Jump to content

Skankedbythebank

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

1 Follower

About Skankedbythebank

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I would like to second both the request, my girlfriend had Rossendales levy against a car on HP 2 years ago. Not worth it financially, but definitely on principle! And the praise for the people who plod away at 1.45am to help us! Can you go the full six years back?
  2. Has it been established whether entry was made? I can't see a definitive 'no' anywhere. Correct me if i'm wrong but, even if they have gained entry but have not levied / created an inventory then they can't break in can they? I thought they could only force entry to recover the goods on the WP or inventory.
  3. Sorry I don't know anything about bailiffs enforcing court fines. But £280 for one visit???????????? Anyone know if the fees could be correct or not? has mat2206 got grounds to challenge? BTW - mat2206. I once saw a program on Iranian state television challenging the UK's right to criticize the lack of freedom in Iran. One of their favorite arguments was that we had to have license for a TV set ! They would get extra mileage out of your story.
  4. I think Hallowitch is spot on. I would add, Pay the council online via the website because they will likely refuse to take the payment, though it doesn't hurt to ask (if you like banging your head against brick walls!) Please ask them to justify / break down the van fee. Post what they say here.
  5. Before goods are seized / levied on Surely a person can sell their goods e.g. vital computer, to a third party (friend, family ...), create date & sign the invoices and agreement. Get paid a nominal price (actually get paid by cheque of bank transfer) then hire the computer back for a nominal fee. Put a sticker on it saying "Do not remove. On Hire. Property of XXXXXXX. Item No XXXXXX. Tel 1010XXXXXX" Sorted! I know this works for Ltd Companies, there are (or at least were) companies that did this as a service (equipment purchase and lease back). I know it does
  6. HCE Hello, If someone runs a business from that computer i.e maintaining a website, receiving orders / issuing quotes via e-mail it would be protected as a tool of the trade?
  7. No i'm not being chased at the moment. I used to get one phone call per week (though i never spoke to them) and a nasty letter about once a month. I got some 'court action immanent' letters, then after requesting my documents / agreements in 2003, the activity dropped off until now i get at worst one letter every six months. In fact, the last one was so long ago i can't remember when it was.
  8. Thanks for that guys / girls. I hoped it was so, but i knew there were some complexities regarding Student Loans ant the limitation laws. Gezwee, I'm sure thier was something about being outside the CCA on my form. It must have been pre -1998. I think they were between '92 - '95 or maybe '96, definitely pre- 98 what do you recon? BTW - they never responded to my 2003 request to see the agreements.
  9. This is all very interesting. I started a thread on this in the debt section a few minutes ago is it statute barred?), i should have come here. I can contribute two points. 1) I have a memory for this kind of thing, and distinctly remember the phrase "this agreement falls out side the ??????? of the consumer credit act ????" at the top of the form. 2) I asked for my original loan agreements / copies back in 2003, no response, and the monthly threats decreased to (i Think) just one in the past few years. I know these loans got passed from, was it SLC to Nat West or the
  10. I took out a student loan circa 1995. I was entitled to deferment, due to low income but got sloppy and didn't file on time. They did the old "you have lost entitlement to defer, pay it all now...." routine. Way back in 2003 (the last time i contacted them) i wrote and asked how much i had borrowed, and when, because frankly i wouldn't have a clue!! Nothing came back for months. Even then it was just another pay all of it now or else its court action. Anyway, i've heard little since. I think they sent a standard "ring us to sort this out letter" a couple of years
  11. weeble That's quite interesting. I could see the article on Form 4's, were there any other areas you spotted. I particularly liked the Rossendales advert. "By the book" - proving that adverts can be reverse engineered to reveal the truth about the companies paying for them. You can just imagine the conversation with the add agency... Agency: So, what would you like this campaign to achieve? Rosndls: We would like to address the negative press we've recieved recently. Agency: Like what? Rosndls: The well documented disregard for the law and regulations by our bailiffs.
  12. If there is no enforceable levy in place you don't have to worry about any agreement you have made. They can't enforce an agreement, just act on the WP used as security. You don't have to answer the door. There are threads on here relating to the (unlawful) foot in door scenario. If you have to forcibly 'remove' his foot you could be in a your word against his scenario - remember he's done this before and swaps hints and tricks with his ****** colleagues.
  13. Ploddertom must be right about the HCEO, or there is no right to force entry. Surely it must be a CCJ not a Liability Order? Prison for a CCJ? sounds like this bailiff is desperate and trying it on. You need to supply more information. Unless Wino has got it right about the signatory / building trade thing you shouldn't be paying anything - never mind making arrangements.
×
×
  • Create New...