Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hessey50

  1. Looks totally different to preview think last response answers but lets try this: Old car hp agreement properly terminated by section 99 notice "debt" sold on to various DCA On receipt of letters before action send copy notice and admission from lender they "chose to ignore" notice Nothing heard for a while then back to above now however its since 2009 that "debt" is supposed to have been accrued I think that while they could keep attempting to recover the non existent debt now having never ever acknowledged "debt" I can tell them that as it would be statute barred anyway I hav
  2. Just trying to get this clear in my head, old car purchase properly terminated via section 99 sold on to various DCA usually gets to letter before action send copy notice and lenders admission they ignored notice see you in court it goes away for goodly while has just resurfaced ( with massive discount on alleged amount) but it is now since 2009 when the first alleged debt was claimed. As I understand it all the time the DCA contacts me and to avoid going to court I respond saying I do not acknowledge debt here is proof they can keep passing it a
  3. "The court has issues a warrant to that address". The court issues civil warrants to a Person or Company at the address given by the plaintiff often the last known address if the person or company is not there repeat visits are not likely because it wastes the Bailiffs time and is against the collection protocols as in this case the Court has been advised by the Bailiffs superior that the address for service is incorrect and the matter has been returned to the plaintiff, the breach of collection guidelines is ongoing. Its not morality its law.
  4. I did a quick electoral roll check no trace of name and Court Bailiff admitted no checks are done to verify. As for Police turning up they are welcome, I probably will know them as a result of my work, they usually turn up at the wrong house because they miss read or dont see the right number not because PNC is inaccurate what got up my nose was this wasn't a cowboy but a court officer and the possible effect if there was a house share and another person or a landlord came round and read it when in fact it might not even be a valid claim. Made complaint to Court
  5. Came home and found a folded bit of paper in my porch thought its another flyer but before consigning to bin unfolded it and it was a note headed HM Courts and Tribunals Service xxxx Combined Court The Bailiff needs to serve you some paperwork please call the Bailiff to arrange service Name.....xxxxxxxxx........... If this person no longer lives here please advise the Court immediately Case Numberxxxxxxxxxx Big letters URGENT CONTACT REQUIRED xxxxxxxxxx Court Bailiff The person named has never lived at my address and is not on electoral roll and I have neve
  6. had a t/o gram from R&W re an hp agreement with welcome finance posted about this some years ago In short Welcome despite a clear VOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT UNDER S99/100 CCA 1974 attempted to claim this was a VS they chased for money themselves, themselves calling themselves Atlas and so on but eventually after being told shut up or put up gave up it surfaced occasionally as sold on but each time smartly put to bed I responded to R&W saying the y should read the file which they should have got from the vendor and realised there is no such
  7. will try and sort out redacted scan meanwhile surprise only a few seconds ago the calls to mobile from 03335565509 with no response on pick up have started its tracked as a Lowells number another to block, the land line has one of the super machines on it so they give up especially if they know "its recorded" If it was the shopacheck think its about four years since any contact will check credit agencies see what appears had rather a lot going on at the time but think during the take over the collector j ust stopped coming and I didnt rush to chase hi
  8. After lots of phone calls from Lowell , unanswered and begging letters some with special offers regarding what I think may be a doorstep loan poss shopacheck who were taken over I think by Morses who are the named original party. Now got a "letter of claim" from Lowell Solicitors who as Lowell Portfolio in house legal firm say they have been instructed to commence LEGAL ACTION and will issue a Claim at the CCBC without further notice to me. Then it sort of drifts a bit "If a claim is issued" and a long list of extras, fees and costs ( estimated) etc if I d
  9. from a bit of digging hmrc tax and vat definitely are not statute barred, Benefit overpayments should be dealt with within six years, Council tax /poll tax its six years max to obtain a liability order, but the liability order does not seem to have a sell by date. CSA I know chase debts well over 12 years
  10. Others will be more aware I am sure but as with the CSA and other Gov Depts I dont think the statue of limitations applies to debts against the Crown and it is clear that by effectively taking the"offence" out of the criminal into the civil (section 7A of the Vehicle Excise Registration Act 1994 and in the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing ) Regulations 2002) they avoid the six month rule however if a debt collection agency working for DVLA threatens to take to court for a criminal offence rather than suggesting as they do that civil action will be taken that would be a
  11. The fight not to show the mortality figures for those declared well enough to work who in a fit of clear petulance died just to prove the skilled assessors wrong says it all. The gov and its toady media trot out the few cases of people living a high lifestyle when claiming caught when surfing etc as the norm and push the image of welfare claimants as all scroungers when the bulk of claimants are pensioners and people working for the govs friends at such low wages they have to have their wages topped up. I was wondering if this top up could be regarded by the EU as an unlawful subsidy to UK fi
  12. The form says you can register at 16 but can't vote till 18 the form PCC send out says you must register or be fined and by registering you can vote!
  13. The vote bit is not my issue, personally I think if you don't vote you cant moan, its about a minor who cannot vote being forced to put her details on the electoral roll with the lie that this means she can vote.
  14. Spoke to electoral commission they say she must register or be fined if asked to register by local authority but again cant say why they lie on the form saying it means you can vote contacted mp
  15. Put this here as seems most likely place feel free to relocate: Query about the threatening letters being sent out to residents who are still minors by Elections at Portsmouth City Council filled my electoral roll form including daughter as she is just 16 in the section for this. They send her a form to require my daughter to register as it says on the form it will “mean you can vote at elections” No it does not! If she fails to register by 30/12/15 there is an £80 fine involved. When contacted the officer at Election Services had no idea of the legislation backing this threat up or
  16. Never had any of their insurance products, boy was that a struggle how hard they tried to imply they were mandatory without actually saying so, worse than trying to not buy an extended warranty on an electric stones out of horses hooves tool from Comet, and only had one fee of 10
  17. Just had a stack of paperwork from Hoist Portfolio 2 Holding Limited including "missed notices for my records" these are default notices for 3 years on an old welcome car finance account that I disputed on the grounds that it was not a repo which welcome were trying on but a lawful return ( wellcome ages ago admitted they "chose" to consider it a repo despite the formal notice served on them and gave up when told see you in court) Hoist have only recently bought the alleged Debt interesting they are retrospectively issuing notices. Their implication is that as these were
  18. No no "insurance" and the amount having dug the file out is what they tried to say was owing as "I had agreed to a vol re-possesion" they gave up on this after I provided poof of service of " The Company Secretary Welcome Finance, Dear Sir or Madam, Re: A/C NoXXXXXX in respect of Hire Purchase Agreement Fiat Panda XXXXXX As you have felt unable to accommodate me in the refinancing of the above account I regret that, since sufficient sums have been paid to enable me to do so without financial consequence, I have been advised by my colleagues in public protection to exercise my right
  19. Advised to start new thread so here we go long long ago in a nope wrong intro had a hp agreement with welcome car finance returned as allowed when over half way through all documentation sent correctly worded so not a voluntary repo no outstanding amounts then usualy attempts to claim it was told to put up or **** up no longer on credit file but then we startgetting letters from Robinson way on behalf of HPH2 ltd demanding payment still no credit file apart from a search record Robinson Way (Sr, R) Robinson Way Bsb ApiDebt Collection 25/08/2015
  20. I have had a long running issue with welcome finance over the return of a car no doubt at all the correct form of wording used ( my own co workers in legals services wrote it sent by acknowledged fax and admitted they had "chosen" to treat as vol surrender" ) as enough had been paid to return it finally having not produced when told to put up or shut up nothing on credit file then suddenly a search with the reason Debt Collection from robison way I owe them nothing any thoughts on this new approach to get money?
  21. Then they will simply say you have refused to supply the information they have asked for and you are legally required to do and stop any benefit. if as in my case there was no reason to ask for the data then complain to HMRC and your MP. CCM1170 - Overview: Enquiry and Information Powers Before coming to a decision at any of these points (if a claim being investigated is vald) , we are entitled to request from the customer and/or appropriate third parties, any information or evidence we need to arrive at that decision. The same enquiry and information powers cover a wide range of circ
  22. Well still no letter from HMRC with the substantive reply to issues of complaint due 19th March but Sat 21 in crept a letter from Concentrix, " thank you for your reply to our letter 24th Jan 2015 I have reviewed the information you gave us and do not need to amend your award" no name. Not a "we are sorry that without any evidence at all of any linkage with anyone else during the period of this claim we accused you of making a fraudulent claim and threatened to stop your Child Tax Credit and impose "penalties" on you, made you spend £45 to obtain and send documents that either dealt with eve
  23. Well MP was going to get "substantive reply by 4th march" to his complaint on my behalf now its 19th got my stuff sent back from Concentrix all mixed up and in partly torn envelope with a letter saying they will write soon, if nothing soon application to force decision seem sthe way to go.
  24. There is also the political agenda of: "public servants"not for profit properly trained BAD Outsourced to minimum wage paying unskilled profit making private company GOOD You would think that after the olympics ,the tagging, court interpreters and PFI walk aways the penny would drop but never let results get in the way of a good dogma. In passing the Indepenant article quoted HMRC stating "there had been amendments of 700million" amendments note not savings so they could of course be no real savings as some may have gone up and the amounts may have been minute and possibly this may b
  • Create New...