Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
2befree
Newbie
Joined: 08/July/2012
Points: 2
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: hardship Posted: 08/July/2012 at 7:49am |
I would be interested in having you contact me as well!
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
Madmorrigan
Groupie
Joined: 09/March/2005
Location: Canada
Points: 177
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18/March/2010 at 10:39am |
The definition of "hardship" depends on the day, and the person who's lucky enough to get your paperwork....hell, even death doesn't qualify as 'hardship' in some cases (I remember a well-publicized case a few years ago of a former student that had an accident and was on life-support--they continued to hound her family, even after she died).
|
|
kennerman
Groupie
Joined: 08/November/2009
Location: Ottawa
Points: 59
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17/March/2010 at 2:40pm |
what usually constitutes hardship? is being underemployed enough? Do you need a long term disability? I am a few years away from being done my consumer proposal, I am just examining options. Thanks.
|
|
Iknowalotofstuff
Groupie
Joined: 29/September/2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Points: 155
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08/February/2010 at 12:14pm |
Finally we can agree on something. American methodology is creeping into the Canadian arena and it scares me. Where ever there is buck to be made, the Americans are there to take advantage. Living in close proximity to Michigan, I am inundated daily with TV / radio ads by for profit debt relief agencies. Many of the US agencies are owned by credit grantors.
But this invasion by US debt poolers should be stemmed by regulation just as the invasion of pay day loan companies has been regulated.
The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act has provided that each province or territory could establish a provincial Orderly Payment of Debt Program. Only three provinces chose to enact a government OPD program - Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. The other provinces chose to come up with their own form of programs. Ontario in the late 60's and early 70's decided to treat debt problems as a social problem. The plan was to allow local social service agencies who met certain criteria to start CCS programs that would be funded 70% by the province of Ontario with the remainder generated locally. In Ontario, this 30% came from United Ways, Catholic and Jewish religious organizations, trade unions, etc.. went this way for about 23 years. For profit agencies are governed by a CEO, a board of directors and shareholders. Non profit agencies are governed by unpaid boards of directors.
Ten, Ontario elected an NDP government who was looking to cut social service costs. There was a change of thinking. First, the new BIA amendment of Nov 1992 should allow CCS to administer consumer proposals. They would get the initial $1800.00 plus 20% of the funds disbursed leaving no need for provincial funding. Second, for the past 23 years, the credit community had been getting a free service. Since the programs worked and were by now professional, the time had come for them to contribute.
Government funding stopped almost immediately. The province had not counted on the strong backlash by the trustee community to non trustees administering proposals, The Province had not contracted the Fed to see what their position was. Finding themselves without funding, the non profit credit counselling agencies negotiated an arrangement with the Canadian Banker's Assoc. to make charitable donations equal to 10% of the funds disbursed under the debt repayment plans. At the same time, the Collection Agencies Act was amended to remove any requirement for any member agency of the Ontario Association of Credit Counselling Services to register as a collection agency. Based on this premise and the consolidation of several agencies, non profit CCS has survived in Ontario. I speak only about Ontario. These non profit agencies are run by a local board of directors and reflect the communities needs.
Some people think of CCS as "ducks". If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a duck. CCS in Ontario are not ducks, While they may appear to act like collection agencies or for profit debt poolers. They are not the same. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than lump them in with everyone else because I know what they do and how they are motivated.
To all of those people looking for help, it is not the worst thing you could do to contact a non profit CCS in your community to discuss your situation. Usually the first visit is free, Even if all you get out of the meeting is free information, you are no worse off than before you went in. Also do your due diligence and ask all of the questions necessary to make a informed decision. Seek a second opinion ... Call someone like Johnny and get his take on your situation. Once you have gathered all of the information to make an informed decision, do what is right for YOU.
Education not dogma is he key. Become an informed consumer. Find a solution that works for YOU.
|
|
SolveStudentDebt
Moderator Group
Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5996
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08/February/2010 at 10:14am |
FYI - The non-profits get a percentage of the amount recovered (or owed) by the consumer. Collection agencies are paid a percentage of the amount recovered. Non-profits disguise themselves as anything but a collection agency. Who would seek them out for assistance then? So, they had to come up with a way to gain the trust of financially troubled consumers. It is an American methodology, and that is what is happening here in Canada.
|
Solve Student Debt specializes in solutions for students and graduates in student loan default, and those at risk of defaulting. solvestudentdebt.com
|
|
SolveStudentDebt
Moderator Group
Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5996
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08/February/2010 at 10:09am |
"A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals. In Canada, NPOs may be formed at either the federal or provincial levels. Charities must generally be registered with the Canada Revenue Agency and may issue tax receipts for donations. The funds received from credit grantors are charitable donations. This is the difference between for profit debt poolers and collection agencies. All of the funds generated from debt repayment programs are invested in assisting clients not generating profit."
This is the textbook definition. However, debt poolers are collection agencies. They are licensed as them, and they are treated by the financially community like them. They recover money for creditors and they depend on them for commission. Their incentive is very transparent. A fair share is what they call it. a donation. It is just another business that sugar coats a brick of salt. They make themselves appear sweet.
High salaries. Heavy advertising campaigns. That is how they work their magic.
Stuff, you will disagree with whatever I say about bankruptcy and non-profits. You defend them all you want. Your business is bankruptcy. Mine is not. You have your opinions about other services and their effectiveness in comparison to bankruptcy and it's effectiveness. It is of no consequence. You preach bankruptcy and I will continue to help people make much better choices in life.
|
Solve Student Debt specializes in solutions for students and graduates in student loan default, and those at risk of defaulting. solvestudentdebt.com
|
|
administrator
Admin Group
Joined: 25/January/2003
Points: 1798
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08/February/2010 at 8:19am |
I remember one 'not for profit' place I took some courses. The 'school' paid licensing fees to a parent organization that miraculously exactly equaled the surplus income of the 'school', therefor the 'school' could claim they were non profit and not for profit. The parent company earned millions for its shareholders.... Clever setup, clever accounting, very profitable. Just pay out the profits in high salaries and you can be not-for profit. The company shows no profit but employees/owners clearly benefit.
|
Administrator Mark OMeara Author of Let Go and Heal: Recovery from Emotional Pain https://LaughSingWrite.com - http://bit.ly/heal2024
|
|
Iknowalotofstuff
Groupie
Joined: 29/September/2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Points: 155
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08/February/2010 at 8:10am |
This site is designed to give debtors particularly student loan creditors non bankruptcy options. These non bankruptcy options include for profit services (like yours and 4 Pillars), non-profit services (like CCS), for profit debt poolers and consultants. Your position is that in order to get client oriented service the service should be paid for by the debtor. Any service paid for by the creditor is self serving and suspect because of the inherent conflict of interest. I would disagree with respect to non-profit charitable organizations.
A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals. In Canada, NPOs may be formed at either the federal or provincial levels. Charities must generally be registered with the Canada Revenue Agency and may issue tax receipts for donations. The funds received from credit grantors are charitable donations. This is the difference between for profit debt poolers and collection agencies. All of the funds generated from debt repayment programs are invested in assisting clients not generating profit.
As long as there is credit, there will be credit problems. I equate credit to tobacco. Both are legal. Both are addictive. Both cause problems for society. Both the purveyors of credit and tobacco should be part of a cure. I see the charitable donations as investments in a cure for the problems created. There is no doubt that the donations are self serving but they are still donations into programs that help people.
|
|
SolveStudentDebt
Moderator Group
Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5996
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/February/2010 at 12:35pm |
"What is the difference between a previously bankrupt debtor making an application under s. 178 1.1 to deal with their student loans when they do not have the ability to pay or a non-paying student debtor using the SOL to argue that they do not have to pay any more? I don't see much difference between these options."
First let's distinguish a fact. If an individual can pay a student loan that is statute barred then he or she should. I voice this all the time. If people come to me looking for escape then I do not assist. It is that simple. THe resaon I am bringing this up is because you are clearly of the view that a limitation issue really does mean the person it applies to does not have to pay any more. As said above, I do not take that position because it is the wrong position to take. Look Stuff, you have an assessment process and so do I and this demonstrates to the system that people actually are not what the system accuses them of. A cultural viewpoint if you will.
One significant difference between a section 178 and the use of a limitation issue is very clear. Section 178 is a bankruptcy proceeding. This proceeding does cvome with imnplications in redspect of credit reporting. In the limitation arena it does not in most cases. A limitation issue is not a porthole of careless or neglectful escape in my realm of business.
The major difference here is that people who are able to pay benefit from doing what is right when The CFW Group is involved. I am going to tell you something, Stuff. I have done volunteer work for more Canadians in financial distress than you could fathom. If the case warrants it I still do it today. My business is all about helping people make better choices that align with economic wellness, social stability, turn-around management, and healthy consumerism uninhibited by the warped culture and bias within Canada's financial community. Consumer and corporate bankruptcy is not what Canada needs to see an increase of.
Now, a section 178 is just the conclusion to bankrupty. It does not help the individual recapture their true identity back. I wish it did buit it doesn't. If an individual cannot repay a debt because they will never ever be able to get out from underneath it, and a section 178 is in order, then it is an awesome prescribed solution.
" The is use of a SOL defence is the use of a technicality to prevent from being sued. The debt is still owing even if it cannot be collected."
If a debt is statute barred then it is a defense.
You are incorrect about the life of the debt after it has been deemed barred. Some provincial governments may take the position that this is case. However, if they are challenged then the result is quite different. The problem is that much of the consumer population does not have the financial ability or patience to challenge. The limityation of actions and proceedings states that no action or proceedings can be taken. Some take the position that this applies to "legal action and proceedings" only. I know this not to be the case.
"Do you assist your clients in making s. 178 1.1 applications if they qualify?"
Read the above response. I provide people with the navigation towards it in the event someone asks me. I simply advise them to seek out the navigational tool provided by the registrar's of provincial bankruptcy courts. I am gathering them for those people who contact me to ask about a section 178 application. If I make an assessment whereas a section 178 application would be the best option, then direction is given. If I knew you I would refer people to you. I just don't know you.
As for the non-profit debt poolers out there that I know of, I fail to see how they can actually represent themselves as non and not-for-profit. You have a debt pooler out here in the east who is engaged in these massive television commercial campaigns. This is over a million-dollar per year expense. In your world there is such thing as a not-for-profit business. In mine there is not.
1. Debt poolers service the financial industry first - the consumer last.
2. Debt poolers do not assist people in any significant way when it is deemed that they do not qualify for a debt management program. They simply tell people to hide from the collectors until bankruptcy can be actioned (or go underground and live the life of a gopher until the limitations come in to play). If they are calling themselves counselors then they should counsel in one productive way or another. It is that simple.
3. Debt poolers depend on the commission earnings from the financial industry for survival. That places the primary incentive as getting people to sign up into a debt management program in order to make money.
4. Look at their financial and bank records online and see how many millions of dollars are earned - and spent on salaries and advertising. It is incredible.
5. Not-for-profits are able to make more money now that they are private and so connected to the financial industry on a fee-for-recovery basis. I don't need to make that much money - and The CFW Group's business methodologies are more able to service the consumer population.
6. The CFW Group's Student Crisis Service Division earns fees for services by it's clients. Not a commission from creditors or any component of the financial industry. The CFW Group is involved in other things than educating, coaching, or intervention for the consumer population.
You have to understand that I am not knocking you for running one of those businesses. I am not knocking your expertise in your particular areas of business. The not-for-profit credit counseling industry does need change I can tell you that. It needs to be pro consumer. I find it quite interesting and I applaud you for it. You are confrontational and I respect that. You have to be in order to face the ugliness of systemic failures and obtuse internal policies that the financial community conjures up. We both face these barbaric fronts and this is where you and I are so much alike.
Johnny
|
Solve Student Debt specializes in solutions for students and graduates in student loan default, and those at risk of defaulting. solvestudentdebt.com
|
|
Iknowalotofstuff
Groupie
Joined: 29/September/2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Points: 155
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/February/2010 at 3:21am |
This clarifies your earlier post. A student may have made an assignment under the 10 year rule but because their discharge was after July 7, 2008 the s. 178 1(g) period was reduced to 7 years. It is the date of discharge that determines whether whether the period between the end of study date and the date of bankruptcy is 7 or 10 years.
I do not understand how what your stated in your earlier post could be an "opponent argument"?
Question: We both agree that some student loans may be subject to a limitation period established in the province where the loan was granted or under certain provisions of Canada Student Loan Act or the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. What is the difference between a previously bankrupt debtor making an application under s. 178 1.1 to deal with their student loans when they do not have the ability to pay or a non-paying student debtor using the SOL to argue that they do not have to pay any more? I don't see much difference between these options.
The is use of a SOL defence is the use of a technicality to prevent from being sued. The debt is still owing even if it cannot be collected. A successful application under s. 178 1.1 renders the debt subject to an "earlier" bankruptcy discharge and the debt is no longer owing to the student loan creditor. Provided the debtor has established to the satisfaction of the student loan creditor or the court that they have acted in good faith and are experiencing and will continue to experience financial hardship with respect to their liabilities under the loans, they will no longer owe the money.
Do you assist your clients in making s. 178 1.1 applications if they qualify? Do you insist that former bankrupts try to pay the loans even if they could meet the requirements of s. 178 1.1? I am just trying to figure out what it is that you do?
Several years ago, non-profit CCS were government programs. In some provinces such as Ontario, CCS received funding from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The NDP government decided to cut the funding. It was assumed that Ontario would opt into the OPD progran as other provinces had OR they would get funding doing the mandatory counselling new to the BIA and become administrators of consumer proposals. This never happened. The funding was never restored. This happened in the early 1990's Most non profit CCS are funded partially by the United Way or religious organization in addition to the amount received from credit grantors. CCS were reluctant at first to accept this funding but out of a sense of survival found they had no other choice. You paint them with the same brush as for profit debt poolers that they are not. I find your comments about these non-profit United Way agencies as a bit self-serving? My comments are made as I ran one of these agencies for 20 years.
|
|
SolveStudentDebt
Moderator Group
Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5996
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06/February/2010 at 4:55pm |
Reduction of the student loan discharge period from 10 to 7 years. This amendment will apply where the debtor obtains his or her discharge on or after July 7, 2008 (PROVIDED that at the time they filed they had ceased to be student for the required seven years) or the debtor had or becomes bankrupt on or after July 7, 2008.
The amendment that will reduce to five years the period a bankrupt will have to wait to make a “hardship” application to have student loan debt or obligation discharged (BIA , s. 178(1.1) is also now in force. This amendment applies to all debtors notwithstanding when the bankruptcy or the process that results in the bankruptcy is initiated.
|
Solve Student Debt specializes in solutions for students and graduates in student loan default, and those at risk of defaulting. solvestudentdebt.com
|
|
SolveStudentDebt
Moderator Group
Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5996
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06/February/2010 at 4:42pm |
It is not what I came up with Stuff. It is what lawyers have advised me. Are you an attorney?
|
Solve Student Debt specializes in solutions for students and graduates in student loan default, and those at risk of defaulting. solvestudentdebt.com
|
|
Iknowalotofstuff
Groupie
Joined: 29/September/2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Points: 155
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06/February/2010 at 11:44am |
Ericsson12: If you ask he webmaster to give you my email address, I will help you at nominal cost to make a s. 178 1.1 application. You do not need a lawyer.
|
|
Iknowalotofstuff
Groupie
Joined: 29/September/2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Points: 155
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06/February/2010 at 11:37am |
Your post is absolutely incorrect. The effective date of the amendment to the 10 year rule reducing it to 7 was July 7, 2008. Suppose a student loan debtor's end of study date is April 30, 2000. Suppose they make an assignment in bankruptcy on June 1, 2008 when the 10 year rule was still in effect. They obtain their discharge on April 1, 2009. Would their student loans be subject to discharge?
According to your post above, the student loans would not be subject to discharge as the debtor was not out of school for 10 years at the date of bankruptcy.
If this is your advice, it would be wrong. The transitional provisions provide that if the debtor was discharged after July 7, 2008 AND was out of school 7 years at the date of bankruptcy, the student loans become subject to discharge regardless of the 10 year rule at the date of bankruptcy.
I recently had a client who went bankrupt in 2000. She was never discharged. She simply failed to fulfill her duties. She forgot about her discharge until she was sued and garnished by her student loan creditors in 2009 - 10. The bankruptcy fell of her credit file in 2007 and she was re-establishing herself. Her end of study date was 1993. At the date of bankruptcy, she was subject to a 10 year rule having been out of school only 7 years. I obtained her discharge for her in January 2010. Guess what happened to her student loans and the judgment obtained by HRSDC. Upon her discharge, her student loans became subject to discharge, the judgment became subject to her discharge and the garnishment stopped. This should not have happened according to your advice.
For those who went bankrupt under the ten year rule and have been discharged, they have 3 options: (1) pay the debt; (2) go bankrupt again since they have been out of school for 7 years or (3) make an application under s. 178 1.1 to have the student loans subject to their earlier discharge. If they cannot pay and a second bankruptcy under today's new rules would be very devastating, the s. 178 1.1 application makes sense. It can be made at any time after discharge for anyone out of school for 5 years regardless of the 10 year rule in effect at the date of bankruptcy. Bankrupts have already suffered the consequences of bankruptcy. A s. 178 1.1 application can not make the situation worse. If it fails you are exactly where you were before the application. No harm ... no foul.
Let me repeat so no one is confused by Johnny's post. The 10 year rule applies only to those who were not out of school 10 years and were discharged before July 7, 2008. The seven year rule applies to anyone out of school for seven years and discharged after July 7 2008 regardless of whether they were previously subject to the 10 year rule at the date of bankruptcy. Any debtor who has been discharged and has been out of school for five years and their loans are not subject to the discharged explained above can make an application under s. 178 1.1. A successful applicant must demonstrate good faith and financial hardship according to the Act.
Johnny, your post only adds to the confusion that abounds the 1, 2, 10, 7 and 5 year rules that have existed under rule 178.
|
|
SolveStudentDebt
Moderator Group
Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5996
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06/February/2010 at 8:25am |
The 7-year rule applies to those who bankrupt themselves on or after the coming into force of the legislative ammendment. So those who went bankrupt before the coming into force still have the ten-year rule in place. Theoretically, that would be an opposition's argument.
|
Solve Student Debt specializes in solutions for students and graduates in student loan default, and those at risk of defaulting. solvestudentdebt.com
|
|
Iknowalotofstuff
Groupie
Joined: 29/September/2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Points: 155
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/February/2010 at 4:15pm |
Keenerman: A student loan is subject to discharge if the debtor has been out of school for 7 years at the date of bankruptcy. If the debtor make an assignment or proposal before the 7 years has elapsed, he can make a hardship application one he is discharged provided he has been out of school for 5 years. The seven an five refer to different provisions of the same rule. Let's say you ceased your studies in 2002 and went bankrupt in 2005 and were discharged in 2006. You could make a hardship application any time after July 7, 2008 as you would at that date have ceased to be a full or part time student for a period of 5 years and were discharged.
|
|
Iknowalotofstuff
Groupie
Joined: 29/September/2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Points: 155
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/February/2010 at 4:05pm |
Yes my success rate is that high because I only take on clients who can meet the criteria based on my strict assessment process. I will not just make an application to earn a fee.
|
|
kennerman
Groupie
Joined: 08/November/2009
Location: Ottawa
Points: 59
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/February/2010 at 7:18am |
Iknowalot of stuff, are you saying you have a 98% rate with your hardship applications, for discharging under a previous bankruptcy?
|
|
ericsson12
Newbie
Joined: 09/March/2004
Points: 3
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/February/2010 at 7:15am |
I am looking for a lawyer to handle my hardship to include my student loan in Ottawa, Ontario. Do you guys have any lawyers names, information for me to contact?? Because I am overseas. So I can not be there phisycally to do it. Thanks.
|
|
xtos
Newbie
Joined: 14/September/2006
Location: Canada
Points: 13
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/February/2010 at 11:34am |
Just to make sure.
1 Do they count 5, 7 or 10 years from the Last End of Study Date that was funded by Student Loans?
------OR-----
2 Do they count (does the Clock Re-set), if you took any kind of course/program, anywhere in Canada or Outside Canada, but with NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING AT ALL?
3 Where can I find a List/Info on what constitutes as Hardship?
4 Is there a difference between, if you had the Permanet Disability when appying and using the Disability Grants during the time of study, compared to becoming Disabled after leaving school??? also, what if your Existing Disability that you had during your studies, got worse or you developed additional Disabilities after leaving school.
5 Is any of the above impacted, if the Program was NOT completed for whatever reason even if you wanted to finish, but the School's Policies have changed preventing you from Finishing???
|
|