Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Donel261

  1. This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. Hi, Hi, Currently rent a two-bedroom flat for £612 per month. The property is with a registered social landlord under their intermediate rent scheme/homebuy. 20% cheaper market rents to help people who want to save for a mortgage in the future. The property I occupy is not for sale so I have made no committment to buy it nor did they do any checks to actually ensure I am saving for a mortgage. However, my worry is I am probably going to loose my job in the New Year, well its highly likely. I'm worried that I am going to be homeless as the RSL will serve notice on me. I'm on an AST, does anyone know if the rules are different because its an intermediate rent property - could they say I no longer meet the criteria? which hardly seems, fair, you would think it makes more sense to keep a good tenant, let him claim housing benefit for a couple of months whilst he tries and get himself back on his feet. Then saying that as I an under occupying they probably wouldnt pay full HB anyway so I would probably have a shortfall. Any advice on this type of thing is greatly appreciated.
  3. Hi all, I'm a bit confused about my credit report. I asked for my credit score from experian in April 2010 and it came back as 700. At he beginning on July a CCJ reached six years and has dissappeared. I then asked for my credit score again and it came back as 670, which is worse than before. I have a notice of correction on a search whilst they look in to it and I am slightly over my credit limit on two accounts, which will rectify itself when they update the credit report this month. Other than that, all my accounts are paid on time all the time. Any idea, what's going on? why is my credit report worse than before and when will it correct itself? even though those two accounts are now in order will it be something like 12 months before the credit score improves? confused.com :-?
  4. Hi all, I am hopin you can either give me some advice or point me in the right direction. I am trying to help my mother sort out her debts. She owes lloyds Bank £3542 from a loan she took out in 1996. (I think she only borrowed around £1500 to start with but interest has been accruing for years as she went through a period of not paying it at all). Anyway, about a year ago she gave in to their harrassment and started paying them £5.00 a month. She has maintained the agreement for over a year but now they have said she has been on the scheme for the maximum time, interest is restarting and they want £100 per month. In a nut shell, she is on a low income and living hand to mouth after essential bills are paid. She cannot pay what is being asked of her. If they carried on suspending interest she would be able to up the payments to about £15.00 per month but they are having non of it. Where does she stand? - he only option is to tell them to go and sing for the money and wait 6 years for it to become statute barred and come off her credit report. Which may be the best option as (1) she cant afford to repay it and (2) her minimum payments will probably need to be continued until the day she dies, with money still being owed. Anything you can advise would be helpful. Cheers
  5. Thanks guys, the letters have been sent off recorded delivery today (from my mother) so there should be no problems with them replying. I will let you know when I get a response.
  6. Hi, I am trying to help my mother sort out her financial problems. She has been unwell and had burried her head in the sand for a long time. She is receiving mountains of letters from these three companies about different debts. I have checked her credit report and none of them are listed, she recalls having various credit cards and things up to 10 years ago, but certainly not within the last 6 years. I have emailed the three companies explaining the distress this is causing my mother, she has bags of letters at her home. I have said the debts are all statute barred and they should therefore not be chasing them. I have asked for an apology and confirmation the matter is closed within the next 10 days (wishful thinking!) and I have copied in the enquiries mailbox at the OFT. Any advice you can offer is greatly received.
  7. Does a letting agent have to give you your deposit back within a set time? I moved out of my tenancy two weeks ago and now they are ignoring me. They keep saying they will look in to it and call me back and are not replying to my e-mails. They said in their letter that they would check the inventory when I left and subject to the property being left in a clean condition and there being no damage that it would be transferred by BACS. All I am trying to get them to tell me is when I am 'likely' to get it back, I am not demanding it today albeit it would be nice. It would seem they are not so customer friendly when your not wanting to take on one of their properties.
  8. They have said they will renew the tenancy but want the full six months in advance, which i simply can't afford. I have emailed them and said I wanted to pay monthly and would be willing to pay 1 month in advance (they already have a deposit and 1 months rent when I first took on the tenancy). Looks like its homelessness for me if i can't find another tenancy who will accept me by the beginning of december. The damn ccj gets deleted next year - thank god!
  9. Hi, I am hoping someone will be able to provide me with some advice on my housing situation. In June 2009 I took on a private tenancy with a letting agent, the tenancy is for 6 Months. Because of my poor credit record (I have a CCJ which expired Jun 2010 but all other bills are paid on time and have been for Years) I had to pay the six months rent in advance. The tenancy ends in December but I would like to extend it, I have kept the property in perfect condition and would have no problems paying the rent but I am presuming that the letting agent will require me to apply again and sign a new tenancy agreement which will include credit checks and the likes of.... I don't have the money to pay six months in advance this time, I could probably stretch to two but do you think this will be a big problem or that I could loose the tenancy? I have nowhere else to go and this is really worrying me, I also don't have anyone who could be a guarantor - my credit record will be fully repaired in June 2010 when I shouldn't have this problem. I presume I will be issued with a section 21 soon as it's near on the 4th month, what should I do? HELP PLEASE
  10. Hi Poochball, did you ever find out which credit reference agency they used? the property I wanted was snapped up before I could apply but another one has come up so going to try.
  11. Its not particularly complex, don't worry - I have ranted on a bit but thats just my irritation with local authorities trying to shun their duties until the person is actually roofless. They have accepted a full duty to you, thats the hard part over - they now need to make you an offer which takes into consideration your needs, support networks etc. You need to be realistic with the offer you receive, they can't give you something they haven't got - they can also assist you find another private sector rental but they cannot discharge their duty to you (as its an assured shorthold tenancy) unless you agree to it. If they offer you temporary accommodation, or you want it - then take it. Don't make any spur of the moment decisions, think things through first. I see so many people refusing offers, which is after all accommodation of last resort, as they don't like them and then they end up with nothing following the review as the council have done everything they are supposed to do. I wish you well, read the code of guidance - all will be explained. Who would have thought you have to go through this just to ensure you know your rights. I am no expert but do work in the field, you always have shelter on your side if you are unsure of anything.
  12. Sorry, forgot to mention. It does not matter that the council have transferred their stock to a housing association - the housing association still accept the duty to re-house you using that stock, the council retains nomination rights on all registered social landlord properties. I.e. you will get re-housed by the housing association.
  13. Here is the homeless code of guidance that all UK councils should be working too - it is effectively the rule book in plain english for housing officers to follow: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/152056.pdf The problem with housing officers, especially is small boroughs is that they are not up to date with current legislation and case law. They tend to make decisions, like, 'you need to stay at the property until evicted' because that is what they have always done it and not been challenged. I would strongly advise you NOT to give notice or surrender the property back to the landlord as the housing officer may try and use some sort of lame intentionallity arguement to shun the councils duties. I would however have an open and frank discussion regarding your options and what the authority propose to do. Explain that they are effectively forcing the landlord to go to court and get a warrant against you, which will force you to leave and leave you incurring costs (around 150 pound) and that decision is unlawful (the aweys case is relatively new so they may not be aware of it, if they don't that is not your issue - all councils have a legal services department they can call on for advice.) The question is why should you pay the court costs when the council have accepted a full S.193 duty to you as a homeless person? by doing so they have accepted you as homeless and put that decision in writting so technically they have also accepted that whilst you may have accommodation, it is not reasonable for you to continue to reside there for one more day (if they thought it was, they would have accepted the lesser S.195 'threatened with homelessness' duty), which you say they have not. In terms of temporary accommodation, councils often harp on that they have limited resources. Irrespective of that, it is a duty of every authority to comply with the law and ensure your legal right to temporary accommodation is honoured. What arrangements are you making for your furniture when the bailiffs come knocking to kick you out? has the housing officer discussed his/her duty to ensure that arrangements are made to protect your belongings? It all seems very lame to me, they may be a small council but they are still obliged to follow the same law as the biggest - they cannot say sod off to Newcastle as we have no properties or force you to stay in a property pending the bailiffs turning up to turf you out - not only is it unlawful but it is plain wrong to treat vulnerable people in this way. Read the code of guidance (above) Chapter 7, Chapter 14 (the difference between being threatened with homeless or accepted as homeless) and Chapter 17 - you will know more than the housing officer by the time you meet them, they should already know it. If they mess you around, know your rights, contact shelter or a solicitor specialising in homelessness/housing/public law: The Law Society - Find a solicitor
  14. Same here, mine was for 2500 - should find out in the week (Fingers crossed )
  15. Have the authority accepted that you are 'homeless' or 'threatened with homelessness'? (you will need to read you letter) If they have accepted that you are 'threatened with homelessness' then they are duty bound to ensure that accommodation does not cease to become available to you. They normally do this by mediating with excluders/landlords, resolving housing benefit issues, looking at income maximisation and discretionary rent payments to get your landlord to agree another term of residence. As you say, your S.21 is yet to expire and the authority have adeqate time to try and resolve the situation, albeit most don't bother and just let the tenancy run its course in the hope that they can secure you an offer of accomodation before you become roofless. If they have accepted you as 'homeless' then they are accepting that it is not reasonable for you to continue to occupy your current accommodation. You may want to stay there but technically you don't have too and they are duty bound to provide you with temporary accommodation NOW until a permanent offer is made. This has been covered in the court of appeal, it also applies to ALL councils - see link here ---> ://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/48.html - if the authority force you to stay at the property until an eviction warrant is served you should be warned that you are likely to incur the costs - the council cannot insist on this being done, if they are, they are acting unlawfully as per the above caselaw and I would seek the advice of a local law firm quoting the aweys judgement. I would certainly be clarifying whether the council are going to pay the court costs on your behalf? There is an article on it here :Housed: Adding a Local Authority as a party to costs. I know this doesnt answer how long you will be waiting for an offer but thought you should know. Good luck!
  16. Hi, Glad it worked out for you. I am in the process of going through a 'rentchecks' pre-tenancy vetting and paying 117 for the pleasure. I have a similar situation to yours, 1 CCJ on my file which is fully paid and removed from my file in a year and a half, I also don't have a guarantor if they ask for one. I know I have a poor credit rating because of the one CCJ but have managed my finances well for some years now. Did the estate agent give you any feedback or did they just say you had passed and did you declare the CCJ you had? I really want the property I have seen but am worried the blasted credit check will spoil everything
  17. I am currently doing the job of three managers and having to deal with their respective staff. I have no control over those people as I have been totally disempowered by my own managers to make any sort of decision and as such I am in daily conflict with a legitimatly undervalued and stressed workforce of 50 staff who see me as the enemy because I am relaying orders from my own bosses who have no wish to speak to the staff directly and justify the decisions (i.e. leave is cancelled for 3 months, we will have one person doing the job of 3 etc). I have now resorted to being open and honest with the staff and telling them, I am but the messenger and I can not change the situation. Its lame but its the only way to survive and it is absolutely true!! Anyway, I am now on the verge of going off sick, in fact I am postitive I need too. I dred going to work , in fact I feel sick at the thought of it and I feel like bursting into tears when having the most basic of conversations with my staff, I am booking an appointment to see my doctor on Monday as I am really worried. I want to write a letter to my employers telling them how I feel and why I feel that way but I am really concerned that doing that will turn me into public enemy number 1, three tiers of management above me will turn and try to screw me over for causing them problems. Is there any advice anyone can give, on top of whats already happening and making me ill, I am going to enter into a war with people who are truly cunning and sly and willing to take no prisoners to further their careers. Help!!
  18. I started my thread on the 19th August 2006 and am no further forward with Cabot or the dispute. It is therefore with regret that I have to notify you that I have reached a 'full and final' with them and am giving up. I will have to suffer the default being on my credit file but I need to move on with my life, I have become so bored of arguing with them when you are clearly banging your head against a large brick wall. I think Cabot are an absolute shower of ****'s and I wish you all the very best of luck in your dealings with them. To conclude this thread, the advice from my local trading standards department is that only a court can decide on the claims Cabot make and the documents have provided to date and only the information commissioner can deal with the issue of default entries on credit files. Cabot are well within their rights to issue a statutory demand for payment and in summary, they have said you should pay up. As I said, all the best....
  19. Hello, I need some advice regarding my brothers account with Lloyds Bank. He is unemployed and relies on state benefits. He has asphergers syndrome and doesnt understand his account and needs the families help with formal matters. He manages his finances with the little he has and doesn't have an overdraft. For whatever reason he keeps going overdrawn, sometimes by one pound or less. They then keep firing a 29 pound charge on to the account and he ends up having no money from his benefits and gets really distressed because he doesnt understand what is happening. We keep going into the branch to try and get it waived for him and that is an ordeal itself Is there anything I can do to stop this happening? Any help you can provide is desperatlely needed!!!
  20. No update from me at the moment, trading standards still investigating, they are just scrutinising all my documents and correspondence so far. Will let you know when I hear anything. P.S. The threads seem to have changed (may be my computer) but I dont like them
  21. Response: Dear Donel261, Thank you for your email concerning the above named trader. Your case number for this is WM-CC-, which should be quoted in any future contact about this issue. As your enquiry is rather complicated, and you have made concerted efforts to resolve, we have passed it on to Trading Standards for them to action. Furthermore the issues you have raised potentially contravene the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and also section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act. I would expect them to contact you within seven working days to move matters forward. If the matter becomes urgent and Trading Standards have not yet contacted you, you are free to pay a personal visit to their Consumer Centre on 155-157 Corporation Street / 0121 3036031. Please bring with you any supporting paperwork if you do decide on this course of action Regards, Ciaron Consumer DirectWest Midlands Tel: 08454 04 05 06 Web: www.consumerdirect.gov.uk This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information. Data Protection: Consumer Direct is run by the Office of Fair Trading. Unless otherwise requested we may pass the information you have provided to us to a Trading Standards Service or other partner organisation (as described in our full Privacy Policy), in order for them to address the problem you have encountered. They may contact you about the problem. Our full Privacy Policy can be viewed athttp:/www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/privacy.shtml
  22. Letter from Dean Spencer saying he is seeking advice from his client, good luck! - they are unreasonable so and so's and will not see sense no matter what advice they receive.
  23. Hi there, I have had a shot at doing the affadavid supporting the claim to have it set aside. I have tried to get bits from other posts, what do you think? :-| (paragraphs are seperated on the claim form, just copied over like this) © Insert one of the 8 following alternatives or if none of them are applicable state grounds on which you consider the statutory demand should be set aside (1) "Do not admit the debt because…" [here state grounds] or (2) "Admit the debt but not that it is payable immediately" [state reason], or (3) "Admit the debt as to £ , and that this is payable but that the remainder is not immediately payable. I am prepared to pay the amount of £ immediately" [state reason], or (4) "Admit the debt and am prepared to secure or compound for it to the creditor’s satisfaction by …" [state nature of satisfaction], or (5) "Say that the debt is a secured debt" [give full details of security and its value], or (6) "Have a counter-claim (or set-off or cross demand) for £ being a sum equal to (or exceeding) the claim in respect of" [here state grounds of counterclaim etc.], or 2. That I do not admit the debt and that there is a substantial dispute about the money alleged to be owed. Furthermore the claimant and his acting solicitor both knew the debt was disputed before they served this statutory demand. A request was made to the claimant under S.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to obtain a true copy of the executed credit agreement that the claim refers to. In return I received a copy of an application form which the claimaint also now provides with his statutory demand. You will see that the application form is furthernore not legible and impossible and hard for me or anyone else to read or decipher. You will also note it is not signed by the original creditor, which is a requirement under the Act. I contend that this alleged agreement is merly a precontractual document, and is void by section 59(1) of the consumer credit act 1974. Consequently, no copy of the credit agreement has been furnished, and the claimant is precluded from enforcing any alleged debt by virtue of section 78(6) of the consumer credit act 1974. If the court should decide that the alleged credit agreement is, however, not void by virtue of S.59(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the defendant avers that the application form served is rendered unenforceable and unexecuted under S.61 and S.173 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The court is no doubt aware that under schedule 3, section 11 of the consumer credit act 2006, those sections of the consumer credit act 1974 otherwise repealed by section 15 of the consumer credit act 2006 remain in force. I therefore aver that ther alleged agreement is rendered unenforceable by the lack of prescribed terms as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Sections 61 and Section 127. The prescribed terms required are as follows : (i) Repayments A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following- (a) Number of repayments; (b) Amount of repayments; © Frequency and timing of repayments; (d) Dates of repayments; (e) The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable. (ii) Rate of interest A term stating the rate of interest to be applied to the credit issued under the agreement (iii) D Credit limit This may be a term or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit. Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act specifically cites that an "agreement is not properly executed unless (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, " The claimant has also placed a default notice on my credit reference file irrespective of me never receiving such notification from any company regarding this matter. Accordingly I put the Claimant to strict proof that every charge and collection charge made to the account was valid and lawful. I aver that any default notice sent should have and would have included these charges. I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice alleged to have been sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach. If the claimant sent a default notice that includes unlawful charges, this default notice is invalid under English law for the reason that it is inaccurate and so the claimant may not seek to enforce this debt. The claimant alleges to have purchased this account whilst acting as a company known as Kings Hill No.1 Limited without first checking the legal status of the debt, or that the sum they sought was actually owed by me. No documentation that the claimaint has a legal right to enforce this debt have every been seen by me or offered by the claimaint. However, to the contrary 'Barclaycard', who the claimaint alleges to have purchased the debt from have since come to an out of court settlement with me in respect of unlawful charges they applied to the account. The claimaint has been notified but flat refuses to recognise this, instead they demand payment of the full amount (which was never owed by me) and have also added interest of several hundred pounds to the account. There is a substantial dispute about the money alleged to be owed and I feel it would be extremely unfair to allow the claimaint to issue a statutory demand against me. This matter has been in dispute for over a year and I feel this case should be allowed to proceed to court so both sides can have a fair hearing and present our evidence and arguements. I believe the claimaint has purposly failed to comply with the rules and prejudiced me in the process. I find this statutory demand to be confusing to me as I cannot reasonably understand the true position between myself and the claimaint, they have never resolved the dispute that they have no legal right to demand this money and that they have not followed the correct process of assignment. They have never offered up a properly executed credit agreement or any other legal documents and they have never once sought to justify the claims they routinely make regarding them being excempt from the Consumer Credit Act 1978 and allowed to do as they please even though they are required to hold a licence under the same. There is also a bona fide dispute, which would bring the undisputed amount to below £750. I would also like to point out that the statutory demand has been dated 12th November 2007 by the claimaint however it was hand delivered to my address and placed into my letterbox (not to me!) on or around the 12th December 2007. I therefore consider this application to have it set aside to be valid and within the required timescales.
  24. Hi Rory, the first form is a little confusing but the second one is pretty self explanatory. I will state I do not admit the debt and then include the facts as outlined in the letter. Thanks for your help, very kind!
  • Create New...