Is this a uniquely irish mentality?

davo10

I'm interested in people's opinion on this.

There are multiple threads on this forum with people taking exception to being contacted regarding debts owed to service providers.

It seems obvious to me that if I owed money to a provider, I would expect them to make every effort to contact me regarding that debt, the same way I would make efforts to recover money owed to me.

It seems that with the proliferation of mobile phone users, utilities users, car loans, mortgages etc, there would be an increase in the number of defaulters and therefore a significant increase in the amount of money lost by companies when the users refuse to/can't pay. Is it a surprise that providers are becoming more determined to recover debts?

It amazes me the number of threads where people take the "high ground" when providers have the cheek to request payment. It seems we don't understand that when entering a phone contract, we agree to the tariffs offered, when taking out loans, to the interest rates, when signing up to utilities, to the tariffs on utility use etc.

Are we unique in not being able to understand that if we agree to pay for a service, and then use that service, we are required to pay? And that if we don't pay, should it come as a surprise if we receive phone calls/letters/visits from the providers or their representatives?

I understand that some may be dissatisfied with a service provider and if there is a genuine and provable difference between what was to be provided under the terms of sale and what was actually provided, then the consumer has a right to object to the charges, but unilaterally reneging on the contract and then being outraged when the provider looks for their money, seems well, immature to me.

Do we think that we should be able to walk away from a debt because we don't want to pay it, scott free, and then be entitled to feel hard-done-by when they contact us for their money?

neris

davo10 wrote: »

Do we think that we should be able to walk away from a debt because we don't want to pay it, scott free, and then be entitled to feel hard-done-by when they contact us for their money?

going by the attitude of people of people over the last few years especially on mortgages and the "my house is in negative equity" excuse yes people do seem to think they shouldnt have to pay and have some entitlement to have their debt written off because they decided to walk away from it. its too expensive for comapnies owed money to chase people through the courts and sheriffs so they think they can get away without paying a phone or utility bill. Rents especially social welfare rent payments are another 1 where people think they dont have to hand the money over and can live in the house scott free for an age because the whole eviction process is a paper filling exercise that takes months and the "poo" evicted tenant just moves on without consequence

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

So much wrong with this. Firstly the few coming in boards unwilling to pay debts are not representative of the population as a whole. Far from it. Uniquely Irish? Debt collection agencies are huge business in many countries - much more so than in Ireland.
This OP reads like an After Hours item really.

davo10

Melendez wrote: »

In my opinion that is a very self-righteous opening post.

I have never seen anyone starting a thread saying they owed money, were asked to pay it back, but would rather not.

Most of the time the amount owed is in dispute (occasionally without proper cause due to not understanding the nature of a contract, but I believe the thread opener genuinely feels aggrieved). Other times the poster simply does not have the resources to pay a bill and is looking for advice to deal with the situation. This can be an extremely stressful situation, made worse when a debt collection agency is using heavy handed tactics to "queue jump" as usually a person in this situation is juggling multiple bills/debts.

If you feel no empathy for a particular poster in a particular situation you can always move onto the next thread without offering advice, there is no need to be affronted by it because you are clever and worthy enough not to allow yourself get in that situation.

I think you need to look a little bit closer at the threads, there are many who are refusing to pay because the tariffs are to high, even though they agreed to them, many who move utility providers leaving debts with the old (I can only assume for instance that the electricity provided by airtricity is the same quality as bord gais).

I don't feel aggrieved at all, I'm not the one they are chasing, I have no stake in the game, it was merely an observation how many in out society feel aggrieved when they are chased for money owed.

Most are not looking for advice on paying the debt, in fact they are looking for support in not paying the debt by complaining about being contacted by the provider or their representtitives.

I feel empathy for those who through no fault of their own cannot pay and for those who did not receive what they paid for, I feel no empathy for those who sign up for a service, use it knowing they have to pay, and then do not.

What prompted me to start this discussion is the indignation that is expressed by some when contacted by the provider over a debt. How many opening statements end with the line "can someone please give me advice in how I can repay what I owe"?

davo10

Winter Modern Snail wrote: »

So much wrong with this. Firstly the few coming in boards unwilling to pay debts are not representative of the population as a whole. Far from it. Uniquely Irish? Debt collection agencies are huge business in many countries - much more so than in Ireland.
This OP reads like an After Hours item really.

When straw polls are done, they are not an exact science, they are a guide to the views of a wider population. This forum may have a small readership and even smaller number of contributors, but the ones supporting the aggrieved seem to outnumber the ones who say "you signed up to it, pay what you owe".

Maybe it isn't uniquely irish, maybe it's world wide, but it does now seem to be part of our culture to blame someone else for our personal debt, the banks, Vodafone, airtricity, landlords, the Government etc and to take exception, becoming a "consumer issue" when we are asked to pay as consumers for what we have already consumed.

Kung Lao

I agree with the OP, although I think this type of opinion can be so dangerous to express in Irish society. Since the crash, it's very easy to hold the populist view that those in debt and being chased to pay are in some way victims and that society should both feel sympathy and try to contribute to their cause.

I will accept that people often find themselves in unfortunate circumstances and they become unable to make the same level of repayments. I also understand that some debt collectors can be intimidating and unpleasant. However, if you deal with the situation appropriately, normally a debt collector is never required.

Its the indignation that some people feel at the very simple idea that you must repay what you owe. At some point in your life you made the decision to buy a house, a car or whatever else that you couldn't afford from your savings. This involves borrowing money which must be repaid at some point. It's not a difficult concept. If you receive communication seeking repayment of this debt, what is the issue?

delahuntv

The issue is too mnay people don;t check out the full cost and are blinded by sales people / companies that have such an amunt of different tariffs that you end up taking the one offered. In many cases that is not the most appropriate one - therefore in most cases the blame is with the company/sales person for mis-selling an inappropriate plan.

With the likes of sky / UPC and phone companies, they have trained staff to upsell every time you call. If you don;t hve wits about you, you end up paying far more that you planned and then when you can't pay, the companies don;t listen.

username888

davo10 wrote: »

Most are not looking for advice on paying the debt, in fact they are looking for support in not paying the debt by complaining about being contacted by the provider or their representtitives.

Been reading things on here for a while before i started posting and totally agree with this. Plenty of people coming on here to try and first get people on their side so they can feel like the victims and second try and get advice on how to get away without playing.

The main targets seem to be utility providers, Airtricity and Vodafone being favorites. Sky are another common one.

What amazes me it the amount of people who say, and are left say, that the person should just refuse to pay for it! Another is peoples attitude that dept collocation agents ''have no power in Ireland'', naybe they dont but that still doesn't mean you can ignore your dept.

There is now a culture of wont pay rather then cant pay when it comes to dept, this on top of a certain group who feel they have a right to not pay for things

davo10

delahuntv wrote: »

The issue is too mnay people don;t check out the full cost and are blinded by sales people / companies that have such an amunt of different tariffs that you end up taking the one offered. In many cases that is not the most appropriate one - therefore in most cases the blame is with the company/sales person for mis-selling an inappropriate plan.

With the likes of sky / UPC and phone companies, they have trained staff to upsell every time you call. If you don;t hve wits about you, you end up paying far more that you planned and then when you can't pay, the companies don;t listen.

Good points and certainly companies will always try to sell you more than you want, that is their goal, to make more profit. But the onus is on the purchaser to buy what suits them best. Take sky for instance, they sell their wares in bundles, sports, movies etc, should the consumer not know before they subscribe the packages they want and importantly, don't want? Before buying broadband, should the consumer not know what they will most likely need it for,? There is a big difference between usage for browsing and streaming. Phones seem to be the biggest issue, I use my phone very little so rarely go over the €40 a month plan I have with O2, on the other hand that plan would be no good for me if I constantly used my phone. A prime example of this is the thread titled "BCW" in consumer issues.

We live in a digital age where we can check the price of services without leaving our sitting room chair, can we then blame the provider for the bills and be outraged when they look for payment?

username888

delahuntv wrote: »

The issue is too mnay people don;t check out the full cost and are blinded by sales people / companies that have such an amunt of different tariffs that you end up taking the one offered. In many cases that is not the most appropriate one - therefore in most cases the blame is with the company/sales person for mis-selling an inappropriate plan.

With the likes of sky / UPC and phone companies, they have trained staff to upsell every time you call. If you don;t hve wits about you, you end up paying far more that you planned and then when you can't pay, the companies don;t listen.

Well thats their problem not the company. They agreed to sign up for whatever it is. You cant then go cry because you didn't bother actually looking

Shakespeare's Sister

davo10 wrote: »

I'm interested in people's opinion on this.

There are multiple threads on this forum with people taking exception to being contacted regarding debts owed to service providers.

It seems obvious to me that if I owed money to a provider, I would expect them to make every effort to contact me regarding that debt, the same way I would make efforts to recover money owed to me.

It seems that with the proliferation of mobile phone users, utilities users, car loans, mortgages etc, there would be an increase in the number of defaulters and therefore a significant increase in the amount of money lost by companies when the users refuse to/can't pay. Is it a surprise that providers are becoming more determined to recover debts?

It amazes me the number of threads where people take the "high ground" when providers have the cheek to request payment. It seems we don't understand that when entering a phone contract, we agree to the tariffs offered, when taking out loans, to the interest rates, when signing up to utilities, to the tariffs on utility use etc.

Are we unique in not being able to understand that if we agree to pay for a service, and then use that service, we are required to pay? And that if we don't pay, should it come as a surprise if we receive phone calls/letters/visits from the providers or their representatives?

I understand that some may be dissatisfied with a service provider and if there is a genuine and provable difference between what was to be provided under the terms of sale and what was actually provided, then the consumer has a right to object to the charges, but unilaterally reneging on the contract and then being outraged when the provider looks for their money, seems well, immature to me.

Do we think that we should be able to walk away from a debt because we don't want to pay it, scott free, and then be entitled to feel hard-done-by when they contact us for their money?

100% agreed OP. Good post.

I think anyone who has worked in customer service will be the ones who will most understand where you're coming from. Normally I wouldn't be one for the "It's an Irish trait" thing but one thing I do agree that seems very Irish (and no doubt other nationalities of course) is abdication of personal responsibility and an inflated sense of entitlement.

There are indeed posts here from people who want advice in how to get away with owing a balance, nothing more. It can be dressed up in all sorts of ways but that is all it is. The fact they owe it for a service they used and agreed to when they signed up, is irrelevant - and they can get very cranky towards people who make this point. I've seen accusations of siding with the company, working for the company and all that tripe.
People aren't trying to be mean to them, people aren't being self righteous - people are simply saying what the situation is, and letting them know that there's no way around it, they haven't got a leg to stand on. They used a service - they owe for it. If something is in dispute, fine, they have the right to dispute it - but it doesn't mean they owe nothing or that it's ok for them to pay zilch.
Companies are losing money because of this, resulting in prices going up and normal paying customers being penalised - but no, it's just the big company being greedy; let's get revenge by throwing bills in the bin. This is a mindset that's out there.

Smaller companies - carpenters, graphic designers, whatever - can have nightmarish times in trying to recover monies owed to them... by people who simply just decided not to pay because... they didn't want to.
Same principle. Being a bigger company does not absolve people of what they owe.

And the thing about debt collectors being illegal bla bla - this is simply barstool law. All is above board - people like to tell themselves it's not legit in order to justify not paying what they owe.

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's not what the OP is talking about at all. People who can't afford to pay a balance owed are afforded supports like payment plans, but if they just leave the balance unpaid and say nothing, then the company will contact them to cough up. How are the company supposed to know they are in financial difficulty? It's a two-way street - the onus is on a customer who is struggling financially to contact their creditors and let them know they won't be able to pay in two weeks... could it be moved to six weeks' time. Companies don't have a problem with this. Companies do have a problem though with people letting a balance accumulate. But it takes ages before it'll be moved to a debt collector.
A big problem too is the red-top media and social media now - ensuring to demonise companies in order to rabble-rouse and sell outrage inches... when there are two sides to every story.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Shakespeare's Sister

username888 wrote: »

Been reading things on here for a while before i started posting and totally agree with this. Plenty of people coming on here to try and first get people on their side so they can feel like the victims and second try and get advice on how to get away without playing.

Definitely. Been reading this forum for years.

What amazes me it the amount of people who say, and are left say, that the person should just refuse to pay for it!

Yep. So frustrating the way they are, as you say, left to say it, with no consequences.

People can be passive-aggressive all they like, making comments about how you and I and others are smug, trying to feel good about ourselves and other thinly veiled insults, but the people who make these comments are just demonstrating how they don't understand how these processes work.
That's fine, but they shouldn't be acting as if they have extra insight either. And it also seems as though they have been suckered in by the gutter press, which does everything it can to demonise service providers and depict people who owe money to them as victims and put-upon.

If you fall behind in your payments, you don't just get evicted, or get your service cut off... there is an extremely lengthy process before any of this is resorted to. The rag press likes to pretend one or two bills weren't paid and the company went on a rampage bullying the customer. It doesn't work like that.
If someone posts that they're trying to get out of paying for something (it DOES happen on this forum; I don't know how anyone could say it doesn't) people telling them just to pay it are giving them the correct advice - they're not calling them scum. When the person (inevitably) gets stroppy, of course there'll be defensiveness - it's very annoying to see people give off the attitude that they're above paying for what they owe. If they dispute the service, they should be engaging with the provider, not just ignoring a balance. And they should be paying at least something if they're continuing the service. The thing of "I'm not happy with January's bill so I'm not going to pay a cent" despite continuing to use the service is just... baffling.

If people started threads saying they owe a balance, aren't happy with the service, what do they do... that's totally different, and not the same as asking how to get out of paying something. And obviously if people are in financial difficulty, it's only right to help them - that's "Can't pay", not "Won't pay".

There's always a default though, by people who don't know what they're talking about, to blame the big bad company, when things are never as simple as that.

davo10

This thread is not about being smug, it's about:

1. As a society in a digital age, are we taking time to find out about/understand the tariffs/T&Cs of the services such as utilities/mobile phones/mortgages we use.
2. Do we understand that when we use these services, a consequence of not paying is that we will be contacted by the provider.

A case in point was a thread on here a couple of weeks ago. The OP owed €900 to a phone company. Firstly he was outraged that a debt collector contacted him. Secondly he said he was overcharged even though he did not know the T&Cs of his contract. Thirdly, he maintained that he was overcharged due to the fact that the EC had brought in legislation to cap charges. When it was pointed out that the legislation was for roaming charges and not domestic, he didn't care, he still felt he was overcharged and is refusing to pay.

CI is littered with cases like this and the default first answer should be, "what does the contract you agreed to say?". Look at all the posts relating to debt collectors/mobile phone providers/electricity providers/ house repossessions etc.

Shakespeare's Sister

davo10 wrote: »

A case in point was a thread on here a couple of weeks ago. The OP owed €900 to a phone company. Firstly he was outraged that a debt collector contacted him. Secondly he said he was overcharged even though he did not know the T&Cs of his contract. Thirdly, he maintained that he was overcharged due to the fact that the EC had brought in legislation to cap charges. When it was pointed out that the legislation was for roaming charges and not domestic, he didn't care, he still felt he was overcharged and is refusing to pay.

Pure and utter self entitlement, nothing more. It's infuriating. Yeh, he was "overcharged" by €900, it wasn't a case of him just continuing to use the service yet not pay a cent at all... :rolleyes:
And an example of "I don't like one aspect of how I'm charged, so therefore I'll pay nothing" - bizarre interpretation of mathematics.

dudara

Since I closed this thread, I have received several PMs asking me to reconsider. I've reread all the contributions so far and am willing to reopen.

However, I do urge posters to continue to post in a rational and unbiased manner. I do not want specific references on the posters who have raised questions in other threads. If I feel that the thread is starting to circle and not offer any new perspectives, then I will close and leave for reference.

dudara

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

davo10

Melendez wrote: »

No, this thread is about ...



The only example you have come up with is a case where the amount owed is disputed. I don't know whether the OP is correct or not in disputing the amount since you haven't quoted the thread and I am not familiar with it,but it matters not.

But it very much does matter if the OP on that thread and every thread, is correct or not. It's the difference between whether he has a legitimate greivence or is just refusing to pay. If he is being charged as per the T&Cs he agreed to, then he owes the money and can have no complaint about being contacted for payment. That is the crux of the discussion.

That is just an example, look at other threads regarding providers mentioned, it always comes down to the T&Cs agreed to. Often posters do not know what they are, they should.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Shakespeare's Sister

It's people who think they're above paying what they owe, and insisting it's not them it's the company, who are the smug ones.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Shakespeare's Sister

Had another look around there. Unbelievable the amount of self entitlement out there. And "It's a big a company, they won't miss it". And "Can anyone tell me how to get out of paying this/reduce what I owe?" And even, "They made me use the product".
But people who get frustrated by that are the smug ones? Fantastic!

If people don't understand T&C, then they need to enquire about them. Again, personal responsibility - that thing some people just won't use.

davo10

Melendez wrote: »

That people do not understand the T & Cs of their contract is a very different beast to a person knowing full well they are liable and are looking for help on how not to pay.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc . (After this, therefore because of this) By not researching/understanding the T&Cs, some feel they should not pay/have to pay.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

davo10

Melendez wrote: »

Links?

I'm on a mobile so can't link but this is the thread I referred to

"Debt Collection - At what amount of money owed is it not worth pursuing a debt?"

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

billy111

'That people do not understand the T & Cs of their contract is a very different beast to a person knowing full well they are liable and are looking for help on how not to pay.'

why sign contracts if they do not understand the T & Cs? Some personal responsibilty needed here. Not point in complaining after the event.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

davo10

Melendez wrote: »

Why sell things to people without ensuring you tell them what they are buying?

When a person loses out through not understanding, and therefore not complying with, conditions that logically seem to be of dubious integrity, they are still (usually) legally stuffed, but their frustration is understandable and it is a lot easier to have empathy with them than a person who simply wants to avoid a debt, without any qualms about the price, product or service in order to have more money.

e.g. -the business of charging hundreds (or thousands) of euro for phone data that a supplier would be quite happy to sell to you for a tenner had you simply ticked a different box at startup, because you did not understand how many MBs were required for a youtube download. Legally they are relying on the goodwill of the service provider to acknowledge it is an unfair charge, but the frustration is very much understandable.

Somebody else's fault?

That would appear to be avoiding taking responcilbility. There is a reason why you have to have reached a certain age (18) before you can legally enter a contract. Once you have reached that age legally it is assumed that you can understand the basics, if you use X, you have to pay Y. In this age, everybody knows that if you stream data, it costs more.

Is it not up to the consumer to inform themselves, and then tick the right box?

All of this information about various plans and charges is available on websites, and the consumer can also just ask before purchasing.

This is from the mobile phone section of the comreg website:

Terms and conditions:

Before deciding on a mobile phone operator, you should inform yourself by asking the mobile phone company any questions that are particular to your needs. Remember, you have the right to call your operator and ask them for your terms and conditions to be sent to you. Standard terms and conditions are usually available on the provider's website.
You should familiarise yourself with the terms and conditions prior to signing a contract of service with your service provider. In particular you should check :
how long the minimum contract period lasts;
whether a minimum spend is required and
penalties, if any, apply for ending the contract early.
Terms and Conditions would also typically cover some of the following elements:
Connection charges,
Monthly rental fees,
Call costs (usually per minute or per second rates),
Disconnection and Reconnection charges,
Contract Termination fees,
International Roaming charges
- See more at: http://www.askcomreg.ie/mobile/choosing_your_mobile_operator.45.LE.asp#L1045

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

davo10

Melendez wrote: »

I am not denying that people should be fully acquainted with the terms and conditions of a contract and must be prepared to face consequences for not doing so. They should also have an expectation of a degree of fair play even when they fail to do this.

If I do a job worth €2000, I will charge €2000 for it. If I would legally get away with charging €5000 for it, how much would I charge? €2000, because that is what the job is worth. That is what most service providers with any sense of personal responsibility will do. Your corporate heroes appear to be people who tarmac old folks driveways for €10K, repair the guttering for €5K or sell €10 worth of data for €900.

I have never in my life read through one of those tiny print, 5000 word, terms and conditions documents, not to mention memorized them so I can act to the full advantage of my contract. Skimmed, yes. Cautious enough to realise not reading the contract could cause problems, yes. I will check my roaming costs when I go abroad, or how far in advance I need to cancel without penalty when I feel a cancellation looming. If I am in a minority, I suspect it is quite a sizable one. If some day I get caught out by what I believe to be an unfair clause in the contract, I reserve the right to feel disgruntled and moan about it. Thankfully, it has not happened yet to anything past nuisance level - a fair price to pay to avoid memorising all those tiny print T&Cs.

I think this is turning into a "oh, yes you can" "oh, no you cant" loop. So I'll leave it at that.

Is this not what this thread is about? I don't think I could have written a better example for my opening post.

Consumer agrees to contract, doesn't know what they are agreeing to because they never took time to research/understand the main points (see previous post re comreg recommendations), when debt builds, suddenly charges are "unfair" and consumer moans that provider is not being fair in dealing with the debt.

Is the aim of all businesses to make profit? Is it the responsibility of consumers to know what they are agreeing to? I am not sure that any of us can know for certain how much it costs to provide a €10k item of service, we do not know the cost of providing that service, but it is an easy excuse to throw out there.

This isn't a "yes you can/no you can't " thread, it's a "should we read the important points of T&Cs, can they contact us if we don't pay, why do we feel entitled to blame someone else when we don't take time to research/understand what we are buying" type of thread.

This is not being smug or moralistic, I wondered if in other countries/societies, consumers have the same laissez-faire attitude to entering contracts and debt.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

evolving_doors

Melendez wrote: »

In my opinion that is a very self-righteous opening post.

I have never seen anyone starting a thread saying they owed money, were asked to pay it back, but would rather not.

Most of the time the amount owed is in dispute (occasionally without proper cause due to not understanding the nature of a contract, but I believe the thread opener genuinely feels aggrieved). Other times the poster simply does not have the resources to pay a bill and is looking for advice to deal with the situation. This can be an extremely stressful situation, made worse when a debt collection agency is using heavy handed tactics to "queue jump" as usually a person in this situation is juggling multiple bills/debts.

If you feel no empathy for a particular poster in a particular situation you can always move onto the next thread without offering advice, there is no need to be affronted by it because you are clever and worthy enough not to allow yourself get in that situation.

Agree 100%, devil's in the detail.. folk who just come on and take the view that they dont want to pay for no reason are given short shrift.

davo10

It's the consumers responcilbility to know what they are signing up to, the important points particular to your needs (see comreg reference). You don't need to memorise them. Yes I know what I'm getting, how much I'm paying, when they end etc,

I don't sneer at you, but I do think it is wrong to blame the provider for charging you what you agreed to and wrong to blame them or their representatives for contacting you about the debt.

Shakespeare's Sister

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the kind of thing that can get resorted to in these discussions - "your corporate heroes": where on earth did they indicate these companies are "heroes" of theirs?
"Appear to be people who tarmac old folks driveways for €10K, repair the guttering for €5K" - yeh in your head maybe. There has been utterly no indication of service providers being that unscrupulous. Do those tarmac people give customers T&C? You're not comparing like with like. Some people have a gripe with every service provider ever, just because they're big companies. Being of the view that this is an irrational outlook is not the same as viewing these companies as "heroes".
And nobody said anyone had to "memorise" terms and conditions, they just need to be aware that if something happens down the road that they don't like and this was covered in the T&C, then... they should have read the T&C before agreeing to them. You even acknowledged this.

If some day I get caught out by what I believe to be an unfair clause in the contract, I reserve the right to feel disgruntled and moan about it.

Says it all. So basically, even if you agree to the terms and conditions, you'll still moan afterwards. This is precisely what the OP is talking about.

Nobody's "sneering" at anyone either - they are telling self righteous, self entitled people why they are wrong.
If someone put their hands up and said "Ok, I admit, I didn't read the T&C - do I have any comeback?" then people should be more sympathetic. But the situations the OP is referring to are ones where they act as if they've been victimised and get stroppy with anyone who tries to explain how they haven't. Bizarre that anyone would defend such a mindset.

thehouses

Companies have a responsibility to clearly inform customers about the important parts of a contract. For example insurance companies have a certain legal standard which they must adhere to when selling insurance and certain pieces of information must be communicated to the consumer. At the moment there are certain laws which should be in place to protect consumers but aren't. Until they are in place companies get away with some things they shouldn't get away with.

If a customer is made aware of charges and agrees to them then they should pay and not be surprised when contacted by the company. However if a company does not disclose information clearly a dispute can arise. Some terms of a contract may not be legal either and the courts may be needed to test this if necessary.

People would take exception to being contacted about debts if there was some kind of dispute and naturally people will not give fully accurate details/information on-line if a dispute is taking place. People have preconceived ideas and often jump to conclusions without being aware of the full facts of a situation.

The OP wrote:
"Do we think that we should be able to walk away from a debt because we don't want to pay it, scott free, and then be entitled to feel hard-done-by when they contact us for their money?"

My answer is no if the money is legitimately owed then pay up, however if there is a dispute and charges are not warranted then consumers should not be ripped off and will naturally feel unfairly treated. It depends on a variety of factors, things are rarely as black and white as people may wish them to be.