Unpaid Debts

Brendan Bendar

It would appear that the level of unpaid debt is spiraling out of control in Ireland.

DCC, TOLLS, MOTORING FINES, GENERAL COURT FINES,TV LICENCES, MORTGAGES..etc.

Why is this allowed?

Who eventually pays for the shortfall- compliant folk who seem to be shouldering the burden for the non-payers?

Strange there is no outcry from those who seem to be at every protest,picket line, demonstration, march and meeting going?

Have they no interest in this disgraceful situation.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/first-dublin-city-council-social-housing-tenant-to-be-evicted-for-rent-arrears-1.4085923.

katiek102010

I have worked in debt management in the UK and Ireland and honestly the attachment of income is the only thing that works...
In the UK when you have a court order you can apply for an attachment order, it cost 50 quid and the costs could be added to the debt.

The attachment is a minimum of 12.5% of income and a maximum of 25%.

So for example if a person has 2k debt and on the dole getting 100 weekly you would get 12.50 weekly of the debt. If they were also getting children's allowance which is calculated weekly but paid monthly you would get 12.5% of that also allowing the maximum of 25% per month attachments.

It needs to be brought in here

KildareP

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

It would appear that the level of unpaid debt is spiraling out of control in Ireland.

DCC, TOLLS, MOTORING FINES, GENERAL COURT FINES,TV LICENCES, MORTGAGES..etc.

Why is this allowed?

Who eventually pays for the shortfall- compliant folk who seem to be shouldering the burden for the non-payers?

Strange there is no outcry from those who seem to be at every protest,picket line, demonstration, march and meeting going?

Have they no interest in this disgraceful situation.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/first-dublin-city-council-social-housing-tenant-to-be-evicted-for-rent-arrears-1.4085923.

Strokestown type reaction is mostly why.

Call in the debt using methods the borrower committed themselves to and you get all sorts up in arms about it, that it's disgraceful, that it's horribly unfair.

cruizer101

More than half the council’s 24,400 tenants are behind on their rent, with 20 per cent more than six months in arrears.

That is absolutely nuts

spurious

Crap parenting AGAIN.

Mammy, I want it but can't afford it.
Have it anyway twinkle, someone else will pay for it for you.

Assetbacked

The entitlement in Irish society is despicable at the top and bottom. 'tis no country for young working men and women.

silver2020

cruizer101 wrote: »

More than half the council’s 24,400 tenants are behind on their rent, with 20 per cent more than six months in arrears.

That is absolutely nuts

one of the reasons a certain number of people will stay in temporary accommodation rather than get rent supplement as a real landlord would kick them out.


No problem for these people to pay for alcohol, fags & takeaways - leading to strain on health system and more costs.

beejee

Well in danger of focusing on the "free gaf" people here, but it is entirely across the board in ireland, and most other Western countries.

Guy on 25k a year getting pcb for a 40k car and so on. Woman on 40k a year spending 60k a year. It's truly woeful that debt has become so matter-of-fact

A borrower nor a lender be. Take that to the bank

Mezzotint

It needs reform.

With social housing, I think there needs be recourse to attachment to earnings, as otherwise you're just adding to homelessness issues.

In general our methodologies for handling unpaid debts and unpaid fines are crazy. We went from a situation where you were potentially putting people in prison for non payment (at enormous cost) to one where there's often no sanction at all.

We should have a modern system for recovering unpaid debts that aims to be fair and efficient but not cruel.

There's also a huge issue with slow and non payment in business to business transactions here which can wipe out small or vulnerable businesses' cash flow and even cause them to go insolvent.

All of those things need to be addressed.

It's also far too slow which is why these situation spiral into absolutely huge messes.

The aim should be to nip it in the bud before it ends up a mess for all parties involved, including the non paying one.

Sleepy

I'm surprised no journalist followed up with a request to see the breakdown of arrears by type (Long Term Lease, Differential, RAS, Travellers etc.)

Of course, no one would be surprised at which section represents the largest chunk of the arrears in most councils... the same section whose rent arrears officers literally wear stab vests when going out to call on their clients.

katiek102010

I do think banks and other companies do make themselves very inflexible regarding payments for services etc.

The whole system needs overhaul.

Regarding mortgages, when people take them out the banks should allow weekly, fortnightly along with monthly payment options. The borrower can foot the cost at no loss to the bank.

Same with renting

Car tax should be monthly also, bring it in line with other counties.

enricoh

cruizer101 wrote: »

More than half the council’s 24,400 tenants are behind on their rent, with 20 per cent more than six months in arrears.

That is absolutely nuts

Why bother pay, when there is no consequences?! Best little country in the world for bums!

beejee

Let's get real here. The debt of Western economies, on all scales, is 100% built in. It is a part of the system, and the system relies on it.

It is an inflationary fact that bumps balance books significantly. If it were "solvable", the very look of the country would change from "pretend" levels of wealth down to "actual" wealth.

The only time it has been corrected was world war 2 or thereabouts, ever since then all debt has accumulated and accumulated and accumulated. Debt is traded like a commodity now.

It'll end badly. You can bet your last borrowed euro on it.

Raconteuse

You only have to look at Consumer Issues and the Talk To forums here - "I got a debt letter and I don't want to pay it because my contract isn't with the debt collector" (or similar such barstool law) to be met with "Oh don't bother paying it". It's perfectly correct for a company to appoint a third party agency to act on their behalf, and if the person didn't want it going to an agency, there was a surefire way of preventing that happening.

Wanderer78

Credit/debt creation is an absolute necessity in a modern economy, the fact that it's largely controlled by institutions that aren't exactly run for the good of society, or democratic in nature, isn't so good, at some point in time we ll probably be forced to face this reality, hopefully that won't be through violence

katiek102010

beejee wrote: »

Let's get real here. The debt of Western economies, on all scales, is 100% built in. It is a part of the system, and the system relies on it.

It is an inflationary fact that bumps balance books significantly. If it were "solvable", the very look of the country would change from "pretend" levels of wealth down to "actual" wealth.

The only time it has been corrected was world war 2 or thereabouts, ever since then all debt has accumulated and accumulated and accumulated. Debt is traded like a commodity now.

It'll end badly. You can bet your last borrowed euro on it.

Unfortunately we live in a consumer driven society.

When I was leaving school it was uni, job for live in civil service or a bank.

In 2008 we went to UK and I got a job in a bank, foolishly believed my accounts and finance background would stand to me. It was a sales job. After 2 moths I told them stick their job up there arse after they decided to take disciplinary action against me for failing to make an elderly woman with 250k in the bank, go and see the finance sales rep to get her to gamble the lot on the stock exchange.

Weekly I get phone calls from bank or other companies trying to flog me credit I don't want.

Currently trying to save to buy a house for cash as I no longer trust banks

beejee

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Credit/debt creation is an absolute necessity in a modern economy, the fact that it's largely controlled by institutions that aren't exactly run for the good of society, or democratic in nature, isn't so good, at some point in time we ll probably be forced to face this reality, hopefully that won't be through violence

The track record is mass violence, every single time!

Wanderer78

beejee wrote:

The track record is mass violence, every single time!

History certainly shows us this, hopefully we have learned enough to prevent our past failures from happening again, but.....

Raconteuse

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

It would appear that the level of unpaid debt is spiraling out of control in Ireland.

DCC, TOLLS, MOTORING FINES, GENERAL COURT FINES,TV LICENCES, MORTGAGES..etc.

Why is this allowed?

Who eventually pays for the shortfall- compliant folk who seem to be shouldering the burden for the non-payers?

Strange there is no outcry from those who seem to be at every protest,picket line, demonstration, march and meeting going?

Have they no interest in this disgraceful situation.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/first-dublin-city-council-social-housing-tenant-to-be-evicted-for-rent-arrears-1.4085923.

Same self entitled kidults who go on about the country falling apart and it's third world and they're a disgrace Joe.

Wanderer78

katiek102010 wrote:

Currently trying to save to buy a house for cash as I no longer trust banks

The financial sector is absolutely untrustworthy, the previous crash has showed us why

Rubberchikken

only have a debt if you can repay it.
ive no sympathy for people who want a particular car/house/holiday/wedding etc but cant or wont pay the loan promptly.
its mot 'your' money thats being borrowed. entitlement and no sense of responsibility - the cause if a lot of crap today.

Wanderer78

Rubberchikken wrote:

only have a debt if you can repay it. ive no sympathy for people who want a particular car/house/holiday/wedding etc but cant or wont pay the loan promptly. its mot 'your' money thats being borrowed. entitlement and no sense of responsibility - the cause if a lot of crap today.

The only thing is, it's not really anyone's money, as deposits are not used as loans

katiek102010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The financial sector is absolutely untrustworthy, the previous crash has showed us why

I have worked in financial sector and in finance within local government and civil service. I have also worked as a bailiff in UK.

Believe you me the banks are rotten to the core. Here I find credit unions a lot more trustworthy

realdanbreen

katiek102010 wrote: »

I have worked in debt management in the UK and Ireland and honestly the attachment of income is the only thing that works...
In the UK when you have a court order you can apply for an attachment order, it cost 50 quid and the costs could be added to the debt.

The attachment is a minimum of 12.5% of income and a maximum of 25%.

So for example if a person has 2k debt and on the dole getting 100 weekly you would get 12.50 weekly of the debt. If they were also getting children's allowance which is calculated weekly but paid monthly you would get 12.5% of that also allowing the maximum of 25% per month attachments.

It needs to be brought in here

Makes perfect sense. Thing is can anyone name one, just one, politician who would have the balls to make this law?

Wanderer78

katiek102010 wrote:

Believe you me the banks are rotten to the core. Here I find credit unions a lot more trustworthy

I do also believe this, even though I'd imagine the majority of individuals working in the swevtor are just normal genuine folk, it's the inbuilt ideology and incentive schemes seems to be highly problematic, and in fact dangerous for all

Taxburden carrier

Magic money tree ?

BarryD2

katiek102010 wrote: »

I have worked in debt management in the UK and Ireland and honestly the attachment of income is the only thing that works...
In the UK when you have a court order you can apply for an attachment order, it cost 50 quid and the costs could be added to the debt.

The attachment is a minimum of 12.5% of income and a maximum of 25%.

So for example if a person has 2k debt and on the dole getting 100 weekly you would get 12.50 weekly of the debt. If they were also getting children's allowance which is calculated weekly but paid monthly you would get 12.5% of that also allowing the maximum of 25% per month attachments.

It needs to be brought in here

Agreed that's the most appropriate solution. There's been considerable resistance in the past when the idea has been mooted, think of the poor childer etc., who don't deserve to suffer because of the sins of their parents etc.

But until there are real and meaningful consequences, there's no real reason for many people to make the effort. Once your credit rating is shot, you may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Wanderer78

Taxburden carrier wrote:

Magic money tree ?

Yes, I'd say the actual process of money creation is rather magical

scamalert

As someone mentioned if it was broken down in demographic of people who dont pay at all, this thread would be fairly one way.


you dont hear regular joe skipping on court, its rare that someone uses UK imports to drive as their daily without any insruance tax etc.


so better question why do regular people pay when fraction of society get actually paid for the lifestyle they choose

blackbox

cruizer101 wrote: »

More than half the council’s 24,400 tenants are behind on their rent, with 20 per cent more than six months in arrears.

That is absolutely nuts

I'd say this is because the councils are a soft touch. Obviously there are some difficult cases, but I suspect that a large proportion of these defaulters keep up their payments for Sky and are able to buy a few drinks and maybe even cigarettes - things they see as a higher priority than paying the rent.

Better Than Christ

Raconteuse wrote: »

You only have to look at Consumer Issues and the Talk To forums here - "I got a debt letter and I don't want to pay it because my contract isn't with the debt collector" (or similar such barstool law) to be met with "Oh don't bother paying it". It's perfectly correct for a company to appoint a third party agency to act on their behalf, and if the person didn't want it going to an agency, there was a surefire way of preventing that happening.

If it's in the hundreds, rather than thousands, the "don't bother paying it" advice usually works, because the amount isn't high enough for the debt collectors to justify expensive legal action. If the threatening letters don't work (and increasingly, they don't because people are wise to their lack of power), they have nowhere else to go.

cruizer101

cruizer101 wrote: »

More than half the council’s 24,400 tenants are behind on their rent, with 20 per cent more than six months in arrears.

That is absolutely nuts

Why this isn't deducted at source from their social welfare payments is a complete mystery to me.

beejee

Financial systems are very simple to understand when stripped down.

If you don't have enough money for a "thing", and then you borrow money to get that thing, you end up with even LESS money.

I have 1 euro. I want something that costs 2 euro. I borrow the extra 1 euro, but the loan costs 20%, say.

So I started with a net worth of 1 euro, whereas by the time you pay the loan back, your net worth has been REDUCED to 80 cent.

Simplistic example, but damned if the average person fully understands the basis of financial systems. You lose money on debt.

So I say it is not a particular demographic guilty here, it is the vast majority of people across all groups. Just some are more obvious, that's all. Gicnah who has a gigantic loan on his house is seen as fine and upstanding, but he's no more financially savvy than most. The system relies on the ignorance of the majority.

Don't be annoying me about smarter loans and all that, I know. I'm only demonstrating the (not so) obvious

Raconteuse

Better Than Christ wrote: »

If it's in the hundreds, rather than thousands, the "don't bother paying it" advice usually works, because the amount isn't high enough for the debt collectors to justify expensive legal action. If the threatening letters don't work (and increasingly, they don't because people are wise to their lack of power), they have nowhere else to go.

But I'm not talking about whether it works or not. I'm referring to "don't bother paying" for a service provided, and for which an agreement was made to pay it.

Some people think they are better than others and are above paying what they owe (and I am talking about all members of society with that attitude before someone mentions senior bank scum just assuming I'm not referring to them).

katiek102010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I do also believe this, even though I'd imagine the majority of individuals working in the swevtor are just normal genuine folk, it's the inbuilt ideology and incentive schemes seems to be highly problematic, and in fact dangerous for all

And the fear of losing your job if you don't comply.

Pressure Sales in the finance sector should be outlawed.

katiek102010

Better Than Christ wrote: »

If it's in the hundreds, rather than thousands, the "don't bother paying it" advice usually works, because the amount isn't high enough for the debt collectors to justify expensive legal action. If the threatening letters don't work (and increasingly, they don't because people are wise to their lack of power), they have nowhere else to go.

Small claims court isn't that expensive for smaller debts

katiek102010

Raconteuse wrote: »

But I'm not talking about whether it works or not. I'm referring to "don't bother paying" for a service provided, and for which an agreement was made to pay it.

Some people think they are better than others and are above paying what they owe (and I am talking about all members of society with that attitude before someone mentions senior bank scum just assuming I'm not referring to them).

I don't think that's the full case. I don't believe anyone fully sets out to not pay or refuse to pay. Having worked within the industry myself I have come across thousands of people in debt.

I would estimate that 99.9 % want to pay but sue to unforseen circumstances either long term I'll health, job loss etc their circumstances change and be it the mortgage company etc refuse point blank to renegotiate the loan terms and demand payment in full there and then.

As a bailiff, 1 case springs to mind. A terminally I'll woman dying of cancer. I was sent out to evict her. On paper it was a tenant refusing to pay rent. The agency we t for immediate eviction on 2 months unpaid rent and got the court order as the tenant didn't respond. In reality tenant lost her job due to health, had applied for housing benefit which had not yet come through. She had not ignored the court she was in hospital.

Alternatively think of a couple who initially took out a 25 year mortgage. 10 years later one has to give up work due to having a disabled child or ill health. House is in negative equity so can't remortgage. They can now only meet 75% of mortgage payment monthly without going into dire financial circumstances. Bank refuse this and refuse to negotiate payments.

Are both of the above cases scumbag debtors or both scenarios the banks / creditors fault

Yes there are non payers out there, they are not the majority.

Brendan Bendar

katiek102010 wrote: »

I don't think that's the full case. I don't believe anyone fully sets out to not pay or refuse to pay. Having worked within the industry myself I have come across thousands of people in debt.

I would estimate that 99.9 % want to pay but sue to unforseen circumstances either long term I'll health, job loss etc their circumstances change and be it the mortgage company etc refuse point blank to renegotiate the loan terms and demand payment in full there and then.

As a bailiff, 1 case springs to mind. A terminally I'll woman dying of cancer. I was sent out to evict her. On paper it was a tenant refusing to pay rent. The agency we t for immediate eviction on 2 months unpaid rent and got the court order as the tenant didn't respond. In reality tenant lost her job due to health, had applied for housing benefit which had not yet come through. She had not ignored the court she was in hospital.

Yes there are non payers out there, they are not the majority.

Good post, well put, you see nobody wants the genuine person in trouble financially, either due to ill health, job loss, circumstances beyond their control to suffer, they should be helped to the max.

But the Dublin City Council figures couldn’t reflect the genuine condition of the non payers, no way whatsoever.

What really puzzles me though is that the ‘political party ‘ that is at every dog fight going, every demo, every picket line, every protest about anything ,never, to my knowledge has highlighted this situation.

Rents are being raised and they are up in arms,but no reference to if the defaulters paid up there would be no need for a rent rise.

No suggestion as to how these massive arrears could be recovered, no interest in putting forward legislation to ensure that the money can be recovered.

Sometimes I think this country hasn’t a clue how to manage its affairs.

Everything takes longer to complete, is more expensive, is less well regulated, has worse after effects .

Why is that?

Has me riled up a bit for sure.

realdanbreen

Deleted User wrote: »

Why this isn't deducted at source from their social welfare payments is a complete mystery to me.

Can you see any politician advocating for this?

Mad_maxx

cruizer101 wrote: »

More than half the council’s 24,400 tenants are behind on their rent, with 20 per cent more than six months in arrears.

That is absolutely nuts

which local authority are you referring to ?

there are far more than twenty five thousand local authority tenants in dublin , never mind nationally

nationally , a third of local authority tenants are in arrears despite the incredibly modest average monthly rental charge , dont ever expect to see RTE highlight this

Mad_maxx

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm surprised no journalist followed up with a request to see the breakdown of arrears by type (Long Term Lease, Differential, RAS, Travellers etc.)

Of course, no one would be surprised at which section represents the largest chunk of the arrears in most councils... the same section whose rent arrears officers literally wear stab vests when going out to call on their clients.

why are you surprised ? , vast majority of journalists are left wingers

ednwireland

funny i was looking at the latest housing technology Magazine (as its the sector i work in !)

this jumped out on rotherham council managing their rent collection

“Our target collection rate for 2018/19 was
98.3 per cent but we actually achieved
99.7 per cent,

which equated to 1.1 million extra funding, i wonder what proper repayments and addressing arrears would do for some irish councils

katiek102010

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Good post, well put, you see nobody wants the genuine person in trouble financially, either due to ill health, job loss, circumstances beyond their control to suffer, they should be helped to the max.

But the Dublin City Council figures couldn’t reflect the genuine condition of the non payers, no way whatsoever.

What really puzzles me though is that the ‘political party ‘ that is at every dog fight going, every demo, every picket line, every protest about anything ,never, to my knowledge has highlighted this situation.

Rents are being raised and they are up in arms,but no reference to if the defaulters paid up there would be no need for a rent rise.

No suggestion as to how these massive arrears could be recovered, no interest in putting forward legislation to ensure that the money can be recovered.

Sometimes I think this country hasn’t a clue how to manage its affairs.

Everything takes longer to complete, is more expensive, is less well regulated, has worse after effects .

Why is that?

Has me riled up a bit for sure.

I will give you a genuine council debt, it is ireland but not Dublin.

A widow, husband killed in a crash left a child disabled. Child has medical needs and requires adaptive aids. She pays rent weekly she always rounded it up so was often ahead and reviewed every year.

There was a problem with some of the equipment and needed repair, she ended up having to go to council to apply for a grant to update and modernise.
. Next thing is she gets a call from the council saying oooppps we should have revised your rent when disabled child turned 18 and was in receipt of their own funds. We have done it now and you owe us thousands.
Demand for payment in full immediately, she told them to take her to court. The adult child does not have capicity and the tennancy is not a joint tenancy.
She increased her weekly payments by the new rent amount and 20 on top for the "arrears"
How is that even legal

Raconteuse

katiek102010 wrote: »

I don't think that's the full case. I don't believe anyone fully sets out to not pay or refuse to pay. Having worked within the industry myself I have come across thousands of people in debt.

I would estimate that 99.9 % want to pay but sue to unforseen circumstances either long term I'll health, job loss etc their circumstances change and be it the mortgage company etc refuse point blank to renegotiate the loan terms and demand payment in full there and then.

As a bailiff, 1 case springs to mind. A terminally I'll woman dying of cancer. I was sent out to evict her. On paper it was a tenant refusing to pay rent. The agency we t for immediate eviction on 2 months unpaid rent and got the court order as the tenant didn't respond. In reality tenant lost her job due to health, had applied for housing benefit which had not yet come through. She had not ignored the court she was in hospital.

Alternatively think of a couple who initially took out a 25 year mortgage. 10 years later one has to give up work due to having a disabled child or ill health. House is in negative equity so can't remortgage. They can now only meet 75% of mortgage payment monthly without going into dire financial circumstances. Bank refuse this and refuse to negotiate payments.

Are both of the above cases scumbag debtors or both scenarios the banks / creditors fault

Yes there are non payers out there, they are not the majority.

I've worked in an area related to it too (collection, not accommodation) and yes, the "won't pays" are the minority, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil. In my experience there absolutely are people who feel entitled to a service for free.

Probably depends on the service. I'd say private renting isn't as bad as other areas for freeloaders.

cruizer101

Mad_maxx wrote: »

which local authority are you referring to ?

there are far more than twenty five thousand local authority tenants in dublin , never mind nationally

Dublin city council, line was taken direct from the article.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Can you see any politician advocating for this?

No, but it seems mad to me, no doubt they would be crucified by the left politician but I genuinely think they would have the support of most people

Brendan Bendar

katiek102010 wrote: »

I will give you a genuine council debt, it is ireland but not Dublin.

A widow, husband killed in a crash left a child disabled. Child has medical needs and requires adaptive aids. She pays rent weekly she always rounded it up so was often ahead and reviewed every year.

There was a problem with some of the equipment and needed repair, she ended up having to go to council to apply for a grant to update and modernise.
. Next thing is she gets a call from the council saying oooppps we should have revised your rent when disabled child turned 18 and was in receipt of their own funds. We have done it now and you owe us thousands.
Demand for payment in full immediately, she told them to take her to court. The adult child does not have capicity and the tennancy is not a joint tenancy.
She increased her weekly payments by the new rent amount and 20 on top for the "arrears"
How is that even legal

Let’s understand this. Nobody wants people like that ‘punished’

That is a genuine case and looks like the councils fault.

Let’s get back to the topic on hand, 30large owed to DCC in unpaid rent.

Now is anyone suggesting that all those defaulters and gamers are in the same boat as the unfortunate person you highlighted.

Surely there is some intelligence out there which can separate the gamer from the genuine.

Is that too much to ask?

enricoh

ednwireland wrote: »

funny i was looking at the latest housing technology Magazine (as its the sector i work in !)

this jumped out on rotherham council managing their rent collection


which equated to 1.1 million extra funding, i wonder what proper repayments and addressing arrears would do for some irish councils

Jesus, there'd be uproar if whatever system they use was brought in!
Paddy would prefer to do an amnesty on all non payers n start again with a clean slate. It'd make the figures look better... For a while!

katiek102010

ednwireland wrote: »

funny i was looking at the latest housing technology Magazine (as its the sector i work in !)

this jumped out on rotherham council managing their rent collection


which equated to 1.1 million extra funding, i wonder what proper repayments and addressing arrears would do for some irish councils

I know exactly the reason why that came about.

Rotherham was one of the earliest areas to bring in the universal credit system. Previously the old housing benefit system was paid in credit, universal credit pays 6 weeks in arrears.
The local councils who also pay housing and council tax benefit no longer hand out the payments and DWP pay these benefits directly to the claiment.

Every single council saw their arrears go through the roof. I was working for a UK council at the time. It was unattainable.

Eventually central government brought in legislation that allowed any landlord with a problem debtor to receive payments directly and a payment towards the arrears.

Thats why Rotherham have such high rates of collection.

All the councils over have an accounts system that treats a debt as a loan when a payment plan is set up. The debt falls off the debt register immediately and is only reclassified as a debt when a payment is missed

katiek102010

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Let’s understand this. Nobody wants people like that ‘punished’

That is a genuine case and looks like the councils fault.

Let’s get back to the topic on hand, 30large owed to DCC in unpaid rent.

Now is anyone suggesting that all those defaulters and gamers are in the same boat as the unfortunate person you highlighted.

Surely there is some intelligence out there which can separate the gamer from the genuine.

Is that too much to ask?

I agree it's not too much to ask. Something needs to be done but it's also very very unfair to treat everyone as a gamer when the majority are probably not.

As far as I can see that council need to recruit properly to their finance division and properly train people in how to do their jobs.

LuasSimon

katiek102010 wrote: »

I have worked in debt management in the UK and Ireland and honestly the attachment of income is the only thing that works...
In the UK when you have a court order you can apply for an attachment order, it cost 50 quid and the costs could be added to the debt.

The attachment is a minimum of 12.5% of income and a maximum of 25%.

So for example if a person has 2k debt and on the dole getting 100 weekly you would get 12.50 weekly of the debt. If they were also getting children's allowance which is calculated weekly but paid monthly you would get 12.5% of that also allowing the maximum of 25% per month attachments.

It needs to be brought in here

No way the powerful lobby group known as pavee point would allow this come into this country .

Brendan Bendar

katiek102010 wrote: »

I agree it's not too much to ask. Something needs to be done but it's also very very unfair to treat everyone as a gamer when the majority are probably not.

As far as I can see that council need to recruit properly to their finance division and properly train people in how to do their jobs.

30 large owed in rent!!!!! Thirty million!!!

C’mon....

Nobody,but, nobody would advocate everyone being treated as a gamer.


This seems to be the riposte to anyone who queries this situation.

Properly training people how to do their jobs is to be commended but then ensuring they actually DO their jobs is the issue.

Lookit, councils have a reputation of putting things on the ‘long finger’ the nod and wink strategy, do nothing , obfuscate, and it will all die in a swamp.

Why does one think waste collection has been privatised

We need to wake up in this country.