Debt Collectors Are Bankrupting Australians over Small Credit Card Debts

HighAndDry on 13/08/2019 - 10:32

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-13/debt-collectors-suing…

So.

Living off the public purse (public housing).
Has more children than they could (ever) afford (5 kids).
Buys things they can't afford (a bed and a washing machine using a credit card).
Buys more things they can't afford (car financed too).
Stops paying what they owe despite being able to (repaid debt when forced).
Complains about having to repay what they borrowed and owe.

Typical.

Lessons? Exercise financial responsibility. Don't be like these people.

Financial

Comments

- - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/08/2019 - 13:21
    
    +1
    
    I am not 100% sure on what is the problem of high limits?
    
    Because they can potentially rack up a debt that could never be repaid, even if they lived in a tent and ate nothing but rice.
    - ssyl9 on 19/08/2019 - 14:38
      
      +1
      
      Again, if I live in a tent and ate nothing but rice why would I think it is ok to spend the whole 20k in my credit card if I have no possible way to pay it back?
      
      Credit cards are not free money.
      
      It comes down to people spending more than they should
      
      People have to take some responsibility (if not the full responsibility) on spending money you don't have and not blame the bank for everything..
      Imagine one of your good friend has a spare 10k that he/she can lend to you any time if you needed it…
      
      do you just go and take money from your friend until he/she has no more spare money with no way of paying him/her back?
      
      NO.
      
      So why is it ok when people do it to a bank?
      - Samsungnote10 on 19/08/2019 - 15:30
        
        @ssyl9: youd be surprised how that line of logical thinking doesnt enter the brain of a lot of people
        
        if the bank tomorrow said here, have a $10m loan, id be worried and as well as shocked
        
        many of these type of people would think theyve won $10m
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/08/2019 - 17:25
        
        @Samsungnote10: Because sometimes people need protection from themselves, not just others. Everybody is on different levels.
        
        The sick, poor, rich, young, old, disadvantaged, disabled all need varying levels of policy to protect them in various ways. People will pray on those weaknesses to benefit themselves over others. It's for the betterment of society.
        
        Just look at the gambling industry. Now heavily regulated.
        
        Finance industry is looking down the throat of reforms and further reforms in the near future.
        
        Otherwise the individuals or groups in positions of power will trod all over those beneath them. Instead of looking at a bad situation (like this article) one should be thinking, who is benefiting here? If it's always a bank, a political party, a large corporation, and never an individual, then you should be asking questions, not just shaming the individual for "poor judgement".
        
        Samsungnote10 on 19/08/2019 - 19:29
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: what highanddry is getting at, ( i think) i actually agree with to a high extent
        
        I agree with them removing gambling ads during sports events (or even tv)
        plain packing on cigarettes/storage areas
        
        you also shouldnt put alcohol in front of an alcoholic
        or a pokie in front of a gmabling addict,
        also involving impressionable children
        
        totally agree,
        
        smoking is bad we all know that, the govrernment has (i think) been a big brother and basically made it too expensive, too hard to smoke,
        
        now very few people I know smoke, the overall smokers numbers have dropped and that is good
        
        these are adults who make it an active choice to smoke, so why cannot it be applied to people who cant pay back loans?
        
        which is fair enough, but at the end of the day hyprocritical as it may seem, I dont want society to become one where you gamble and lose, its the casinos fault, you go bankrupt because you spent too much on the credit card, its the banks fault, you got fat, its fast food shops fault, you get killed driving to fast, its the car manufacturers fault for allowing the car to go fast
        
        I dont want society to become one where no one takes responsibility
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 20/08/2019 - 12:50
        
        @Samsungnote10: I don't want society to become one where corporations can run the show, influence society, to the detriment of individuals, simply just to increase their share prices and profits, and not be held accountable for the outcomes seen.
        
        Fast/junk food is an interesting point you raise. Obesity is another increasing problem.
        
        Should people simply "stop eating" and be "responsible"?
        
        Or should we be looking at the major supermarket chains that have huge amounts of floor space for junk food, discount or down price it more often than their other goods, the suppliers who pack their food full of addictive sugar, specifically target kids, and get rich from doing so?
        
        I see a correlation with finance companies in the above example.
        
        Samsungnote10 on 20/08/2019 - 19:08
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: where do you draw the line,
        
        I definitely dont want a bank giving a granny on the pension a 30 year $1m loan, thats just irresponsbile,
        
        or someone on $50k a $30k credit card
        
        and yes, the supermarkets put candy in ares at check out and in view of the kids so that they have a higher chance of buying
        
        I dont know what the solution is, but a supermarket should be allowed to put products in places to maximise profit,
        but they shouldnt be allowed to advertise cigarettes
        
        have you been to Japan before, in the city, on almost every corner there is a vending machine that sells cigarettes and alcohol,
        
        yet underage smoking and drinking is no where a huge problem as it is here
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 20/08/2019 - 19:45
        
        +1
        
        @Samsungnote10:
        
        where do you draw the line,
        
        Exactly. That's why we have legislation, policy and these commissions to find the fine line. Because otherwise corps will run rampant.
        
        Most in this thread of shoving their heads in the sand thinking the finance mobs have no responsibility here. They profit (big time) from our society. It should NOT be to the detriment of our society.
Cheeper on 13/08/2019 - 11:57

+1

I have known many people that have no qualms about maxing out their credit card with zero thought about paying it back.
You don't have to live within your means these days, just cry hard done by and half the world will sympathise with you.
brad1-8tsi on 13/08/2019 - 12:03

+10

Did you read the article?

Living off the public purse (public housing).

Do you know how the rent on public housing is determined? you pay a percentage of your accessible household income or market rent, whichever is lower.

They haven't been in public housing for 15 years and all the financial issue appear to have occurred 5 years ago, so the public housing is irrelevant to the issue.

Has more children than they could (ever) afford (5 kids).

Yes, they should have bought a TV instead of a bed.
It also doesn't say how old the kids are but if these people are 55 then they didn't have them last week and the kids are all at wage earning age. It's very likely the kids could have contributed to repay the debt in some way.

Buys things they can't afford (a bed and a washing machine using a credit card).

At the time they both had jobs and could afford them. But yes, a bit dumb to stretch things to the limit and not have enough for a rainy day.

Buys more things they can't afford (car financed too).

You don't know what type of overpriced crap-box (probably bought from AusCar sales at a hugely inflated price on "easy finance") but if you need a car to get to work…

Stops paying what they owe despite being able to (repaid debt when forced).

It's a weird one. Makes you wonder if they stopped paying something else.

Complains about having to repay what they borrowed and owe.

They were probably hoping to get let off. They appear to have been totally unaware of how much they owed.

I guess thank your stars that you are educated and responsible with what you have.
- [Deactivated] on 13/08/2019 - 12:14
  
  +7
  
  I can see you're trying very hard to be sympathetic but even you have to admit, what they've done is so irresponsible that by contrast, our ability to be responsible seems like a stroke of luck.
  - brad1-8tsi on 13/08/2019 - 12:20
    
    +13
    
    i agree they are f-wits. But without f-wits I wouldn't seem as smart as i do.
  - ausdday on 13/08/2019 - 12:27
    
    +4
    
    Let's blame the system.
    
    You work hard, earn a decent living, cautious about spending, save up money for rainy days, you get penalised by paying high tax and you don't get pension nor centrelink benefits.
    
    You do your hours at minimum wage, spend money carelessly, especially don't save up any money, you get centrelink help, you get pension, and if you do any worse, you get to be on the news and people will pour you with money.
    - [Deactivated] on 13/08/2019 - 12:28
      
      +2
      
      Is that our national anthem?
    - hey aj on 13/08/2019 - 12:42
      
      +3
      
      These are all good points and responses to the questions that have been stirred up by this article. We as Australians love supporting the underdog, alternative agenda or not, this is probably why the media outlet ran with the story.
      
      Three thoughts:
      
      Are we as a society starting to shift away from the general view that everyone deserves a 'fair go'?
      
      Is it better to have a system that catches the legitimate 'battlers' along with all the free-riders or none at all?
      
      Is there a better way?
      - [Deactivated] on 13/08/2019 - 12:57
        
        +4
        
        @hey aj: It's better to have a system that views everyone the exact same way. "Battler" or otherwise.
      - HighAndDry on 14/08/2019 - 13:24
        
        +4
        
        @hey aj:
        
        Are we as a society starting to shift away from the general view that everyone deserves a 'fair go'?
        
        I mean - they DID get a fair go. Plenty of people use credit cards, loans, even car financing etc without falling into a financial pit. They, as adults, had the right and the power to enter into loan and credit agreements. They benefit by being able to afford things without saving as much, and without cutting back on other expenses. In return, they're expected to meet the obligations of those loan and credit agreements, as adults. Rights/Benefits/Responsibilities/Costs.
        
        Is it better to have a system that catches the legitimate 'battlers' along with all the free-riders or none at all?
        
        There can be different levels of criticism. They were financially irresponsible, not deliberately free-riding. But they also chose to complain about having to repay their obligations. I'm not criticising them as much as I would someone who is completely free-riding.
        
        Is there a better way?
        
        Not really. Being an adult with adult rights and powers come with adult responsibilities. You can't have one without the other - the only cases where we do, are in cases of intellectually disabled people who're under some kind of financial guardianship, with no control over their own finances.
        
        Maybe some people deserve that.
      - 900dollaridoos on 15/08/2019 - 08:27
        
        +2
        
        @hey aj: I agree with most of what you've said. I'm fairly conservative in my dislike for paying high tax for doll bludgers, but I have seen enough research to show that it is actually cheaper to just pay them off than to force them into the workforce. So as annoying as the image of paying for people to sit at home is, I'm OK with the compromise.
        
        Where it stops being ok is when we artificially increase the ratio of non-workers via unskilled immigration. Saving refugees is all well and good but making ourselves a soft target for easy benefits for newcomers is shooting ourselves in the foot. It's little wonder so many of them don't work when there is no incentive to.
        
        hey aj on 15/08/2019 - 08:51
        
        +2
        
        @900dollaridoos:
        
        Where it stops being ok is when we artificially increase the ratio of non-workers via unskilled immigration. Saving refugees is all well and good but making ourselves a soft target for easy benefits for newcomers is shooting ourselves in the foot. It's little wonder so many of them don't work when there is no incentive to.
        
        And yet even with the relatively high ratio of refugees and immigrants we take in compared to our population we get branded, even by our own media, as racists.
        
        Don't want to derail this topic though.
    - brendanm on 14/08/2019 - 21:27
      
      +1
      
      Straya! Land of the free (money)
  - Montyjpm on 14/08/2019 - 16:36
    
    +4
    
    The whole point of the 7:30 report last night was that Lion Finance was very quick to go to the debt collector and force people to go bankrupt over small amount like $5000 or $8000 and force payee to sell their house to recover the money. The report also highlight Lion Finance has more deb collector cases than American Express. They also have a Law arm to issue these debt recovery "nice" letters and taking people to court.
    
    Yes, I agree that if you have debt then you will need to pay it back but to jump all over you demanding the house is a bit f in the head. They need to let these people time to services the debt.
    - [Deactivated] on 14/08/2019 - 17:43
      
      +1
      
      The report also highlight Lion Finance has more deb collector cases than American Express.
      
      Lion Finance IS the debt collector. The debt was sold to Lion Finance after the couple failed to make any payments to the former financial institution.
    - FareEvader on 14/08/2019 - 22:54
      
      +1
      
      The credit provider would've attempted to recover the debt multiple times before selling it off to Lion Finance.
    - brendanm on 15/08/2019 - 13:28
      
      +1
      
      These people have had years to pay back the debt. They would have been harassed by the financier many many times over a very long period before the debt was sold to lion finance. Amazing how quickly they could come up with $50 a week to pay down the debt once the threat of bankruptcy came around.
Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/08/2019 - 12:42

+2

I'm on the fence here.

Yes people need to be responsible with their finances. Thankfully there are many organisations that now provide free assistance to individuals and family in debt. There was next to nothing available 20 years ago. The CLCs couldn't and wouldn't do much.

However, I highly support the findings in the recent Banking Royal Commission. It was common practice for years (decades) for financial institutions to hand out credit to everyone and anyone. No real checks were conducted. Credit cards initially were the main component and then interest free finance. They didn't care if anyone could afford it. They knew if someone defaulted at some point they could just let the interest and penalty interest accrue for a few years, wait for the debt to be 50-100% higher than the initial principal and then sell off the debt for 5,10,20 cents on the dollar to a scummy debt collection firm. No matter what they would always break even or be be ahead. Thus the practice continued and continued and continued. It was their bread and butter.

There were too many incidents of banks giving 18-21 year olds 10k-15k credit cards or car loans for 30k and saddling them with debt for a decade.

There was a serious need for reform to ensure proper mandatory checks were in place to ensure responsible lending. It looks like this is now occurring and the banks are taking it very, very seriously.
- HighAndDry on 13/08/2019 - 13:55
  
  +4
  
  It was common practice for years (decades) for financial institutions to hand out credit to everyone and anyone.
  
  Not everyone and anyone - only people who asked to borrow money.
  
  No real checks were conducted.
  
  This is to protect the bank, not the borrower - the borrower is LYING, why should they be protected from the consequences of their own lies?!
  
  They didn't care if anyone could afford it.
  
  Again, their caring only extends to protecting themselves. Basic financial responsibility for this lies on the borrower. Are shops supposed to check if you can afford something before they sell it to you too? Under your logic, they would have to.
  
  There were too many incidents of banks giving 18-21 year olds 10k-15k credit cards or car loans for 30k and saddling them with debt for a decade.
  
  Being an adult comes with rights and responsibilities. Most people manage to get through their late teens and early 20s without falling into unrecoverable debt. If this many people can do it, it's obviously not difficult.
[Deactivated] on 13/08/2019 - 13:02

+4

Read the article. The story is one giant sob fest which can be summarized to:

TLDR - used credit card as a loan (mistake 1). Didn't pay off loan (mistake 2). Stopped paying minimum repayments (mistake 3). Stopped responding to debt collection (mistake 4).

There was an avenue to repay/refinance the debt which involves working more, decided it is better to not do so.

The conclusion was that the couple closed that debt (which they should have done so to begin with), instead they chose to dishonor their legal obligation which resulted in countless more manhours spent to recoup the debt.
- Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/08/2019 - 13:08
  
  +4
  
  They didn't plan for her to get injured and need to retire from the workforce. Suddenly a single income. Suddenly their financial situation is screwed.
  
  They didn't decide that.
  
  If it came between paying a finance mob their monthly repayment versus buying the weekly shopping I have a sneaking suspicion what 90% of posters here would choose.
  - [Deactivated] on 13/08/2019 - 13:47
    
    +10
    
    I don't decide a lot of things either. Part of being an adult is having contingencies. Being injured and unable to do physical work is on the top my list and should be for anyone working a physically laborious job.
    
    Having to choose between food and paying off a debt is so far downstream of the initial poor decision. Just because it is unfortunate doesn't mean the responsibility is not solely and squarely on the individual.
  - HighAndDry on 13/08/2019 - 13:52
    
    +1
    
    If it came between paying a finance mob their monthly repayment versus buying the weekly shopping I have a sneaking suspicion what 90% of posters here would choose.
    
    This is the problem. It's not your choice which of your responsibilities and obligations that you've willingly agreed to to fulfill. You're responsible for all of them.
    - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/08/2019 - 18:53
      
      +7
      
      Thanks gents. It's clear where your goalposts lie.
      
      Life throws curveballs. Sometimes they are financial curveballs. Sometimes avoidable. Sometimes not. Sometimes poor decision making. People make mistakes.
      
      Once an individual is down it can easily spiral into a real dire situation really quickly. The banks and finance mobs embraced this. All the reforms 8ish years ago and occurring again now just emphasis and prove this. Those reforms are happening for a reason. They had a part to play. This is fact.
      
      It'd be nice to have contingencies always available but a fair percentage of the population are working for an award wage in our country where the cost of living index is getting worse and worse.
      
      Let's just get rid of unemployment benefits. They should have had contingencies and money saved in case their employer goes into liquidation or lays off workers.
      
      Let's get rid of the aged pension. Should have had contingencies and saved for their retirement their entire lives.
      
      Let's get rid of disability benefits. Should have had contingencies…
      
      Hell let's get rid of Medicare and PBS.
      http://imgur.com/gallery/QKeNZ
      - HighAndDry on 13/08/2019 - 18:56
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        Those reforms are happening for a reason.
        
        I mean, to me the reason seems to be because modern adults actually can't handle adult responsibilities like financial responsibility. No-one forced anyone to lie to the banks to take out loans they couldn't actually afford.
        
        Just like in this case:
        
        No one forced them to have 5 kids.
        
        No one forced them to buy things on credit instead of on lay-by.
        
        Actually I'll leave it there - how do you explain even just these two? How many mistakes does someone have to make before you accept that it's a personal failing and not just bad luck?
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/08/2019 - 19:03
        
        +3
        
        @HighAndDry: Lie? What?
        
        I've seen applications used 10-15 years ago. Consisted of "your income", "estimated monthly expenditure" then a yes or no if your owned or rented. Practically approved if you ticketed Yes to owned. That's it. That's not responsible lending.
        
        Financial responsibility is one aspect, but injury, income curveballs are different.
        
        This couple made mistakes. They probably got sucked into the good ol' GE Hardly Normal advertising trotting out in store and decided to go with it. Big signs saying nothing to pay for 36 months, but no big signs indicating the interest rate and yearly fees. HN have made a killing off this.
        
        Many families fall for this. Probably borderline solvent and take the bait to "own it now". Then a curveball (injury and unemployment) comes and shit hits the fan.
        
        HighAndDry on 13/08/2019 - 19:11
        
        +3
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        Lie? What?
        
        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-13/banking-royal-commiss…
        
        Literally called Liar loans:
        
        Only 67 per cent of respondents to last year's survey said their mortgage application was "completely factual and accurate" — that leaves one third who admitted to telling some kind of porky.
        
        Big signs saying nothing to pay for 36 months, but no big signs indicating the interest rate and yearly fees.
        
        So? They're adults, not magpies. Don't tell me they truly believed they could buy something, not pay ANYTHING, and there wouldn't be interest and fees attached - at best that's wilful blindness.
        
        Many families fall for this. Probably borderline solvent and take the bait to "own it now".
        
        Which is what I said - the Royal Commission basically exposed that Australia adults aren't actually mature enough to be financially responsible and can't be trusted to actually act like adults.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/08/2019 - 20:01
        
        +5
        
        @HighAndDry: Wow, you've taken a tangent there. You've plucked something at random from an article and inserted that into your reply why?
        
        What relevance does it have to the original article or what I've posted? Who lied?
        
        Don't tell me they truly believed they could buy something, not pay ANYTHING, and there wouldn't be interest and fees attached - at best that's wilful blindness.
        
        Straw man. Come on now.
        
        Who says they didn't pay anything? The financial issues began to waterfall at or around the time of wife's injury. The timeline is in the article.
        
        the Royal Commission basically exposed that Australia adults
        
        Strange. That's not what the report says. Dozens of faults and recommendations stated in the report. No longer will companies like HN be allowed to have an 18 yo staff member whack some figures into an online application, without the individual ever seeing the application, and the individual walk out with a product on interest free whilst the contract comes later in the mail. Good outcome I say.
        
        HighAndDry on 13/08/2019 - 20:03
        
        +3
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        Wow, you've taken a tangent there. You've plucked something at random from an article and inserted that into your reply why?
        
        You mentioned reforms, so I pointed out the Royal Commission's findings on "predatory lending" was really about borrowers lying to get loans they wanted.
        
        without the individual ever seeing the application, and the individual walk out with a product on interest free
        
        Again, you're glossing over the fact someone, presumably an adult, is happy to buy something without putting down any money, and enter into a credit agreement they never see.
        
        Which I agree with you, happens. And which just shows that that person is utterly unfit to be an adult.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/08/2019 - 20:20
        
        +2
        
        @HighAndDry: A large finance company dangles a big fat carrot in front of consumers allowing them to take on credit, without following responsible lending practices, and that means someone is unfit to be an adult?
        
        Better tell ASIC and the 700,000 customers they've duped time and time again. Here's just one example.
        
        HighAndDry on 13/08/2019 - 20:22
        
        +5
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        A large finance company dangles a big fat carrot in front of consumers allowing them to take on credit, without following responsible lending practices, and that means someone is unfit to be an adult?
        
        Yes. Donkeys follow carrots blindly. I expect better from adults.
        
        Here's just one example.
        
        I expected some huge scandal but of all the examples you could've chosen, oh no, unsolicited credit limit increases! How ever could someone just say no, or ignore it? Oh wait.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 13/08/2019 - 20:27
        
        +4
        
        @HighAndDry: I won't be contributing further than this.
        
        If you think a large finance company, proven time and time again to be "utterly unfit" to provide responsible lending and with profits to be reaped from irresponsible lending, is on the same level and playing field as a common individual, should be held accountable to the exact same standard, and is "utterly unfit" to "adult" then I pity you.
        
        HighAndDry on 13/08/2019 - 20:29
        
        +5
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: What's there to pity? That I have higher standards for adults than you do? If so, then pity away.
        
        aussieolfaction on 14/08/2019 - 16:06
        
        +1
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        irresponsible lending, is on the same level and … should be held accountable to the exact same standard
        
        While you've a point, I would not be holding my breath for this to happen.
        
        one man clan on 15/08/2019 - 08:55
        
        +2
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Thank you for being a voice of reason and empathy here in this thread.
        
        brendanm on 15/08/2019 - 13:29
        
        -1
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Why aren't people held accountable to be responsible for their own borrowing? This is what I can never understand.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 15/08/2019 - 14:41
        
        +1
        
        @brendanm: Why aren't the banks being held accountable to ensure responsible lending practices to their borrowers? This is what I can never understand.
        
        Thus why we have had a Royal Commission Report that has rocked and changed the financial industry overnight. Things will change now. Slowly. Doesn't help anyone who suffered, had losses, were enticed, were treated unfairly, enduced to enter into something a decade ago.
        
        brendanm on 15/08/2019 - 15:04
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Why do people need their hands held? These people took out interest free for a bed and a washing machine. Would have had it payed off in the allocated time if they had likely paid $10 a week or so. Instead they wanted to pay nothing for the entire time, then complain when they are hit with massive interest and fees at the end. Then still refuse to pay it down until threatened.
        
        These people were not treated unfairly. They had years and years to save money while both of them worked while in public housing. They squandered it then, and they continue to do so now.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/08/2019 - 09:00
        
        +1
        
        @brendanm:
        
        while both of them worked while in public housing.
        
        You obviously didn't read the article. Try again.
        
        brendanm on 16/08/2019 - 09:02
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: "They raised their five children in public housing just outside Newcastle while Ms Forrest worked as a chef and her husband drove trucks."
        
        Direct quote from said article.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/08/2019 - 09:19
        
        +1
        
        @brendanm:
        
        They had years and years to save money while both of them worked while in public housing.
        
        "Kim and Steven Forrest, now 55, "
        
        "bought their modest home when they were in their 40s."
        
        "About five years ago, they bought a bed and a washing machine using a credit card with an interest-free period."
        
        How's your math and comprehension skills? They haven't been in public housing for a long time. No relevance to the debt.
        
        Then still refuse to pay it down until threatened.
        
        They were on an agreed repayment arrangement at the time they were hit with a bankruptcy notice.
        
        brendanm on 16/08/2019 - 10:08
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: How's yours?
        
        "Raised their children in public housing" suggests that they were in public housing for years. Assuming they started having children at 20, and they weren't in public housing before that, they had at least 20 years to take advantage of lower rent and get ahead.
        
        The relevance to the debt is that they are simply fiscally irresponsible.
        
        $8 a week. $8. Yep, only $8. That's all they would have had to have paid to have cleared the debt within the interest free period. They chose not to. It is their responsibility, and their fault, not anyone elses.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/08/2019 - 11:33
        
        @brendanm:
        
        The relevance to the debt is that they are simply fiscally irresponsible.
        
        So living in public housing and ascending to purchasing a property of their own accord and getting out of the public system is irresponsible?
        
        Their living arrangements over a decade prior has absolutely no relevance to the debt. You're reaching.
        
        not anyone elses.
        
        Funny that you think their living arrangements over 15 years ago has relevance, but the fact the finance provider, repeatedly fined for breaching responsible lending and advertising laws, has no relevance or responsibility in this matter. Especially when their main advertising drawcard used to be "Nothing to pay for ** months".
        
        brendanm on 16/08/2019 - 13:33
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Sorry, I forgot common sense isn't so common anymore, and that people shouldn't take any notice of the terms of anything they sign. As I said, $8 a week and it would have been payed. They were simply stupid.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/08/2019 - 13:37
        
        @brendanm: Common sense would be not thinking someone's living arrangements 15 years before an event had any relevance to said event.
        
        brendanm on 16/08/2019 - 13:39
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: It paints a picture of their relationship with money. Both of them working, still needed social housing. 5 kids when you have no money. Buying a vehicle on a loan when you have no money. Buying a washer and bed on finance when you have no money, and could have paid $100 for them off gumtree.
        
        Not paying off the massive amount of $8 a week. Simply stupidity.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/08/2019 - 13:49
        
        @brendanm:
        
        still needed social housing.
        
        It's simply you shaming them. Your post does nothing to advance your argument.
        
        Raising kids in Newcastle circa ~1985 was a tad bit different to the present day.
        
        brendanm on 16/08/2019 - 13:54
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Not shaming them at all. There are lots of people that rely on social housing, I just don't think I two wage family in the 80s should have been one of them, unless they simply had too many kids. Social housing is necessary for those that need it.
        
        $8.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/08/2019 - 13:56
        
        @brendanm:
        
        I just don't think
        
        Basically.
        
        Glad you don't decide public housing policies.
        
        brendanm on 16/08/2019 - 15:02
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Yes, it would be terrible, people who actually needed it would get it. Found that $8 yet?
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 16/08/2019 - 16:08
        
        @brendanm: I'm still laughing your maths came to $8. Anyways. Bye bye.
        
        brendanm on 16/08/2019 - 16:45
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: $1500
        4 years interest free.
        4 years is 208 weeks
        1500/208=7.21
        
        I'm now laughing that you couldn't figure that out for yourself. My $8 would actually have it paid off in a bit over 3.5 years.
  - brendanm on 14/08/2019 - 21:28
    
    +1
    
    That's what insurance is for.
tessel on 14/08/2019 - 13:21

+5

I see it everyday. People accepting no responsibility for their poor choices and expecting others to pay for it.
pinchies on 14/08/2019 - 13:29

+1

Sad for that family. Its especially sad that many people are financially illiterate, and are easily taken for a ride by banks etc without understanding what they are getting into. I blame our education system for contributing to that, but at the end of the day taking responsibility for your own mistakes is part of being an adult.
aussieolfaction on 14/08/2019 - 13:36

+5

I don't necessarily agree with bankrupting people over small loans, but I do stand by you with some of the important points that you've made. If someone purchased a washing machine and a bed using their credit card, they better know that it's a loan and that they've to pay it back. There are no excuses for not being responsible. And 5 kids?!
- HighAndDry on 14/08/2019 - 13:41
  
  +4
  
  I don't necessarily agree with bankrupting people over small loans
  
  I don't either - it is, or should be, unnecessary and an over-reaction. But in some cases, people don't take their loans and repayment obligations seriously unless they're forced to. Even in this case - they weren't actually bankrupted, they just put off repaying until they were sued and then they repaid it without actually being bankrupted.
  
  It would've been far easier for everyone - themselves and the lender - if they had just repaid it without the lender beginning bankruptcy proceedings.
  - aussieolfaction on 14/08/2019 - 14:26
    
    +1
    
    100% with you here. I don't understand the negative votes in some of your previous comments either.
  - burningrage on 14/08/2019 - 15:49
    
    +1
    
    And costing them fees and charges in the process.
- brendanm on 14/08/2019 - 21:29
  
  +2
  
  They could have bought a bed and washing machine off gumtree for next to nothing, and have no debt.
  - aussieolfaction on 15/08/2019 - 00:14
    
    +2
    
    Precisely what I was thinking.
kramkramkram on 14/08/2019 - 13:49

+1

They should include buying unnecessary stuff listed on ozbargain.
afah0447 on 14/08/2019 - 13:59

+3

The borrower is always slave to the lender.

Money should only be borrowed to purchase a house or keep yourself/family alive (ie medical bills or food).

Easy credit will continue to destroy families like these. People have to realise pressure/slick marketing preys on the uneducated who have little self-control.

This is a big problem for society as a whole because the taxpayer has to pick up the pieces via higher taxes for more free legal aid, police, prisons, pensions etc etc for these people.
- HighAndDry on 14/08/2019 - 14:08
  
  +3
  
  It's not that bad - credit is a tool like anything else. It's perfectly fine when used right - companies and businesses use loans and lines of credit all the time. But the same way you can put a spade through your toe if you don't know what you're doing, credit can also be misused and end badly.
  
  But you might be right - maybe we need people to get a "Borrowing licence" before they're allowed to access credit.
- idonotknowwhy on 14/08/2019 - 17:35
  
  +1
  
  Easy credit will continue to destroy families like these
  
  People need to hold themselves accountable. Everybody has a choice, I'm sick of people making poor decisions and then blaming "marketing" or "banks" and wanting everyone else to pay for their mistakes.
  
  This is a big problem for society as a whole because the taxpayer has to pick up the pieces via higher taxes for more free legal aid, police, prisons, pensions etc etc for these people.
  
  This part I agree with.
crazyboy on 14/08/2019 - 14:09

+4

Only solution is to use a debit card. Avoid credit cards if you can't control yourself.
ItchyBallsack on 14/08/2019 - 15:00

-3

I reckon banks should be banned from charging interest and fees to people struggling to pay the debt. They should only have to pay what the amount of the original debt that was borrowed.
- FareEvader on 14/08/2019 - 16:13
  
  +1
  
  Banks already do this. It's called financial hardship assistance.
  - ItchyBallsack on 14/08/2019 - 19:30
    
    +1
    
    But I still hear horror stories of ppl losing their house over a credit card debt. 20k of debt somehow becomes over 100k.
- aboogee on 14/08/2019 - 21:15
  
  If you're an investor on the other end, are you willing to invest your money and get back the original amount with no interest?
  I'm not, especially when I live a frugal life to build up my savings..
- brendanm on 14/08/2019 - 21:33
  
  -1
  
  I reckon I should have my interest dropped as well, as I'd rather spend the money on a holiday than pay interest off my home loan. Damn banks, giving me money and expecting me to pay them back more than I borrowed, they should do it out of the goodness of their hearts instead.
  
  By your logic, I should completely overextend myself and borrow as much as physically possible, then I'm "struggling" and won't have to pay interest. I get to have my cake and eat it too.
orangetrain on 14/08/2019 - 15:46

+2
30% interest rate. What the (profanity).

This makes 1-6 look minimal if such predatory creditors didn't have such high interest rates. If you think this is ok, wtf? It's practically a ticking financial bomb if both/one can't provide income any more.
burningrage on 14/08/2019 - 15:48

+1

They actually have lots of solar panels too if u look at the picture.

Must be costing a fortune.
TheMindsetTraveller on 14/08/2019 - 16:29

+5

Many of us might be smart, educated and savvy, and swimmingly along very well financially and then bang, get hit by a car or you fall of your ladder whilst pruning your peach tree …. believe it or not, your life can be turned upside. From a constructive and contributing member of society to become instantly dependedent on society. I try not to judge others but try to live my best life, to the best of my ability, and to plan my life accordingly if something bad happens - I know I could end up that way - potentially broke and homeless and that's the nicest part of it. Wait till you end up in prison because your brain doesn't function properly after a brain injury - and is it that your fault?
- HighAndDry on 14/08/2019 - 16:40
  
  Wait till you end up in prison because your brain doesn't function properly after a brain injury - and is it that your fault?
  
  Depends. If you're found guilty then yes. Some people are born with poor impulse control. It doesn't lessen their obligations to society in terms of following the law. You only lose those obligations if you're judged to be so mentally deficient you're not fit to stand trial by reason of insanity or otherwise (intellectual disability, etc).
  
  But in that case you lose your rights as a free member of society too. Rights <—> Responsibilities.
  
  Some people do just get hit by an extremely bad run of luck - serious accidents, illnesses, redundancies, etc, and in some cases no matter how financially responsible they may have been, nothing's enough. And in those cases I'd be sympathetic too, and there are hardship provisions available.
  
  But you've still got to be pro-active even a little. Let your lenders know the situation, look to consolidate loans, allow things bought on finance to be returned, negotiate payment plans, downsize property, etc. There are options and there are always things you can do.
  - TheMindsetTraveller on 14/08/2019 - 19:27
    
    +4
    
    ""Some people do just get hit by an extremely bad run of luck - serious accidents, illnesses, redundancies, etc, and in some cases no matter how financially responsible they may have been, nothing's enough. And in those cases I'd be sympathetic too, and there are hardship provisions available.""
    
    Well as I said, one day you are contributing to society - working, volunteering, enjoying life - then bang, get hit by a car - and then you become reliant on society. Not your fault and I would not wish this on anyone.
    
    And hence I get into that example, get hit by a car, get a permanent brain injury, your family and friends leave you (and yes they do) and there are no supports in the community - and your behaviour from your brain injury can lead to prison. Guilty as charged you say without any sympathy but I beg to differ.
    
    There is many research and papers on brain injury, this is one from a leading australian site.
    
    Here are the behavioural issues:-
    
    https://synapse.org.au/information-services/impulsive-behavi…
    
    Here are the impacts upon the legal system:-
    
    https://synapse.org.au/information-services/brain-injury-and…
    - HighAndDry on 14/08/2019 - 19:40
      
      +1
      
      and your behaviour from your brain injury can lead to prison. Guilty as charged you say without any sympathy but I beg to differ.
      
      Didn't say no sympathy. Part of the reason I object to the people in this article I linked is because they're trying to shirk their responsibility, not just that they can't pay. If someone honestly can't pay, is trying to make ends meet, and just made mistakes? Yeah - they need to meet their responsibilities but I'd sympathise.
      
      I sympathise less when they try to say it's somehow not their responsibility or try to shift the blame elsewhere.
      - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 15/08/2019 - 11:17
        
        +1
        
        @HighAndDry:
        
        not just that they can't pay.
        
        Again you're just picking small parts of the article for your posts.
        
        They were paying. It clearly says so in the article.
- 91rs on 14/08/2019 - 16:40
  
  +1
  
  Yep, redundancies or job loss where the company goes under and you do not get paid out for anything you are owed. Many people who aren't eligible for centerlink, a partner or parent gets very ill and is unable to look after themselves etc, large medical bills or ongoing costs for medical or sick parent who cant work anymore.
  All of that comes out of nowhere and can easily ruin people that have had savings, have good jobs and have done the best they can to take care of themselves financially.
91rs on 14/08/2019 - 16:36

+5

You know what would be nice?
How about we prepare the upcoming adults in school with some education about real life, bills, credit cards, different loan types and other major purchases so they have some clue about the outside world?
At least many years back when I went to school nothing like that was ever discussed, my parents (and many parents of others I know) were a bit useless (ok mine were pretty shit) and none of that was ever discussed, so once you're out there on your own then well unless you spend the time and work all this shit out you will fall in to one of those traps listed.
This information is much easier to get and self educate today than 20-25 years ago, but still people have the same issues.

Banks want to sell products (loans and CCs), savings for me wasn't spoken about since opening one of those commonwealth kids savings things back in the very early 80s and that never had money put in to it anyway.
Retailers don't care and don't lose out if they don't pay, they're happy to give credit via a third party if it means a sale, especially these days.
Car sales, don't even start me, some of the shifty sh!t I've seen to get peoples loans approved makes it easy for people to think they're in a better financial position than they really are.
Some of it will come down to situations, I remember moving to Sydney and earning sh!t money (more than I was before I moved), but the priority for me was making sure the place I was renting was paid first, then the car loan, then fuel, then bills and very last food.
I got a fridge on a CC because I had no other options but again I always made sure everything else was paid before I even ate, irony was the fridge didn't always have food in it to keep cold!!
These days it seems too many people are willing to just walk away from agreements they enter in to because it doesn't fit their lifestyle.
- HighAndDry on 14/08/2019 - 16:42
  
  +5
  
  How about we prepare the upcoming adults in school with some education about real life, bills, credit cards, different loan types and other major purchases so they have some clue about the outside world?
  
  Definitely. I think in olden times life was simple enough you could learn all of this from your parents. But today - I know my parents didn't know the intricate details of consumer lending/etc. But they were smart and safe about it - they just didn't use credit other than mortgage for property. No rent-to-buy, not interest-free purchases, no car financing, nothing.
  
  If they wanted something, they saved up for it.
dlakers3peat on 14/08/2019 - 16:54

+3

I think this generalisation is quite unfair. Circumstances change which can effect people financially. Loss of job, injury, divorce, medical related, death etc. So appreciate what you have and try not pass judgement on others.
- BabsBBS on 15/08/2019 - 00:43
  
  +3
  
  I don’t understand why people keep bringing up lost of job, divorce, medical related and all this. High and dry made it clear - you need to adult properly. You’re a grown man and woman of society. You need to take precautions and actually learn to protect yourself. Don’t rely on society to protect you.
  
  There’s such a thing called Income Protection insurance, to insure yourself against a loss of job. There’s such a thing called Total Permanent Disability (TPD) insurance where you get paid out, either in a lump sum or as monthly payments, when you get into an accident and are unable to work for the next 2 years or even forever.
  
  If you can’t plan to protect yourself, and then go out of your way to spend OTHER people’s money (in this case, the bank’s money), and take a punt that “ she’ll be right, what’s the worst that could happen? “ and have this mentality, then don’t expect other contributing members of society to have too much pity on you.
  - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 15/08/2019 - 11:04
    
    +2
    
    I won't go into a long essay but TPD is not as simple as you make it out. Most will have it via their Super. The threshold is extremely high. There is a long waiting period and assessment period, during which is usually the period that individuals get into financial strife.
    
    You could be a tradie, lose both of your legs, but because your Super Fund assesses that you "could" work at a desk they will deny your claim. Most Super Funds will refer to it as "reasonably suitable occupation".
    
    If you can't find a desk job, possibly due to never having had a desk job nor experience ever in your life, tough luck. No payout.
    
    Then follows a long unemployment period, or period of returning to study/training to obtain a "reasonably suitable occupation", that further causes financial strife. Let's not even get into the predatory "Disability Support" agencies that "help" the disabled find jobs (whom only care about their $1000-2000 signup Government payment then proceed to not give a single hoot what happens).
Pantagonist on 14/08/2019 - 18:13

+3

Any reason you cherry picked one particular couple in that article to focus on and didn't mention the other people (like the former commercial barrister and firefighter) who've been threatened with bankruptcy by Lion Finance for small debts?

Just wondering if your disdain extends to everyone who might have problems making repayments or just certain types of people?

Also, do you think it's reasonable that someone who has an overdue debt of $5,000 is threatened with bankruptcy before any attempt to negotiate a payment plan is made? Regardless of what the law says that debt collectors are allowed to do, how does that concept sit with you personally?
- HighAndDry on 14/08/2019 - 18:23
  
  +1
  
  Any reason you cherry picked one particular couple in that article to focus on
  
  Because they were the focus of the article - as shown by the lede. I don't have much respect for the other guy mentioned either, especially since he would've had even more money to repay his debts, and indeed repaid them once he was actually threatened with legal action, showing he could.
  
  Also, do you think it's reasonable that someone who has an overdue debt of $5,000 is threatened with bankruptcy before any attempt to negotiate a payment plan is made?
  
  The negotiations happened before the debt was sold to the debt collector. They're there precisely because the bank has given up getting repaid. And as the article notes in both cases - the debtors didn't repay before - and did repay after the threat.
  
  Seems the threat was both necessary, and effective.
  
  Maybe people can repay what they owe before they're threatened with bankruptcy rather than after.
  - Pantagonist on 14/08/2019 - 18:33
    
    +2
    
    Because they were the focus of the article
    
    To me the focus of the article appeared to be that debt collectors are bankrupting Australians over small credit card debts (coincidentally the title of the article), using case studies as examples.
    
    And as the article notes in both cases - the debtors didn't repay before - and did repay after the threat.
    
    Doesn't read like that to me.
    
    Once the debt collector took over the couple's debt, Ms Forrest re-commenced repayments at $50 a week.
    
    To me it sounds like the mere fact that the debt was sold to a debt collector was sufficient to get the repayments flowing again.
    
    But in September 2018, Lion Finance, owned by the publicly listed Collection House Limited, took the first step in the legal process to recover the debt.
    
    So they were getting paid, but decided to sue for bankruptcy anyway.
    - HighAndDry on 14/08/2019 - 18:46
      
      +1
      
      To me the focus of the article appeared to be that debt collectors are bankrupting Australians over small credit card debts (coincidentally the title of the article), using case studies as examples.
      
      You seem to be changing your goalposts, because your original question was:
      
      Any reason you cherry picked one particular couple in that article to focus on and didn't mention the other people
      
      Which seems to be asking why I chose one "case study" rather than another.
      
      To me it sounds like the mere fact that the debt was sold to a debt collector was sufficient to get the repayments flowing again.
      
      If you owe money, you don't get to decide how slowly you repay it.
      
      Again, in both cases:
      
      The family borrowed the money from a peer-to-peer loan provider to clear their debt and last week the court matter was dropped.
      
      And
      
      Mr Collins successfully challenged the bankruptcy in court, and has since paid off his debt which, with added interest and fees, came to nearly $13,000.
      
      So again, my question remains:
      
      Why didn't they repay all of the money they owed before they were forced to by threat of bankruptcy?
      - Pantagonist on 14/08/2019 - 19:13
        
        +2
        
        @HighAndDry: It doesn't sound like the couple could afford to pay off the debt, because they had to take out another loan in order to pay the debt collector. Doesn't seem like an ideal resolution to me as they're effectively back where they started.
        
        I agree that if you borrow money you should repay it. My issue is with the judgement that comes along with topics like this such as how many kids these people chose to have etc.
        
        Based on the article they were a dual income family; not particularly rich but happy with their lot in life. They were in public housing for reasons you and I are not privvy to, ran a small business (which went under) and they bought their own home subsequent to that, so it sounds to me like they were working to improve their lives and not just sitting back taking government handouts.
        
        Then, for whatever reason, they made a dumb financial decision not to pay off an interest free store credit card.
        
        For a debt that amounted to less than $10,000, they were threatened with bankruptcy which generally involves having all of your assets (including your house) seized and sold to service the debt. To me that doesn't seem commensurate with the debt incurred. To know that being as little as $5,000 in the red can get you into that situation is bizarre to me, particularly given how easy it is to receive a line of credit for that amount (through payday lenders and such).
        
        Then there's the fact that this particular debt collection agency is bringing bankruptcy proceedings against almost as many people per year as the ATO, who, I would say, have many more clients than Lion Finance.
        
        I think the suggestions in the article that the floor for bankruptcy proceedings be raised are reasonable ($20,000 or $50,000 are mentioned). I'm not sure if there would be anything preventing claims being pursued by debt collectors in a civil court setting, but that level seems more appropriate for the amounts of money we're talking about.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 15/08/2019 - 10:51
        
        +1
        
        @Pantagonist:
        
        they made a dumb financial decision not to pay off an interest free store credit card.
        
        Because the glossy posters and advertising back at that time 10-15 years ago are all about "Nothing to pay for 48 months!" "No interest for 48 months!" plus an uneducated, bias salesperson pushing them to sign up for it because they want the sale. Salesperson does the quick online application, doesn't do any checks, wham bam you have a credit limit of $5000 to "spend" and the paperwork follows later. Thank F this process is now illegal.
        
        GE/Go purposely don't contact during that time as they make their money on that interest. They don't make anything if the customer pays off on time.
      - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 15/08/2019 - 10:53
        
        +1
        
        @HighAndDry:
        
        Why didn't they repay all of the money they owed before they were forced to by threat of bankruptcy?
        
        A "peer-to-peer loan provider" is a polite name for a mob who will buy your unsecured debt off another mob and place a nice tidy caveat or second mortgage on your asset as security.
HeWhoKnows on 14/08/2019 - 18:29

Dont beleive what you read in the news!

After many years I have realized THE NEWS is a huge drama show filled with enormous exaggerations and false hypes.

You see if it wasnt so hyped and exaggerated the news would be BORING and nobody would listen.

So when you see or read the news from now on note how headlines are completely dramatised to get you interested.

Unfortunately there is little truth in the news these days

And its repetition over and over again because they dont have much to say.

So I have little faith in this story because its all WRONG!

This is about one single family only, NOT ALL AUSTRALAINS! (gross exaggeration 1)

They owe a huge $9,600 on thier credit card.
Sorry but that is NOT a small credit card debt by any measure. not when many of us have limits of $3000 and $5000. (Gross exaggeration 2).

And who got themselves into so much debt? Why this family of course

The article says:
"When the interest-free period expired, Ms Forrest said they began paying an interest rate of nearly 30 per cent."

What a load of RUBBISH!
No credit card charges 30% interest.
Maybe 21% but not 30% (Gross exaggeration 3)

I wont go on but if you read the article with an open mind and question every sentence you will read right through all the lies and deceit.

Have fun everyone and start laughing at the news because its really just a COMEDY show
- Pantagonist on 14/08/2019 - 18:41
  
  +2
  
  No credit card charges 30% interest.
  Maybe 21% but not 30% (Gross exaggeration 3)
  
  Pretty sure the rate on "buy now pay later" interest free credit you apply for in stores balloons to something like 30% once the interest free period runs out.
  
  The interest rate charged if you do not repay during the interest-free period could be very high - up to 30%, compared with standard interest rates on credit cards, which average between 12% and 20%.
  
  https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/publicatio…

Debt Collectors Are Bankrupting Australians over Small Credit Card Debts

Comments

New Forum Topics