On Friday I received a text which Iâm sure many of you will also have received:
âDue to a new legislation, those struggling with debt can apply to have it written off. For free information reply INFO or to opt out text STOP. Free Text!â.
Now the obvious grammar and syntax errors, along with the fact that it came from a private mobile number, should immediately alert any intelligent person to the fact that there is a potential scam at work.
More to the point, can someone please define âstruggling?â.
Like many, I have an existing bank loan and overdraft that I would rather not be burdened with. I âstruggleâ with them in the sense that they reduce my day-to-day material quality of life. However, the payments are not unaffordable and as I borrowed the money in the first instance, so the repayment of that amount plus interest is entirely my responsibility.
I appreciate that there are instances where a personâs circumstances will change suddenly, and the means that they had when taking out a loan or overdraft in good faith no longer exist â through no fault of their own. But, are there not already mechanisms in place whereby such debt can already be restructured, frozen or written off, even if an IVA or bankruptcy bring certain problems with them?
I had enormous difficulty understanding exactly what this text advertisement was suggesting â maybe if you just donât feel like repaying the bank, building society or loans company you can have it written off, no questions asked and no strings attached?
Iâve also been bombarded with texts containing an invitation to collect the Â£300,000 Iâve won, or to cash in on a personal injury:
âyou still havenât claimed for the accident you hadâ.
Of course I havenât, probably because no such accident took place, certainly not one that left me with a serious injury.
A few years ago, a mate of mine asked over a beer if Iâd like to take part as a passenger in what is widely known as a âCrash for Cashâ. That is a staged âaccidentâ, engineered to extract as much money as possible from the insurance of another driver.
Apparently, he knew a âwell dodgy lawyerâ who specialised in this sort of thing, and could work the system in such a way that would deliver the best payout; I donât need money that badly.
Panorama made a programme on the subject, which is one of Auntieâs better efforts, getting to the centre of a criminal gang involved in the scam, while showing the knock-on effect on the premiums of law-abiding motorists.
I never discussed with my friend was whether this âaccidentâ involved setting up an innocent motorist for a fall, or would simply be an outright fraud based on an invented incident.
Genuine accidents happen every day on the roads and in peopleâs places of work. Most people are able to make a distinction between an accident that was âone of those thingsâ and an honest mistake or act of carelessness on the part of a motorist, employer or employee that may still require certain costs to be covered.
The âcompensation cultureâ that has crept into British society in the last decade (thanks very much to our friends across the pond) has now become rampant. The notion of a genuine accident for which there was no blame and no resultant claim (on a no-win, no-fee basis it should be added) does not seem any longer to compute with a large section of the population.
Weâve all got ourselves into a rush, fed by perfectly rational drives for more money and everything to be bigger and faster. Moreover, we want it all now, and this seems to have broken important pieces of the chain that defined exactly what money is and how it is made.
In theory, money is the by-product of having goods or services for which people are prepared to pay a real value in the marketplace. This tends to involve patience and hard work; the first of these appears to be in very short supply these days. Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that many have succumbed to the offers of money for nothing from claims specialists and ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Genuine costs incurred in real accidents where one party was clearly to blame should of course be met. Unlike some Libertarians, I donât go in for removing all health and safety laws at work, just most of them; people who employ others are responsible for their actions, and should not be allowed to set death-traps with impunity.
However, just as trashy âreality televisionâ has broken the link between fame and actually being quite good at something, the compensation culture, and its promised of âno win, no feeâ, has offered a means by which the unscrupulous and greedy can make a fast buck while not producing anything of real market value. One of the side effects of this is the growth of scams that deliberately play on those chasing a slice of the action.
Iâve never had the famous phone call from Nigeria offering to make me a billionaire in exchange for handing over my bank account number, card details and an âinterim paymentâ to facilitate the transaction. The natural response of any sane person who receives such a call or text is of course to laugh, then hang up or delete the message, so I struggle to find any sympathy at all for those who fall victim to such swindles. After all, the calls only exploit a cocktail of greed and idleness that clearly exists in anyone who answers the text or take the call seriously.
Hopefully the proposal currently on the table of taking the âzero risk, high rewardâ element out of accident claims will lead to a reduction in the quantity of nonsense of fraudulent cases making their way into the courtroom. Until then I should probably expect a further string of messages inviting this bunny to cash in on an âaccidentâ that never actually happened or collect his winnings from one lottery or another.
Then again, the fact that I donât play the âpoor manâs taxâ in the UK, or elsewhere, should probably be a clue that something isnât quite right.