Cheers Philmpv,

 

It would be literally one installment of £50 and the rest in the next month, so perhaps there may be an outside chance.

Ask the question. The worst they can do is say no. Make sure you put it as a formal offer in writing, however, and retain a copy.

Make them the offer. I think it's unlikely though unless you can state that you will pay the whole £300 immediately upon acceptance of the offer, rather than by installments.

If Proceedings were served on the 17.6, then you'llfind it very diificult to set aside Judgment based on invalid service, based on the emails and letter disclosed above.

Given that they have Judgment, and Proceedings validly served, I can only advise you, when and if a repayment plan is agreed (it looks as though £5 a month is acceptable?), then get this, signed by both parties, in a formal Consent Order.

I am Unlucky, Papers served on the 17/06

Oh dear. Just seen this. Chin up pal

No address we was homeless and in temporary accommodation and they knew we were homeless as I clearly stated it in the email.

 

I have no problem with the £5 a month, but the fact they have a CCJ along with attachment of earnings

Didyou tell them the address ofyour temporary accomodation? If youmerely stated that you were 'homeless', then it's arguable that the Proceedings were validly served at your 'last known address'. That said, if they, by being advised that you were no longer at that property, and didn't take reasonable steps to either find a suitable alternative address or method of service (i.e. email), then you should be ok in applying to set aside Judgment.

From what you've said, and without knowing the exact circs (i.e contents of the email you refer to), my inclination would be to say that you have a reasonable chance of a successful application to set aside Judgment.

By the way Sully, I am a solicitor so any problems, just let me know and I'll do my best to help. That goes for anyone else who needs assistance also.

Amazingly I find that the CCJ is a Legal one and is registered with the courts, along with an attachment of earnings, also a Bailiff visit to our old address.

 

They do have our new address now.

 

But they also Knew we did not live at the address when they raised the court action, as I had an email on the 15/06 and replied on the 18/06 last year.

 

Judgment was made on the 14/07.

 

Surely that was wrong for them to do?

 

I know these firms always act underhanded,but I would of thought doing this is wrong in the eyes of the court if I could provide the proof

Hi. Sorry to hear about your problem.

The difficulty with cases likle this is that service of the Proceedings is valid provided that they were served at the Defendant's last known address. Did you tell them prior to service of the papers your new address? Find out the exact date that the papers were served (ring the Court) and, if it was after your email advising them of your change of address, you can apply for Judgment to be set aside on the basis of invalid service. If you are successful, then you can also apply at the same time for the claim to be struck out, as any papers must be served within 4 months of issue. If this is successful, then they would have to reissue Proceedings, provided that they are within the 6 year limitation period.

Hope this helps.

Hi there,

 

I have read some info on payday loans like PDUK QQ PDExpess but does anybody know what the problems or tips would be if you are not able to pay back cheque cashing loans like Harvey and Thomson, Cash converters or Money shop.

 

Thanks in advance!

Hi. I also have had this type of loan in the past. Essentially, it's not much different from online payday loans.

The cheques will bounce if there is insufficient funds in your account (unless you used a guarantee card, in which case your bank will cover up to two cheques or just one, depending on your bank), and then refuse to honour the rest). Your bank will then charge you for the dishonoured cheques, and you will get phone calls and emails from H&T demanding payment, making threats etc. Do as you usually would, and try to come to a payment agreement with them. They will usually accept a reasonable offer of staged payments.

Hi people,

Just thought I'd share my own experience of PTP and, particularly, of Mr Gerry McGuire, that seemingly well-loved () PTP 'account manager'.

As per the norm, I got into a bit of bother with the vicious circle of payday loans with various companies, ending up borrowing more to pay off the o/s loans on a monthly basis. And so on. You know how it goes.

Anyway, I was lucky enough to have support and financial assistance from my father, who has helped me out of a very sticky situation. My father agreed to clear the payday loans, with me paying him back on a monthly basis until such a time as all the money he laid out was paid back.

All was fine and dandy, with my father ringing the various companies involved and paying the debts personally. Until he encountered PTP! They refused to talk to him quoting data protection. They contacted me, demanding payment, to which I replied that my father would be making payment on my behalf, had authority to do so, etc.

About 5 chasing 'standard' emails demanding payment later (clearly ignoring my email concerning payment from my father), I got a lovely email from Mr McGuire, again demanding payment, failure to do so would result in the debt being 'passed to door-to-door collectors'.

Being a solicitor (yes, even they can get into crap financially!), this veiled but pointless threat did not concern me. I reiterated the offer of payment, in full, via my father. They only had to contact him, whereby he would be happy to make payment. Mr McGuire was not satisfied with this, stating that the Data Protection Act prevented third party payments and, also and in any event, it was not 'company policy' to accept third party payment.

Again, I pointed out:

1. That the DPA certainly did not prevent third party payments and, if this argument was to be maintained, to specify the exact section that he purported to rely upon; and

2. That I couldn't give a stuff what their company policy was. If they wanted payment, in full, the offer was there. If their 'policy' did not allow this, then I invited Mr McGuire to issue Proceedings, whereby they would be partially defended on the basis that a valid offer of payment had been made and refused and, thus, although I would acknowledge the debt, I would contest the Court issue fee and claim my costs in defending the claim (which I would have succeeded in, in all probability).

Needless to say, this confused Mr McGuire somewhat, and he simply reiterated a further 4 times that the debt would be passed to door-to-door collectors. And so it went on, with me simply re-sending the email described above in response each time.

Then, the matter was passed to Clarity. The first and only letter from them advised of their interest and made an offer of early settlement at a reduced rate, some £100 less than the full debt. And yes, they did accept third party payments (as do every company I've come across save PTP). It was paid on the day of the letter.

End result? Mr McGuire's bull-headedness and refusal to use simple common sense cost PTP over £100. Better result for me, obviously. Will Mr McGuire keep his 'job'? No doubt. Should he? I'll leave that for you to decide

P.s. Sorry to go on a bit!