Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


pelham9 last won the day on January 29 2009

pelham9 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

486 Excellent

About pelham9

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. How did you pay? If as is likely you used a bank account or credit card there will be a record for you to prove the payment.
  2. Talk Talk are trying it on - if they get their money early their profits are higher. They have taken two payments early and you must write to them and protest aand claim the £15 bank charge from them. Personally I do not use DDs as this kind of abuse of the system is sadly only too common. It is much safer to set up a standing order from bank account with the payment on the 7th - your bank will stick to that date. If Talk Talk will not agree to this method of payment and pay you the bank charge then go elsewhere.
  3. If you decide to compare the direct debit system with quarterly in arrears do not forget that most utilities allow a prompt payment discount on quarterly arrears payments. I do not know what SP do but EON pays 3% which is half the DD discount so in effect the DD discount is only 3%.
  4. If you forego the convenience and the financial discipline of the direct debit system you will save these hassles and very likely be better off ! The direct debit discount which seems to be a gift is largely illusory. Certainly anyone paying interest on a credit card or overdraft will be better off not accepting the DD discount and insisting that payments are made quarterly in arrears. A large part of the running capital of utilities is financed by the DD system. DD customers make loans to them in the following ways. a) DD plans start in spring before the high useage winter period so the account is in credit continuously. If they find that an account is in debit they will (as you have found) put up the payment amount very smartly. They make it very difficult for you to lower a payment amount. b) They say the payments are set so that there is a zero balance at the end of the year. Tell that to the marines - their systems are programmed to overestimate. When as is usual there is an end year credit they suggest it is carried over to the next year without reducing the payment amount. They make it difficult to get a refund and delay payment of a refund for weeks. c) Outside the direct debit system bills are quarterly in arrears with a two weeks grace for payment. This means that payments are 2 months, 1 month and 0 month each plus 2 weeks in advance every quarter in the direct debit system. In addition customers forego any prompt payment discount if paying by direct debit. Most utilities collect their 'standing charge' by a complicated decreasing block tarriff - a system of charging extra for 'first' or tier one units. For the customer who uses only a small amount during the summer quarters this may mean a saving on the standing charge. The direct debit customer where the account period is annual rather then quarterly cannot benefit from this. Some five years ago after moving house my dual fuel rendered a final bill for over £600 and took it immediately by DD. I reversed this at my bank and the bill was revised down to £32. This experience made me look at the sense of allowing the utilities (or anyone else) freedom to dip into my bank account at will. It also provoked me into doing the sums and I now totally refuse to countenance a utility direct debit plan.
  5. Orphean. A) if the meter will only take a maximun of £85 a year at the high tier one rate then it is necessary to know when the year starts and ends. Have you any information? B) If in fact the tier one rate is used to pay the the daily standing charge it is necessary to know what the daily standard charge is. Do you have any information? and C) If because of no or low usage the standing charge is not paid on any one day is this then transferred to the next day and so on? I ask you these questions because the Tier 1/2 system applies not only to prepay meters but also to credit meters and I can find nothing in the utilities blurb that explains how they do the sums. There is always an arbitrary amount taken using Tier 1 rates on every bill.
  6. As the claim will be uder £5000 the case will be heard in the small claims court. Have ypu paid the £285?
  7. Water meters. You can ask for a water meter to be fitted and if it is possible to do so Amglian must fit it free of charge. All new properties (since 1991) must be fitted with meters. Older properties are either charged according to the old rateable value (which is now not updated) or an assessed charge if a meter cannot be fitted or is found to be too expensive - this can be appealed to the regulator. Most properties pay less on meters but this depends on water usage and this may be high with four children! You need to do the sums and do some research on Anglian's website. Creditors make claims. Courts issue summons. Courts make orders after a hearing - County Court Judgement orders or CCJ for short. The CCJ will be a default order if not defended. The Northampton County Court bulk centre deals with a large number of claims from all over the country and issues summonses. The majority of claims are undefended and default orders are made. If defended the case is sent for hearing at the defendant's local court (which may be the Northampton County court!!). You can get information on your case if indeed it is there if you go to the MCOL website -google for it Anglian say that they sent their claim against you on 21st October. Confirn this with the bulk centre -you may have been ringing the local court who will know nothing about it until a summons has been issued and you have stated your intention to defend and you live near Northhampton. I would have expected the local court to refer to or refer you to the bulk centre but who knows. I think that what Anglian sent you on 31st October was a copy of their claim that they had sent to the NBC. It could not have been a summons or an order which can only be issued by a court. If no summons was issued before 31st Oct it is nonsense for Anglain to claim any costs. You are in dispute with them and have been since 31st October. It is considered by OFT, OFWAT, and indeed the courts to be wrong to threaten court action with the added threat of costs when the amount outstanding is offered and any 'penalty' is disputed . If you have not yet paid your £285 odd debt do so at once. Anglian would be in all sorts of trouble if they then claim court costs and I would be pretty sure they will not persue the matter. It is not uncommon for utililities to have wrong addresses on their databases. Curiously they can send correspondence to a customer at his correct address and bills to a wrong address. Was by any chance your property a newbuild in say the last ten years?- this is a potent source of a correspondence address and a meter address (and hence billing address) being different. Are they using your correct address on the copy claim they have sent you? My experience of utilities is that if they have returned mail (eg bills) marked not at this address or no such address etc they often do nothing but destroy them and there is no record. It would be of interest to see what copy (order summons or claim!!) you received from Anglian on 31st Oct. If you can scan it the easiest way is to convert to a PDF file and attach to your post. It is wise to black out anything that can identify you.
  8. That would be exactly my attitude and I would be prepared to risk (risk not definite) the extra cost of defending which you must do if your above words are not just bravado. Otherwise thay will got a 'not defended' default judgement against you which will have an effect on your credit rating if not paid PDQ. CCJs are only entered by CRAs if not paid within 2 weeks. I would go about this thus Pay the money you owe (£285) immediately. This will leave them only claiming costs which is not so likely to succeed considering your story Acknowledge the claim (Northhampton should have sent you a form) saying that you wish to defend the costs part of claim and that you have otherwise settled the claim. The case will then be sent to your local court and Anglian will be put to the trouble and expense of actually attending court (otherwise the claim fails) which for £65 rather unfairly levied they may not do. Up to you - you may well decide that howardhewit's capitulation is best. I was a bit confused when you say that 'you received a court summons from Anglian'. Only a court can issue a summons so presumably this was a copy of the Northampton court summons? Have you received a summons from Northhampton? when was it dated? Curious that when you rang on 31st October Northampton knew nothing of the claim and summons. Some debt collection agencies send out mock sommons to intimidate debtors but surely not Anglian. Anglian says that their claim went into court on 21st October and that Northampton confirms this. I might be interesting to give Northampton another ring. If you do decide to defend then you must stop talking on the phone to Anglian and insist that everything is in writing. This is nonsense and I cannot even begin to fathom what she means. You seem to be paying Anglian on either the old water rate or assessed system - have you thought of getting a water meter?
  9. Curiously the fact that the APR quoted is the same as the annnual rate can mean that they are being totally honest see a) below . However it is very common that the the eqivalence is covering a small APR S.cam see c) below They say that they will calculate interest daily and add interest at the end of each month. As the interest is applied monthly it is being compounded monthly so a monthly rate of interest must be calculated from the annual rate. Three ways of doing this are possible. a) Use a compound calculation method. For 27.9% the monthly rate will be ((1+27.9/100)^1/12 -1)*100 = 2.0718....%. Reversing this calculation to get the APR will give 27.9%APR The monthly rate is therefor honest. b) Divide the annual rate by 12. 27.9/12 = 2.325% monthly. This is considerably higher than in a) and is totally dishonesst. It is known as the simple interest S.cam - the APR is in this case 31.759...% - wow!. c) The APR S.cam The APR can legally be rounded to one decimal place. So an annual rate of 27.9499... can be shown as 27.9% APR. They actually charge an unlawful 27.9499... % but fob you off by pointing to the correct APR. When they do this they usually show only the monthly rate and APR and not the annual rate. The monthly rate derived from 27.9499....% per annum is 2.0754..... This is not much more than the honest a) but it pays their bonuses!! NB. The above only applies for loans where the only charge is interest as here. If there are other charges the the APR will be considerably more than the annual rate. The APR is not the annual rate.
  10. You are not a sole witmess. Your wife was in your car recoerded the other number plate and dialled 999. The police surely have her evidence?
  11. Just one thought. Moorcroft have said they are acting as agents for Santender i.e. they are working for them. The debt has not been sold to them. I personally would put the whole matter back to Santander stating that you will not communicate in amyway with their incompetent agents.
  12. . Thankyou for the correction - they have not yet had time to receive and reply to petitioms. Absolutely. If these councils cannot raise the funds for chancel repair then they can and have asked English Heritage for help to repair these listed buildings. Up to now English Heritage have declined to help whilst there are lay rectors who have liability to pay. Do we then have to wait until the religion no longer owns and uses these buildings? If the owners/users cannot preserve them would it not be sensible to so do so before they are in ruins? I used to subscribe to English heritage but now no longer do so because most of the religious buildings (e.g. Stonehenge, abbeys and monasteries) are ruins and are of less interest to me. Freedom of religion does not depend on buildings and one wonders why the C of E does not erect cheap ( and comfortable!) 'huts' alongside the expensive to maintain ancient church which Emglish heritage could look after when it is ruined. Blackmail is probably not the legal term to use but you know exactly what I mean. The blaclmailed are those landowners who have perceived a threat to their financial security. There is certainly a threat ( you think threat is minimal) and this threat has been increased by actions both the C of E and the government. There is a risk which has attracted insurance companies who have reason to maximise the threat. So the blackmailers are the government, the C of E and the insurers in any order or proportion you care to suggest. In my veiw as abolishing chancel repair liability requres legislation our government is the principal culprit. Curiouser and curiouser !!
  13. I am an atheist with no connection to the C of E but I have no doubt that these buildings with their historical and cultural heritage are worth preserving. The C of E is no longer the financial power it once was and it is my veiw that they should be relieved of this burden and that the cost should fall to all of us. I for one would welcome the small amount of extra tax I would have to pay rather than bear the cost of insurance. The people and the C of E want out of this ludicrous situation but the goverment will not play ball. Why not? I am sure that Joncris is right that if chancel repair liabiity was abolished then the cost to repair these heritage churches would fall on English Heritage and hence the government. Rather than pay up the government with their tansitional provision order has made it almost inevitable that insurance against this risk is necessary. So a very large number of people have to fork out for insurance where a high proportion (about 8o%) of the premiums goes into administration and profits rather into the C of England coffers. These premiums are a stealth tax and a very inefficient one at that. The chancellor at the time was Gordon Brown. The Church of England I am sure is not pleased how things have turned out. They have wanted for years to give up their chancel repair interest simply because it interferes so obviously with their mission and pastoral duties. Our present government will do nothing and are urging people to insure. The threat is that the C of E may register all properties before 2013 and so that chancel repair liabilities are retained. If enough people insure then the C Of E can get their repair bills paid by insurance companies and will not then be so reviled but until then it would appear that they are blackmailing us into insurance when it is our government who is to blame for the situation . Incidentally there are many aspects of the Wallbank case that suggest to me that this was a test case not only to clarify human rights issues but to put pressure on the government to see sense. Has the PPC involved actually enforced the court judgement?
  14. Sorry, Joncris for quoting your post out of the context of your subsequent remarks but I have used it because my solicitor said exactly the same to me yesterday and it it is inaccurate and a lot of solicitors are using only the sense of your paragraph withourt as it were reading on. I have done a lot of research! The law has changed somewhat not because of the ruling in the Wallbank case but because of a transitional provisional order introduced after the Wallbank ruling. Up to this order the church had an overriding interest in the land involved in chancel repair liability and still does so until 2013. This simply means that after 2013 the interest must be registered to be effective for those to whom it has not applied previously - an overriding interest does not have to be registered. so a) as in the Wallbank case where the liability is in the title deeds it will still be effedtive on both present and future owners of the land. They all have to pay if requred to do so. b) If the church does register their interest before 2013 the liability is effective on present and future owners of the land. They all have to pay if requred to do so. c) If the church does not register an interest before 2013 then they lose the right to levy the liability on future owners of the land only. Present owners will have to pay if required to do so. People in a) and b) still may have to pay and may still suffer conseqential loss of property value. Those in c) may still have to pay but their property value will not be eroded No wonder Joncris uses the words in brackets. The previous government gave very little putting the onus and odium onto the Church of England.
  15. Thanks Davehsug, The last last time I rang NG (9 months ago) they were able to confirm my electricity supplier even though they were not my local electricity distributor according to the map shown in the following link. http://www.energylinx.co.uk/electricity_distribution_map.htm I wouild sttill advise the OP to ring NG - if they will not give him the information he requires they will be able to redirect him - unless they are disdposed to be difficult. Can you give some informattion as to when NG ceased to be the main electricity distributor keeping a record of suppliers? It seems to me that the stance that many suppliers take that they have not committted a Billing Code error if an occupier has not contacted them is unrealistic if their is not a simple way of determining who the supplier is.
  • Create New...