Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

350 Excellent

1 Follower

About robbie2009

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This was your post: 'They cannot send debt collectors to your house without a court order' - this isn't correct. They can send a doorstep collector, who would have no bailiff's powers. Also, continuous payment authorities are nasty, nasty things. Luckily there are steps being introduced to change how they work - the sooner the better.
  2. Please read up on 'continuous payment authorities'
  3. Yes, they can. Don't get debt collectors confused with bailiffs.
  4. DAN and DAF and their respective patter is hilarious. I haven't laughed as much as since when I heard about the IMA and DEMSA tie-up
  5. Never heard of 'em. They seem to be a commercial firm. I would ALWAYS seek independent advice via one of the charities than go straight to an IVA firm. National Debtline or the CAB would soon tell you if an IVA is a suitable option. They'll also ensure that you go with a provider that adheres to the IVA protocol.
  6. Yeah, sorry. Don't even know why I was writing about F&F's, I was a little confused there. A few things that still concern me: 1) The whole meeting of minds situation, I guess if the terms are clear enough then that should be met quite easily 2) Can a promissory estoppel argument be relied on at all? Only if the new offer is accepted and then rejected at a later stage (The whole shield, not a Sword thing). And wouldn't the above have similarities to the situation in High Trees House? Still strongly argue in favour of pro-rata payments BTW And wasn't Pinnel's ca
  7. Yup, 'the meeting of minds' is fundemental. Can I ask how your idea falls in with the decision found in Commissioners of the Inland Revenue v Fry? Er? Each creditor has to be offered a pro-rata payment. This is the only fair and reasonable way of doing it - which is what is precisely written into the determination of means guidelines that the courts use themselves. Also. Please remember that a F&F settlement is often not legally binding from a contractual standpoint due to the whole consideration argument. How does a promissory estoppel argument play into this idea?
  8. You might want to try Business Debtline on 0800 197 6026 http://www.bdl.org.uk
  9. You're right, it doesn't in most situations. This IS the hotel's mistake - and they should rectify it one way or another.
  10. This fact sheet will fill you in: http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=25_liability_for_debts_and_the_limitation_act
  11. Hello there. Is the web page still live? The first thing you must do is take a screen shot of the page. If the terms are not clear you should be able to challenge the hote. Have you considered running this by Trading Standards.
  12. Hello there. The £700 would be regarded as an asset and as such prevent your friend from meeting the DRO criteria - which states that the maximum they can hold in assets is £300. The same also applies for the personal injury cheque. Personal injury compensation payouts can revoke a DRO even up to 6 months after the initial 12 month moratorium period has ended. Payments to friends and family members would be regarded as preferential payments, this can cause serious problems also. Please ask your friend to discuss these issues in full with the CAB when they have their appoint. Calling Nati
  13. If the creditor was aware that the adress had changed then it would be an automatic set aside, authority for this is Akram v Adam [2004] EWCA Civ 1601. If the creditor had sent the claim to their last known address then a set aside is unlikely without a reasonable prospect to succeed - it's not automatic, you would need to convince the court. This thinking that a judgment will be automatically be set aside just because the original claim wasn't seen by the debtor simply isn't right. See CPR Part 13.
  • Create New...