what obligation is there to pay it back

William F

Say someone goes to Oz on a whv. They get a vehicle on financing. They leave the country before they have returned all the money they owe because their visa expires.

Apart from a legal obligation, are there any other obligations that person may be bound by to return the money?

Rabbo

Moral obligations maybe?

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Señor Fancy Pants

Come on OP, don't be a silly sausage.

jamesbere

jacksie66 wrote: »

Doubt you'd get finance on a WHV. I couldn't get any here in NZ until I got my 3 year work permit.

I was thinking that, unlikely you be given finance if there's a possibility you might be gone from the country in a few months time.

fizzypish

If you borrow money you should pay it back. Otherwise your a bit of a ****.

On the one hand there's a legal obligation.

On the other hand there's a moral obligation.

How many obligations are you after OP?

Banjo String

fizzypish wrote: »

If you borrow money you should pay it back. Otherwise your a bit of a ****.

http://i.imgur.com/oYZHtOA.jpg

Menas

A debt like that will come back to bite you one way or another.

Marcusm

William F wrote: »

Say someone goes to Oz on a whv. They get a vehicle on financing. They leave the country before they have returned all the money they owe because their visa expires.

Apart from a legal obligation, are there any other obligations that person may be bound by to return the money?

Failure to pay a debt in most jurisdictions is a civil matter. Borrowing money with no intention of paying it back is a dishonest offence in most common law jurisdictions - it's not just a matter of the debt following you so much as the prospect of some time in chokey and a record.

FluffyAngel

Confession booth >>>>>>>>

Geniass

Deleted User wrote: »

How many obligations are you after OP?

Karma
Burning in Hell for ever

You know, check the T&Cs:pac:

Skybox

Not so much an answer on the question but another point of view. What does the person intend to do with the vehicle when they leave Oz? We were there a few years back. bought a car for about $4k. Did our travelling and sold it on afterwards. Can't remember what we got for it but was somewhere around $2k to $3k.

Buzz Meeks

There is a monthly periodical called 'Scumbag, Mooching, Deadbeat, Welshers'
Once your name appears in that your credit rating will be downgraded from AAAB to AAAC. Maybe even AAAD.

cloud493

Sounds like a reasonably scummy thing to do OP.

gandalf

If that person is planning on returning to Australia in the future then it could catch up with them then. Typically if they are decent law abiding person they would make an effort to discharge their debt unless there are circumstances where they can't. In that case they should contact the finance company to see if they can come to an agreement.

Capt'n Midnight

AH answer, change your name by Deed Poll and move to a country that won't extradite you back to Oz.

no more yellow brick road for you my friend.

Conall Cernach

With the amount of Irish people going back and forwards from Australia all the time surely it would be easy enough for the person owed the money to arrange for someone to visit the bad debtor at their home.

Larbre34

Its a good business idea, set yourself up in Ireland as an agent collecting debts on behalf of whatever southern hemisphere banks were thick enough to provide credit to footloose borrowers.

My guess is that credit is very limited for people until they are permanent residents and full time employees.

UCDVet

Rabbo wrote: »

Moral obligations maybe?

Nah.

People always get hung up on the morality of things, but really, it just opens the door for businesses and other people to roll over them. I've had *so many* friends and co-workers feel genuinely bad about quitting a job. They bend over backwards to make sure they give their notice and help the business in any way they can.

Then one day the business lays off 200 workers. No morality there. Just 'business'.

If you have a car loan or a mortgage, I mean, read the contract. But in all of my contracts, I've never 'promised to try my best' to repay the loan. It's always been strictly 'I will pay X per month or a total of Y or _________ will happen'. There is no moral issue with doing any of those things. If I pay X per month, I keep the car and eventually own it outright. If I pay Y all at once, I own it outright faster. If I don't pay, _________ happens. Where ________ is that the lender takes ownership of the car and probably won't lend me money again. But that's not a moral issue, it's a business one. In some cases, the debt will remain, and there are legal processes that they can pursue. And they're welcome to do that. It's not a question of morality though.

Car lenders aren't doing you and favours. They assess your risk, and charge you appropriately. What that means though, is that their business model acknowledges that people won't always repay, that's built into the price that you are paying. THEY don't have any moral objection to charging you interest or any of the million small things they do to ensure their profitability. Individuals shouldn't feel bad for doing the same.

Son Of A Vidic

fizzypish wrote: »

If you borrow money you should pay it back. Otherwise your a bit of a ****.

A pity the incomptent fúcktards running the banks didn't adhere to those principles. Because it might have saved the rest us from covering their debts.

fizzypish

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

A pity the incomptent fúcktards running the banks didn't adhere to those principles. Because it might have saved the rest us from covering their debts.

Completely agree. Banks ****ed people by giving the money and people ****ed themselves by willingly deciding to dive into such horrendous debt. I'd give it 65% (banks should know better and not be such greedy *****.... wow, there's a pipe dream.....) to 35% people in ****up %.

Potatoeman

UCDVet wrote: »

Nah.

People always get hung up on the morality of things, but really, it just opens the door for businesses and other people to roll over them. I've had *so many* friends and co-workers feel genuinely bad about quitting a job. They bend over backwards to make sure they give their notice and help the business in any way they can.

Then one day the business lays off 200 workers. No morality there. Just 'business'.

If you have a car loan or a mortgage, I mean, read the contract. But in all of my contracts, I've never 'promised to try my best' to repay the loan. It's always been strictly 'I will pay X per month or a total of Y or _________ will happen'. There is no moral issue with doing any of those things. If I pay X per month, I keep the car and eventually own it outright. If I pay Y all at once, I own it outright faster. If I don't pay, _________ happens. Where ________ is that the lender takes ownership of the car and probably won't lend me money again. But that's not a moral issue, it's a business one. In some cases, the debt will remain, and there are legal processes that they can pursue. And they're welcome to do that. It's not a question of morality though.

Car lenders aren't doing you and favours. They assess your risk, and charge you appropriately. What that means though, is that their business model acknowledges that people won't always repay, that's built into the price that you are paying. THEY don't have any moral objection to charging you interest or any of the million small things they do to ensure their profitability. Individuals shouldn't feel bad for doing the same.

The more people that default the higher interest rates rise. Youre not screwing the bank but the next person to get a loan.

UCDVet

Potatoeman wrote: »

The more people that default the higher interest rates rise. Youre not screwing the bank but the next person to get a loan.

That's a gross oversimplification.

Lender's assess your default risk. It's not zero, because situations change and the loan that you get now for a car may not be in your best interest (or ability) to continue paying on. They also dictate the terms, which you can either accept or reject.

Lenders will (and already do) require down-payments based on your risk level. They have teams of experts who do the maths and calculate how much money you need to put down, so that given the likelihood of you defaulting, the value of your asset, their costs associated with liquidating your asset, and they work all of that into the loan that they'll over you.

You aren't 'screwing the next guy' to get a loan by defaulting.

Do you think you are screwing the next person to get a loan when you repay early or refinance, reducing the total amount of interest you pay?

Potatoeman

UCDVet wrote: »

That's a gross oversimplification.

Lender's assess your default risk. It's not zero, because situations change and the loan that you get now for a car may not be in your best interest (or ability) to continue paying on. They also dictate the terms, which you can either accept or reject.

Lenders will (and already do) require down-payments based on your risk level. They have teams of experts who do the maths and calculate how much money you need to put down, so that given the likelihood of you defaulting, the value of your asset, their costs associated with liquidating your asset, and they work all of that into the loan that they'll over you.

You aren't 'screwing the next guy' to get a loan by defaulting.

Do you think you are screwing the next person to get a loan when you repay early or refinance, reducing the total amount of interest you pay?

The risk is estimated but increases the more people default. Mortgage insurance increases and the rate they add to the ECB rate. They might take a short term hit but it is usually passed on to customers. It's the same for falling behind on your mortgage the interest needs to be paid by someone as the bank borrowed the money form another bank or lender and has to pay that interest.

UCDVet

Potatoeman wrote: »

The risk is estimated but increases the more people default. Mortgage insurance increases and the rate they add to the ECB rate. They might take a short term hit but it is usually passed on to customers. It's the same for falling behind on your mortgage the interest needs to be paid by someone as the bank borrowed the money form another bank or lender and has to pay that interest.

It doesn't matter who the bank has to pay, or who they borrowed money from. You make it sound like they have a right to guaranteed profitability. They don't.

In the situation where someone buys a car or a house and doesn't repay - the bank takes control of the car or house. Again, check your contract, but I've had a mortgage, and that was the agreement.

EITHER I would continue to pay the mortgage OR the bank would take the house. I didn't swear to God or pinky-promise to do whatever it takes to repay the loan....it's a simple arrangement where either I pay the mortgage, or the bank gets the house. The house has value. The bank limits how much I can borrow and dictates how much money down I need to put - any downpayment will be forfeit when the bank takes over. This would all be agreed upon at the time.

If it's in my best interest, I can keep making payments and keep the house. If it's not in my best interest, I can stop making payments and the bank can take the house. Per our agreement.

There is no right or wrong here. It's not 'wrong' to repay the mortgage. It's not 'wrong' to let the bank repossess the home. The bank is in the business of lending money and should not stand to lose, in either case. They should have done their due diligence and calculated the value of the house or car, so that, even after I stop paying them, they can recoup the costs.

If they didn't do their job, that's their problem. It's entirely possible that the bank will make more money from my not paying, than my paying....because they get the asset. These are secured loans, secured by the car or house or whatever.

If this causes lenders to reassess their criteria for lending, well, good. They should be constantly reassessing their criteria for lending. Being able to get loans, particularly loans without a lot of money down, isn't a 'good' (or a 'bad') thing. It simply is. It's not a moral issue. We shouldn't feel a moral obligation to prop up bank's poor lending practices, just to ensure the next guy can get a loan he might not be able to get otherwise.

Potatoeman

UCDVet wrote: »

It doesn't matter who the bank has to pay, or who they borrowed money from. You make it sound like they have a right to guaranteed profitability. They don't.

In the situation where someone buys a car or a house and doesn't repay - the bank takes control of the car or house. Again, check your contract, but I've had a mortgage, and that was the agreement.

EITHER I would continue to pay the mortgage OR the bank would take the house. I didn't swear to God or pinky-promise to do whatever it takes to repay the loan....it's a simple arrangement where either I pay the mortgage, or the bank gets the house. The house has value. The bank limits how much I can borrow and dictates how much money down I need to put - any downpayment will be forfeit when the bank takes over. This would all be agreed upon at the time.

If it's in my best interest, I can keep making payments and keep the house. If it's not in my best interest, I can stop making payments and the bank can take the house. Per our agreement.

There is no right or wrong here. It's not 'wrong' to repay the mortgage. It's not 'wrong' to let the bank repossess the home. The bank is in the business of lending money and should not stand to lose, in either case. They should have done their due diligence and calculated the value of the house or car, so that, even after I stop paying them, they can recoup the costs.

If they didn't do their job, that's their problem. It's entirely possible that the bank will make more money from my not paying, than my paying....because they get the asset. These are secured loans, secured by the car or house or whatever.

If this causes lenders to reassess their criteria for lending, well, good. They should be constantly reassessing their criteria for lending. Being able to get loans, particularly loans without a lot of money down, isn't a 'good' (or a 'bad') thing. It simply is. It's not a moral issue. We shouldn't feel a moral obligation to prop up bank's poor lending practices, just to ensure the next guy can get a loan he might not be able to get otherwise.

I wasn't talking about the morals of it but the greater the risk the greater the rates charged. There is attitude that if the property loses value its the banks fault and the borrower is not responsible but if it increases in value then the buyer is a shrewd business person.

Banks pass on their losses to customers through increased rates so people making payments on time pay increased rates for those that don't. It's an increase in operation costs.