I completely agree. Nobody put a gun to anyone’s head and made them take out credit. I enjoy using credit responsibly. I also support and agree that banks are entities that are supposed to make a profit and money. I’m not against making a profit at all. Profit is what keeps all groups in business, including charities.
But doesn’t being in business come with responsibilities also? Is it OK to perpetuate business at all costs or do we draw a line at some point and say that selling credit comes with some responsibilities for treating people that get into trouble with individual care or say that we simply want banks to honour the Banking Code duties that they say they do?
We frown upon the factory that dumps toxic waste into clear waters as the result of production, why should we not frown on any creditor that extends credit, seemingly at abandon, and dumps those, for whatever reason, those that can’t pay into financial ruin because they could not meet the creditors arbitrary hurdle rate to repay in times of trouble.
I’m not suggesting that there should not be consequences. Let there be consequences. But maybe those consequences should be no or restricted access to future credit, a bad credit report, higher interest rates, or some other punishment. What I struggle with is working with people every day that want to repay but who are turned away from fair, reasonable or sustainable repayment plans because a creditor “wants” £100 more per month even though it has been demonstrated that it is not sustainable.
Is it fair that people wallow in DMPs that last decades or that creditors have been known to back bill DMP clients for interest once they finish making DMP payments? What time limit should be fair for informal debt repayment plans? Is it one year, five years or forever? For the IVA it has settled at around five years and there is enough research to support the psychological effect of the five year repayment. But we don’t need to get into hyperbolic discounting here.
The “Who Am I” piece is a work about introspection and I invite everyone to pause and ask themselves what values they hold dear. For me, I understand that cruelty happens but again, for me, it is my personal opinion that intentional cruelty should not be tolerated.
I guess what I feel is right is that financial solutions should be as readily available as credit to begin with. If credit is going to be passed out like water, in some cases, then limitations about who can or can’t have access to a DMP that does not last 50 years or arbitrarily excluded from access to an IVA, is not healthy. Otherwise, credit becomes a trap. And just for me, in my humble opinion, that’s not cool.
