I pretty much detest thieves as one of the lowest forms of life, but,given the essentially usurious and predatory nature of the credit card industry towards both customers and merchants I don't have any problem with someone skipping a cc debt at all.

I pretty much detest thieves as one of the lowest forms of life, but,given the essentially usurious and predatory nature of the credit card industry towards both customers and merchants I don't have any problem with someone skipping a cc debt at all.

Then you similarly have no problem that people skipping their credit card debts are, in fact, taking money out of your pocket also, by forcing the credit card companies to charge higher interest rates to us honest people to cover for the losses incurred by the thieves.

You're a regular modern-day Robin Hood, arent you?

If she doesn't intend to go back to Oz to live and work, she can declare bankruptcy in OZ and that is the end of that, but as previous posters have said, the debt is long past its collection date.

No it isn't.

Get your facts right.

And for those who think people who think running away from debt are sanctimonious <deleted>, I'll be round tomorrow to drain your bank account of 250000 baht. Don't expect me to repay it. Happy?

So Genius, what are the correct facts according to you.

Well Genius, the facts are these. Yes, it is correct that a standard debt has a lifespan of 5-7 years before it can be written off but this debt has now been passed onto someone else - the debt collection agency - and they are the new creditor. The debt cycle starts again.

Plus, this is now a civil law matter. Irrespective of the original loan/ credit agreement the new creditor has a financial shortfall and is completely within their rights to pursue the original person responsible for that loan - the OP's wife - for as long as they care too. There is no time liability on civil law matters; THAT is why so many banks and credit card companies sell their debts at a loss to debt collection agencies.

But what do I know? I've only worked in law firms all my life.

I pretty much detest thieves as one of the lowest forms of life, but,given the essentially usurious and predatory nature of the credit card industry towards both customers and merchants I don't have any problem with someone skipping a cc debt at all.

Then you similarly have no problem that people skipping their credit card debts are, in fact, taking money out of your pocket also, by forcing the credit card companies to charge higher interest rates to us honest people to cover for the losses incurred by the thieves.

You're a regular modern-day Robin Hood, arent you?

And you think that cc interest rates would magically drop if the banks default rates went down?

They are high because the banks deliberately pursue high risk borrowers. The banks, by and large are no better than the defaulters. The laws around cc debt reflect this.

I pretty much detest thieves as one of the lowest forms of life, but,given the essentially usurious and predatory nature of the credit card industry towards both customers and merchants I don't have any problem with someone skipping a cc debt at all.

Then you similarly have no problem that people skipping their credit card debts are, in fact, taking money out of your pocket also, by forcing the credit card companies to charge higher interest rates to us honest people to cover for the losses incurred by the thieves.

You're a regular modern-day Robin Hood, arent you?

And you think that cc interest rates would magically drop if the banks default rates went down?

They are high because the banks deliberately pursue high risk borrowers. The banks, by and large are no better than the defaulters. The laws around cc debt reflect this.

Well, I happen to believe in the freedom of choice. When I sign up to a credit card, I look for information about the interest rate (freely published) and make an adult choice if I want it or not. And when I make that choice, I keep to my side of the bargain.

It's called being an adult.

Others, it seems, think repaying debt is optional.

If she doesn't intend to go back to Oz to live and work, she can declare bankruptcy in OZ and that is the end of that, but as previous posters have said, the debt is long past its collection date.

No it isn't.

Get your facts right.

And for those who think people who think running away from debt are sanctimonious <deleted>, I'll be round tomorrow to drain your bank account of 250000 baht. Don't expect me to repay it. Happy?

So Genius, what are the correct facts according to you.

Well Genius, the facts are these. Yes, it is correct that a standard debt has a lifespan of 5-7 years before it can be written off but this debt has now been passed onto someone else - the debt collection agency - and they are the new creditor. The debt cycle starts again.

Plus, this is now a civil law matter. Irrespective of the original loan/ credit agreement the new creditor has a financial shortfall and is completely within their rights to pursue the original person responsible for that loan - the OP's wife - for as long as they care too. There is no time liability on civil law matters; THAT is why so many banks and credit card companies sell their debts at a loss to debt collection agencies.

But what do I know? I've only worked in law firms all my life.

As you have worked in law firms all your life, and by that I assume you mean most of your working life, you will know that whilst debt collectors can pursue debtors for as long as they care to, they can only pursue the debt through the courts within specific time frames.

You seem to have implied that by selling debts to a chain of debt collectors, the statute barred clock can be continuously re-set, that is not the case, once a debt is statute barred it remains so.

Despite their collective names, debt collection agencies do not buy the original debt from the credit card companies. They buy financial liabilities. There is a difference, and they are treated differently in law.

In this instance, they have acquired a financial liability and have absolute right to pursue the cause of that assumed financial liability via the courts for as long as it takes. The OP's wife - by defaulting on a credit agreement - is the original cause of that assumed financial liability.

They WILL pursue it both inside and outside the courts if they think it worthwhile.

Otherwise, if you are correct, why would they buy the debt / financial liability knowing they can't pursue it due to the original statute of limitations? For fun?

Indeed, why would people buy a debt that is unenforceable in a court of law, quite simple really, they purchase a portfolio of toxic debts for cents in the dollar, and then bully and harass the debtor into making a payment, often with the assistance of a tame lawyer.

Of course the owner of the debt can continue to chase for repayment of the debt once it's statute barred, but in some countries once a debtor has advised the owner of the debt that as the debt is statute barred and that they have no intention of making a payment, the owner of the debt is obliged to cease collection activities.

The fact remains that the financial liability is set out in the original contract and cannot be changed at will by anybody purchasing a toxic debt. Once a debt is statute barred it remains so, no amount of huffing and puffing is going to change that.

You simply cannot continue to extend the debtors liability by selling the debt on.