Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Dragonlaird

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. An interesting topic for me as I just read this in the CAG mailshot. As most people do, I skim these mailings "in case" there is something interesting/useful then move on to more pressing emails like the usual spam for increasing the size of my manhoo... erm bank account. This one surprised me as I've been a subscriber of Experian's Credit Expert for quite a while now. Like many people, I rarely read the T&Cs of a reputable(?) company when I agree to a *FREE* trial and I provided my credit card details as requested (over SSL - remember, they're reputable) to
  2. Firstly, being paid by dividends is nothing new, this is a way to help minimise tax payments but not avoid them completely. this is a trick often used by contractors, directors and high wage earner. The full amount of dividends paid still needs to be declared to HMRC. A common trick by absent parents who are paid this way is to delay being paid their dividends for a few months so they do not appear on pay slips etc however, they still appear on a P60 (I believe BICBW). If you were married previously, did you have a joint bank account? If so, you could provide bank statements with his previous
  3. The basic rule of thumb for the CSA when calculating payments is: 15% Net Pay for 1 child, 20% for 2 children and 25% for 3 or more. This is for children whom you pay maintenance for via the CSA. Any monies received should be split equally between the children and paid to the parent(s) with care although this ratio can change depending on the children's ages. It would be common sense (sadly not a quality often demonstrated by some of the CSA 'advisers') that the total amount of maintenance you should be expected to pay for 2 children is 20%, even though one of them is being supported directly,
  4. You can ask the CSA to request a review of circumstances with regards to eligibility. I was lucky when a similar thing happened to me and the advisor explained this was an option. It can take up to month to complete (mine took around 2 weeks) as they have to request a check on CHB eligibility which may in itself cause CHB to investigate such eligibility if sufficient cause or suspicion is evident. I did this over the phone to CSA but you can also request this in writing and perhaps include copies of any such social network postings as supporting examples causing the concern although these
  5. I've tried watching it *yawn* and I can't seem to find her, I confess I've left it playing so I could hear it when I was making a coffee (several actually to keep me awake, the old-boys network really do drone on) but apart from an independant called June, I didn't hear another woman speaking - any tips to narrow down where the snippet is? 60% is a little vague and I'm sure I've gone over that area a few times now.
  6. I agree fully sillygirl1, I still have no idea how much I'm supposed to owe for my CSA debt, despite many calls to the CSA asking for statements and asking for confirmation that their 'accidental' court action has been fully expunged and the 2 court orders lifted. If they had to produce this sort of information to the courts when applying for the order or had been instructed to seek alternate methods of re-imbursement, they may have actually checked their own records and found the debt was actually being paid in a timely, agreed manner and that they had made a mistake even considering leg
  7. Incidently, whilst the above story is purely fictional, it still raises a couple of salient points. Such as why aren't these companies made to produce evidence of their costs? Shouldn't our solicitors/lawyers/barristers be asking for this to make these people justify/earn their money? Why do they always seem to attend court heavy-handed? Is it to incur more court-costs to hopefully pass on to the individual?
  8. A little light-hearted look at a serious hypothetical situation - A little long since it is a short story but wouldn't it be nice if something like this actually happened? Mr Smith owed a debt and as so often happens, things seemed to get away from him and before long they began to spiral out of control. His creditors had a policy for such debts which was automated by their accounts system. As soon as X payments were missed or the figure rose above a certain amount the debt was passed off to a debt collection agency to recoup their losses. Not an uncommon practice in business these days.
  9. The CEO mentioned she had 2 people working full time on that specific case (very doubtful given the number of cases they deal with) and that the costs incurred were as a result of this. Since the amount for the charges had already been told to the couple upon their first arrival at the premises, does this mean Sherforce automatically assign 2 highly-paid people to every case, full time for every case they deal with? If this is so, they must have a very large, highly qualified and skilled workforce. After all, this case was like any other they handle until the couple fought back. So my que
  10. Damn you hallowitch, stealing my thunder That was the point I was trying to make and not only did you beat me to it, you said it better than me and went even further lol
  11. Maybe Sky have sold you the box making it your property, but if you have had it less than a year then you are still under contract to keep the box on your premises and connected to your phone line - A fairly minor point given the values concerned I'm just trying to follow up on a couple of points already mentioned in this thread (by hallowitch & PT above) where only individual items items listed on the Levy can be lifted and that the value of these goods must cover their fees and a substantial part of the debt owed. If we can scratch off some of those items listed you may be in a position
  12. Hi, just a quick question that maybe others can answer. Since I'm a cable customer I'm not sure how Sky works but for me, the box installed at my premises belongs to them, not me. If I were to cancel my contract with them, they take away the box. Does Sky have a similar setup? If so, that's another item you can scratch off the list.
  13. I suspect that would contravene a huge number of laws if it was used today hallowitch, even more-so in Scotland since we not only have British and European laws to adhere to but Scottish laws too. The courts would be overrun with complaints. Imagine the embarassment. I wonder if the papers also had to print retractions when warrants were issued in error since I doubt this practice is a recent trend.
  14. Good points PT, another point the CEO glossed over/ignored... In the interview, the reporter mentioned the court order Sherforce to re-imbursed the couple. I can't recall if it was all funds or just the fees charged. The CEO was also heard to say at the end of their interview that they would always be seen in a bad light with these types of cases - Surely that should ring alarm bells for her? Doesn't her own words indicate they know they are doing some things wrong? Shouldn't that prompt them to review their own practices and ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again? Time they
  • Create New...