It is my interpretation that if that person sold the car on knowing it had HP on it outstanding then it is sill the property of the Hire Purchase company. For my question i am just wondering as the OP had rights to the car until i paid. Even with the CCJ they still owned the car until paid. What i am wondering is if the rights of the car as legal owners are passed when the debt is sold. I have no idea why they sold the debt when it is been paid by CCJ payments but they did so am just wondering where i stand with the new company with regards to the car itself not the payments as i will carry those on. Thanks

Hi If a CCJ is granted on a Hire Purchase Agreement then does the CCJ then be passed as part of the assignment over to the purchaser? Also does the purchaser of the debt then become the legal owner of the car until the debt is paid? Thanks

Ok thanks for the advice guys appreciate it. What about the fact they have issued a seizure notice on something they have not seized? And what if they carry on as i have read in other posts bailifs still taking cars on HP in order to get people to pay up. Could i report them for theft? James

So looking at it properly they have issued and charged me for a seizure that has not taken place!

I have not yet made an out of time, i was asking if i have grounds to do so due to me not getting a response from the council on my appeal. Not heard a thing since so was under impression they had scrapped it. Also how can the bailiff add £170 in charges when i have received no letter, no initial attendances anything like that. I get a letter shoved through my door with an intial PCN charge of £110 then there huge charges of £170. On the back it refers to a walking possession agreement which is unsigned by me and one of the sections clearly states it cannot be taken out on goods with outstanding finance. They have admitted themselves they cannot take the car haven't they? They say they are acting on a warrant issued from NCCBC something i have never seen. They have today seized the goods - well they havent done that. The notice of seizure says make payment within 6 days from todays date, but on the back it says i have agreed they may remove the car at any time after the 14th. I have agreed to or signed nothing so how do they work that out. Thanks for the help.

Hi Just a few questions i have regarding Newlyns Bailiffs This morning i had a letter pushed through my door that stated they had made a levy on my car due to an outstanding PCN. Firstly they have added charges that are more than the outstanding PCN itself. Can they do this? They also refer to a warrant of execution but i have received no such warrant neither have they provided me with a copy. I find all this a little excessive as its the first time i have heard from them. The car itself is subject to outstanding Hire Purchase so i am not the legal owner. I have read various posts where bailiff companies see, to ignore this fact. Also i will be filing an Out of Time through the TEC as i made an initial appeal and never heard anything after that so assumed they had scrapped the PCN. Is it right that they cannot carry out any further action while one of this is in place and how would i go about enforcing it if they tried to take further action? Thanks for your help its appreciated James

One more question on this I understand that costs cant be claimed on the small claims track that has been established. What am asking now is if a claimant takes you to court for a 3rd time after again not following procedure or willing to come to any out of court arrangement is it possible to issue a counter claim for the costs involved to see if the court is willing to agree? I mean how many times is a creditor allowed to mess you about like this when you are doing everything you can without been made to pay for your inconvenience? Thanks

Thanks for the replies guys So we have established that it looks like a fairly common practice for companies to do this. What about then if the company is taking 9% of your annual wage at source which is for (they state) pension purposes and you are also placed onto the new pension scheme when you join unless you opt out. Bearing in mind the 9% abatement does not return anything for you. If you were to leave the new pension scheme you wouldn't receive a penny yet would still be paying the 9%. In effect are paying into 2 pensions but only receive benefits from one. Where is the legalities in that? Thanks guys

Thats the thing there are no better benefits neither is it a more valuable pot. Instead of moving those on the old scheme on to the new scheme making everyone equal they have created a 2 tier workforce where on person pays more than the other

Hi guys Bit of a tricky one so not sure how many people will have knowledge on it but will try to be as clear as i can. Person A has a total of 2.7% deducted from his monthly salary towards his pension contributions on one pension scheme Person B has a total of 4.7% deducted from his monthly salary on a new pension scheme Person B has no choice but to pay 4.7% as Person A's scheme is no longer available. This then leaves Person B having an extra 2% deducted from his pay therefore in essence earns 2% less than his equal counterpart. Is the fact that there is no option for people on the new scheme to pay the same as those on the old scheme discriminating and against equal opportunities? Is it also not fair that an employee should not be expected to pay more than others of equal standing within a company? Thanks for any advice.

Thanks for the advice guys appreciated

Hi I understand that costs are not claimable when a claimant discontinues in then small claims track but what I am wondering is why? If your acting on your own there is still the time taken in research, preparation of documents etc So when a claimant decides to discontinue after messing you about should they not be liable to pay any costs to you

Right i didnt know it had to be notified I know they have to send you notice of arrears under the CCA to be able to enforce a debt One thing though and please dont think am trying to be funny here as im not but if you genuinely owe a company money whats wrong with them using an award to reduce your balance? Surely its a good thing that the amount you owe is reduced?

Claire if you owe Welcome Money they are quiet within their rights to put it towards reducing the balance you owe. Regardless of which account it was they are not going to give you the money direct when you owe them. If the refund is more than you owe then of course you would recieve the difference Not trying to be harsh as we would all like to receive refunds but they are within their rights to do as they have said.

The credit scores sold by CRA's are just a guide as to where you stand in the credit structure. Each company has their own criteria they request you meet regardless of what the CRA's say your score is. For example you apply for a loan with a so called score of 900 say one company rejects you another company accepts you. It is all down to as said before the criteria set by the individual company.Granted credit scores give you an indication of what your worthiness is like but why pay the CRA's extra to find this out? Surely you can see from looking at your credit report what may and may not go for/against any applications you may make!

Hi Has anyone received letters and emails from these people and other DCA's containing things such as: We will take money from your wages Bailifs will call and take goods from your home to 9 times the value of your debt Recovery agents will visit every address they have on file If so do not be taken in by them as they are breaching the majority of the OFT's Debt Collection Guidance and they cannot legally do what they state. No further action can be taken against you as suggested above unless a county court order is first obtained then non payment follows afterwards. Then they must have also issued you with a valid default notice before taking legal action in the first place. Where possible ignore them and deal with the original creditor as what these people will tell you is just not true and they un-neccesarily worry people for no reason. On that NDR and other DCA's seem to think they can carry on getting away with providing incorrect information and harassing people in anway they can. The first link is for the OFT's Debt Collection Guidance so you can see what a collection agency should and should not be doing: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT664Rev.pdf The second is to the sticky within this section that gives you the form to make a complaint to the OFT. The more people that do so the better as they act upon mass complaints: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?195265-Complaining-to-the-OFT Finally the following link to find your local MP. Make a complaint to them over the practices you have experienced from certain DCA's and again the more they are made aware of this the more chance of something been done: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/ Do not let these people treat you like they think they can and get away with it. The bottom line is they cant and the more people that complain the better. USe the tools that are available and work towards bringing rogue companies into line.

If a DCA is acting on a creditors behalf they can issue a default notice on their behalf but it still has to be in the perscribed form as per the CCA. If they are only acting on behalf of Barclaycard then you will not have received a TN as the account is still open. If it is assigned you will receive notification of this then the creditor or the new owner will be responsible for the info.

Yes if it is issued afterwards then it is invalid as i said - if an account is closed a default cannot be issued afterwards

When a debt is transferred it becomes the legal right of the purchaser as discussed at begining of this thread. Between the 2 parties they have to agree who will maintain the info that goes on the credit file, only one can do it not both. Although the account may become closed with the original creditor it remains live with the pruchaser. What i meant by if an account is closed is if a creditor completely closes an account doesnt transfer the rights just closes it then a default notice cannot be issued afterwards as there is no longer an account to do so. If the default notice mercers have issued is faulty then they currently hold no right to take legal action against you and if they did you could defend in full. What they can do is rectify the default notice then proceed against you.

Another question i have about the Carey case. Now have established that it relates to a creditor can give a reconstitued agreement under Setion 77/78 but what about when the case is going to court. Does CPR 31.14 still apply in the inspection of documents as i dare say creditors will try getting around it with the above, but not to provide you with the information they rely on is preventing you from properly defending your case is it not?

I think the argument with the CRA's is that if it is a DCA that searches your file you have given them permsiion as mentioned in previous posts. Its my personal view that only the orignal creditor should be allowed to do so no DCA or solictor should hold the right, but thats just my view and by law they do As for the info appearing on file etc they seem to have a cut and paste answer of each of our clients signs up to strict policies blah blah basically meaning the CRA's take the creditors word as gospel as they have signed up to these so called conditions. I have asked before what happens to the the creditors who it is proved have entered information in breach of the DPA and of course they refused to answer. They hold too much power of peoples data and that one wrong piece of info can really bugger somone up. As for the CRA's selling info and passing it on i too would like to know who gives them permssion

Yes i went through court with that argument rdm If an account is closed then no a default cannot be issued afterwards. However if they terminate the account on the back of a dodgy default, they in fact lost the right to terminate or take you to court etc so they account goes back to its live state. They can then issue a further correct default against you

Yes you are probably right there but you get people now who will try and ride out the 6 years then it will be statute barred! You will always get those people! The creditor is quite entitled to take those who will not pay to court therefore securing the full sum and the consumer loses the opportunity of a discount. Those who genuinely cant afford to pay, keep in contact with creditors and can prove their financial standing should receive such offers. It is easy for a company to differentiate between who is ignoring them and who is in genuine hardship. But as said before creditors will not entertain the fact but maybe should be forced to. Its a case of differentiating the non payers from those in hardship - its not hard for them to do.

Now i understand the Carey ruling more, i took it as the courts were allowing creditors to enforce agreements in court without been able to provide the correct documentation or recons Thats the agreement side covered what about default notices? Is it still the case that to terminate, take further action etc a vlaid notice must have been supplied? We see no end of people complaining about default entries been registered on file without ever recalling reveiving one or the creditor been able to send a copy. Then it is much more harder for the consumer to get the info removed than it is for a creditor to place it there. Again my point of the balance been weighed in the creditors favour. Thanks

Dadofholly they are not all personal views some are interpretations, if people want to correct that those are incorrect than so be it, it will be taken on board to better understand things But as far as some go they do this with complete arrogance and there is no need really, it is more than one over that course of these posts that have picked up on it too. Nether the less enough said on that. If everyone goes baack to the first 10 posts you will see how far this has steered away from what i was getting at. The fairness of how consumers are treat by creditors and DCA's , the easy ride creditors seem to have been given due to recent cases and it all seems to be sliding in favour of the creditors. If this is the case why not do away with the CCA and not have any regulations at all. What i do find interesting is rdm2006 posted above, if this is the case then how were the courts allowed to go against it? I understand all decisions in the higher courts are binding on the lower courts and so forth but if there is staute there to start with why is not followed. Why are judges allowed to go along changing things willy nilly. Yes they have power but law is law and even above judges. And its rdm's post i refer to before people start going on one