the debtor that is gaming the system if he or she fights a lawsuit in which he or she owes money. Again, it said right in the piece that there could be very legitimate reasons why the lawsuit should be tossed: Could be beyond the statute of limitations, perhaps the debt was extinguished through bankruptcy. That is the law, it isn't gaming the system, I am surprised you would use that terminology.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
CHL, I think you are underestimating a couple of factors. Firstly, the fear of the uninitiated in the legal system. I think there are many people who are not educated on our system, are terrified of the prospect of showing up to court and are concerned about the cost of lawyers. In particular, if the debt had been cleared, the respondent might think, "well this is bogus, I don't need to waste my time".
Maybe it's uncharitable of me to consider such people stupid. But what do you think is going to happen if you get sued? The lawsuit specifically says, on the form, what you have to do, and just general common sense would say that if you don't know how this whole thing works, you could google it. Fear, through ignorance of how the legal system works, doesn't absolve you for burying your head in the sand and hoping the whole thing goes away. Why would that be excusable?
Quote:
The piece specifically mentioned bad book keeping. If all there is one line on a spreadsheet, you don't think there might be errors? I don't think you can dismiss the idea of someone ignoring a lawsuit as someone who is simply a moron.
Sure, I think there might be errors. If I get served with a lawsuit tomorrow for defaulting on a $100,000 line of credit issued by RBC (hypothetically), I'll know it's a mistake. I didn't borrow that money. Common sense would say the first thing I'd do is probably try to call the lawyer, and point that out, and ask why they think I owe that money. Then I'd take the required steps to deal with the lawsuit, including, if it didn't go away, going to court and saying to the judge, "I never borrowed that money, and they can't prove that I did, because I didn't". And that would be it. I wouldn't need a law degree for that.
In other words, the fact that there might be errors - and I don't dispute there might be - doesn't excuse you for throwing a lawsuit in the garbage. Again, I ask, what do you think is going to happen here? If you're being pulled over by the cops, and you know with 100% certainty you haven't done anything wrong and they must have made a mistake, do you just keep driving? What do you think is going to be the result of that?
Quote:
I also disagree with your assertion that it is the debtor that is gaming the system if he or she fights a lawsuit in which he or she owes money. Again, it said right in the piece that there could be very legitimate reasons why the lawsuit should be tossed: Could be beyond the statute of limitations, perhaps the debt was extinguished through bankruptcy. That is the law, it isn't gaming the system, I am surprised you would use that terminology.
If it's expunged through bankruptcy, you no longer owe the money. The debt effectively ceases to exist. Generally, in a bankruptcy, the creditor accepts some lesser amount in satisfaction of the debt (which may even be $0), but the debt is still considered satisfied. That's not gaming the system. There are tradeoffs to declaring bankruptcy, which is why everyone doesn't just do it to get rid of all their debt. If you do it, you pay a price. That's a perfect example of one of those errors we were just talking about.
If it's past the statute of limitations, yeah, you did, basically, take advantage of the system. You still owe the money to the creditor, but they have no way to force you to pay it. It's the creditor's fault for not pursuing you in time, but you got a windfall; you took out a loan and never paid it back. You got free money. You're not the one who's getting the shaft, in that situation.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 06-06-2016 at 03:31 PM.
Maybe it's uncharitable of me to consider such people stupid. But what do you think is going to happen if you get sued? The lawsuit specifically says, on the form, what you have to do, and just general common sense would say that if you don't know how this whole thing works, you could google it. Fear, through ignorance of how the legal system works, doesn't absolve you for burying your head in the sand and hoping the whole thing goes away. Why would that be excusable?
Sure, I think there might be errors. If I get served with a lawsuit tomorrow for defaulting on a $100,000 line of credit issued by RBC (hypothetically), I'll know it's a mistake. I didn't borrow that money. Common sense would say the first thing I'd do is probably try to call the lawyer, and point that out, and ask why they think I owe that money. Then I'd take the required steps to deal with the lawsuit, including, if it didn't go away, going to court and saying to the judge, "I never borrowed that money, and they can't prove that I did, because I didn't". And that would be it. I wouldn't need a law degree for that.
In other words, the fact that there might be errors - and I don't dispute there might be - doesn't excuse you for throwing a lawsuit in the garbage. Again, I ask, what do you think is going to happen here? If you're being pulled over by the cops, and you know with 100% certainty you haven't done anything wrong and they must have made a mistake, do you just keep driving? What do you think is going to be the result of that?
If it's expunged through bankruptcy, you no longer owe the money. The debt effectively ceases to exist. Generally, in a bankruptcy, the creditor accepts some lesser amount in satisfaction of the debt (which may even be $0), but the debt is still considered satisfied. That's not gaming the system. There are tradeoffs to declaring bankruptcy, which is why everyone doesn't just do it to get rid of all their debt. If you do it, you pay a price. That's a perfect example of one of those errors we were just talking about.
If it's past the statute of limitations, yeah, you did, basically, take advantage of the system. You still owe the money to the creditor, but they have no way to force you to pay it. It's the creditor's fault for not pursuing you in time, but you got a windfall; you took out a loan and never paid it back. You got free money. You're not the one who's getting the shaft, in that situation.
Again, I think you are assuming way too much about what a person outside of your experience might do. There could be language issues, socio-economic issues, all sorts of reasons why a person may do nothing. Why do old people fall for telephone scams? It might be hard for you to believe that anyone is so ignorant to pay on those, but the fact is they do. Not everyone, but throw enough crap against the wall and something will stick.
At the end of the day, Oliver is an entertainer who is generally quite funny and generally has some interesting points to make. This one wasn't the best on either count, but I certainly won't dismiss it either. Some bad apples in the debt collection/buyer business. Shocking!
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Showing up to court is all good and fine, until they pull your record and realize you recently also owe alimony, child support, and probably robbed a convenient store
Showing up to court is all good and fine, until they pull your record and realize you recently also owe alimony, child support, and probably robbed a convenient store
On the way to Court.
"Sir, did you rob the concession out front on your way in here?"
- Ummm.....no. No sir your honor.
"Yes you did! I saw you! You even took the last chicken sandwich right in front of me you heartless basterd!"
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
I think John highlighted some pretty shady and terrible practices occurring in the debt industry, and they need to be stopped.
Should debt be able to be traded? Of course.
If you can't watch a show like this and still think for yourself (aka you instantly agree with everything they say), then you need to take a break from TV.
Also, it was pretty cool his show buying up debt and then forgiving it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kavvy For This Useful Post:
Again, I think you are assuming way too much about what a person outside of your experience might do. There could be language issues, socio-economic issues, all sorts of reasons why a person may do nothing. Why do old people fall for telephone scams? It might be hard for you to believe that anyone is so ignorant to pay on those, but the fact is they do. Not everyone, but throw enough crap against the wall and something will stick.
I find it kind of amusing that CHL can't connect the dots between people who sign up for bad loans and people who might be intimidated or confused by the legal system.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Yeah, pretty sure I can... the question is why people being intimidated by the legal system makes it somehow totally acceptable to ignore a lawsuit being served on you, and somehow shifts culpability for that onto the person advancing the lawsuit.
I mean, apparently we're failing people by not giving them the basic information that this is not altogether different from running away from the cops when they try to pull you over, but still... people are also intimidated by police. Are they in any way less to blame when, as a result of that (let's be honest, in some cases at least partly justifiable) fear, they hit the gas when they see lights and hear sirens?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yeah, pretty sure I can... the question is why people being intimidated by the legal system makes it somehow totally acceptable to ignore a lawsuit being served on you, and somehow shifts culpability for that onto the person advancing the lawsuit.
I mean, apparently we're failing people by not giving them the basic information that this is not altogether different from running away from the cops when they try to pull you over, but still... people are also intimidated by police. Are they in any way less to blame when, as a result of that (let's be honest, in some cases at least partly justifiable) fear, they hit the gas when they see lights and hear sirens?
I think that's kind of Oliver's point though, that the system itself is predatory. Can we be upset with the people who take advantage of a predatory system? I think there are elements of that that are debatable. But I mean I can easily see the same people who don't read the fine print on their debt agreements also being the type to ignore lawsuits. I guess you can call them stupid if you want, but I think that really ignores all of the socioeconomic elements at play.
How is the "system" predatory? What system are you referring to? The legal system?
There's something predatory about the way that works; i.e. if I want to recover an amount owed to me by a debtor I write up a claim, file it in court and give it to the person who I'm suing?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
How is the "system" predatory? What system are you referring to? The legal system?
There's something predatory about the way that works; i.e. if I want to recover an amount owed to me by a debtor I write up a claim, file it in court and give it to the person who I'm suing?
Sorry I meant the practice of predatory lending, not the legal system itself.
Oh, okay. Well, these things may be connected, but aren't necessarily. For example, there's absolutely no reason to think that the list of people described in the bit aren't just being sued for old credit card debt (seems statistically likely to me given what I've read about debt rates in the past).
I'd say that predatory lending is a totally separate industry than debt buying, even though they're linked. The regulations needed in the former sphere are unrelated to whatever regulations you think should be imposed on the latter.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
