Leakie
-
Posts
945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Leakie
-
Thanks for moving thread Andy, was not sure where to post. Honeybee The only treatment he has been given is a mild antidepressant, also paraceatanol and Ibuprofen It has been diagnosed as Sinusitis , by the doctors, and we have been referred to a consultant, we are still wait to hear from the hospital, when his first appointment will be, we have been wait for 6 weeks now to get a date. so no formal diagnosis until we see the consultant. BazzaS I have been told we will be cautioned at the start of the meeting, so assume it will be an interview under caution, so if they decide, my son is not genuinely Ill it would proceed further. The school have been putting his absent as authorised absence, But the letter we received have put it down as 1 month unauthorised, between March 3rd - April 3rd 12 sessions 0 attendance. Easter was in between. The above has sent the alarm bells ring, I can not prove his illness until he gets to see a consultant, even then he may have recovered by that time,(have been told it could be June or July before seen) I will ask to record for my reference. Thanks Leakie
-
Thanks for your input DB
-
Grumpy if they had a £20000 car they probably have more assets but some one on the bread line would only have a car of the value of say £800, and would need the car to get to work, no work no more money. so what would you do different, if at all.
-
DB I have PM'd you Sorry Harry for hijacking Leakie
-
Hi Harry I can not add to what Lookinforinfo has said. With regards to the Ltd company, may be worth winding up if things are that bad, you could always set up again, when you are in a better position, But if you do get good professional advise first. Leakie
-
Hi all Background My 12 year old son has a condition called Sinusitis. This is where he has severe Head aches, in the morning, gradually decreasing through out the day. He has been off since late January. He has been for a M R I scan to check his brain, all came back clear. So now it has been referred too County, Missing Education and Child Employment department. We have a meeting scheduled,on May 9th. 1- Has anyone been through one of these meetings and can Offer advise. 2- I have been informed that at the start of the meeting, We will be cautioned, 3- Do I have to accept this caution, ( I assume this is a caution the Police use ) 4- Would it be prudent to Record the meeting, either covertly or in the open. I would appreciate any advise as I have a feeling we will be stitched up. all I want is a resolution, and help for my son. Leakie
-
Thanks BA I thought that may be the case, So if the value of goods will not cover this then it should be sent back to the creditor? The second part was meant to be linked to the first, as in I assume that they should take Sale fee and storage into consideration , before removal, or can they threaten this as leverage for payment. I am only trying to high light this I do not know BN I'm unfortunately involved with Newlyns But it would not surprise me where Equita are concerned.
-
Hi Harry I will stick up for Grumpy, He has given some valued advice on this forum. I have issues with Bailiffs or EA's as well. He is only putting it across from his point of view, I have been on this forum a few years now and you do not hear what you want all of the time, Learn from what is being said, not just from one poster, and come to your own conclusion. After all it is a Self Help Forum please do not think this is a dig at you either. Leakie
-
BA What happens if they take the goods for sale and there is not enough to cover the debt, is it the same as before, that they need to claim X 6 value of goods to cover what is owed. And can they still charge the sale stage and storage,?
-
Notice of enforcement
Leakie replied to Leakie's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
Good point PT -
Notice of enforcement
Leakie replied to Leakie's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
Thank you MM2002 you have put my point in a more knowledgeable way. It should not be down to the Debtor to prove something that can always be proved -
Notice of enforcement
Leakie replied to Leakie's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
No Problem It is not me who is being condescending, to posters I am open to opinion others are not May be you should have directed your comment to the other poster not just to my self!!!!! -
Notice of enforcement
Leakie replied to Leakie's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
Thanks BA This is what I am trying to bring to light. You can not prove some thing that has not happened. it should be down too the EA company too prove it was sent. It may cut there profit. but at the moment they just add the extra £235. so have not lost, unless they do not enforce. DB I do not care if this is the law, some times the people who make the law have an agenda, I did respect your opinion, but your attitude stinks, Sorry to be so blunt , but may be the reason not so many OP's is because of attitudes like yours Chill pill DB -
Notice of enforcement
Leakie replied to Leakie's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
Thanks once again BA My problem with this is, if it was not sent, or sent to the wrong address, and we know this can happen, the debtor would not have been able to seek an agreement.(which I thought was the idea behind the regs) then is hit with another charge(£235) The debtor can not prove that they had not received the original correspondence. I agree it could have complications, (Registered post) but at least it could be used to take in to account, of when the debtor knew about enforcement. -
DB Of course that is there job but the title says non Debtor Grumpy yes I can imagine this is the case is one of the EA,s tactics too take into control of a vehicle on the drive, that may not be the debtor's just to put pressure on them to pay? And are there any checks done before the is a levy on said vehicle.
-
Thanks BA But is it too make it easier for the powers too be, It would save a lot of problems if a warrant was given to the Debtor, even if it was only a copy, At least they would be able to check it out. Just because it is in TCE it does not mean it is the right thing to do, as they say some times the law is an Ass
-
Thanks BA and I appreciate, you have posted this before. But what is the reason for the above, apart from making it easier for the everyone but the Debtor. It is not necessarily known by every one who is in this position. If I had not been informed of this I would have may be not believed the person knocking at the door if you are not aware of the debt.
-
Notice of enforcement
Leakie replied to Leakie's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
Thanks for the replies. It just made sense to me, if this was done then there could be no dispute, It just seems to be a bit one sided against the debtor when mistakes are made, As a lot of posters know there as some companies do not follow the rules , and seem to get away with it ! Grumpy I do understand there is a lot of work done beforehand just seems to be a bit one sided. -
I am not trying too find a loophole, just something that has come up in threads
-
I am not sure, this is why I am asking. As soon as some one else is involved then they will know about the warrant. and as the EA will not speak to anyone else apart from the debtor, as soon as they have enforced, on some one else's property, they become involved, As we know the V5C is not proof of ownership
-
But as I have said is it not a breach of the DPA
-
Sorry for bring this up again If the vehicle is not owned by the debtor, and is clamped or towed. then surely this is a breach of Data protection, as some one who is not the debtor will find out about the warrant?
-
If the EA company is charging £75 just for sending a letter, why can they not sent the notice registered post, and have proof when this was received, rather than assuming, the debtor has received it ?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS