Jump to content

Coughdrop

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,098
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Coughdrop last won the day on June 18 2015

Coughdrop had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

101 Excellent

About Coughdrop

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. It seems talking to bailiffs on here is similar to talking to bailiffs in real life (in my personal experience). You'd get more satisfaction talking to a turnip; at least they wouldn't respond, which is preferable to responding with twaddle after not having read what has been said properly.
  2. Dear God, is it too much to hope EA's themselves are familiar with the FEP's, they've been around long enough now. I said EA's are technically within the law when forcing entry. That does not mean it is happening regularly (in fact hardly ever) for people who are cooperating. Yes, in fact I'm glad you posted the FEP's so Grumpy can familiarise himself with them. It's funny isn't it that only about a month or two ago I made exactly that point and was shot down in flames by possibly the two main contributors to this page. I thought then it was only because (as has now been proven incorrect) I was being accused of utter crap and wasn't flavour of the month, at least the above proves that, so again I'm delighted you posted the above.
  3. Homer, Bailiff Advice is technically correct in stating they can force entry. However, it is very, very unlikely, and she has omitted to mention that this is only being mentioned as a threat to coerce you to pay. If the bailiff forces entry without permission from their company, they are likely to face some serious questions, even if they are technically acting within the letter of the law. You are co-operating. The chances of anyone forcing entry are extremely small, so please don't worry about it.
  4. It's easy to get it wrong - thanks for the correction. The part cited originally states the police, "were satisfied that DCBL had authority to attend his premises to enforce the debt." This would suggest strongly they misled the police over their authority, as there is a world of difference between enforcement and debt collection. These are both issues which are commonplace, everyday issues for anyone with even basic experience in the advice sector, so should come as no surprise. Both have been included in various debt collection guidelines for many years. Re. complaining through the CAB, it would very much be the luck of the draw as to who you saw. The quality of advice and knowledge varies from one CAB to another, and within CABx, depending who you see. It is better to complain directly to the FOS. Any accompanying complaint can always be made separately. They are likely to expect you to have used the company's internal complaints procedure first however. I'd be inclined to be looking for a potential criminal remedy - Fraud by misrepresentation is something you hear bandied about a lot, I'm not sure whether it's applicable here or not.
  5. That would seem the obvious route, and it's what was going through my mind when I asked BA what she had advised. I imagine it may have gone further if the misrepresentation was to that extent. It's odd to start a thread, but then fail to furnish us with the details until 'a few days time.' Not overly helpful to others who may be facing this position. Let's see what happens in a few days.
  6. What did you advise them? If this is sufficiently serious to warrant a thread of its own, debtors should know exactly what they should do in the situation.
  7. Where does he say he has set up a payment arrangement? Bilgeman is paying the debt, but I'm not sure there's a formal arrangement for £xxx.xx per month to be paid, unless I've missed it reading through. Is you motorbike owned outright, or is it on HP? Are you ensuring that cannot be seized or clamped? Yes Bilgeman, the bailiffs will get every penny out of you they can. Fortunately they are far more restricted since the 'new' regulations came in than they were before.
  8. I'm hoping it's okay now to deviate from the topic of the thread a little as it is resolved. There is nothing wrong with DCA's chasing debts (nor them being asked for proof of the debts). Where things fall down is the same with most debts, bailiffs, DCA's, etc.... and things fall down often because people are scared, worried sick and insufficiently informed to know the best thing to do is go to the creditor as early as possible and explain the difficulties. When this gets to the stage of a DCA obtaining a default CCJ, it means many letters have been ignored, often including those about court hearings, and the debtor not turning up to the court hearing (possibly because they don't know about them as they've moved and not updated records, hoping they won't be found). The fact it is time barred means nothing. The debt remains legally due, but it being time barred is an absolute defence in court if the debtor submits that defence. Often DCA's have little or no paperwork, so they can't really be blamed for going to court, especially after writing numerous times trying to get an arrangement in place. I hate them as much as anyone, but like bailiffs, they have a job to do and that is what they are doing. In an ideal world we'd all talk to creditors asap, but it's not an ideal world and people are human and get scared. The longer it is left, the harder it gets to address them. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy to see all bailiffs and all DCA's out of business. Anything I can do to hasten that process is a move in the right direction. The vast majority of debtors are not willfully refusing to pay, they are in a mess (possibly of their own making) and cannot. They need help, not further fees piling onto the debt. I'd love to see them spanked hard for getting default judgments, but for time barred debts, the debtor does have that absolute defence at their disposal. They need educating and helping so they can take the fight back, should they choose to do so.
  9. I know. It's just I've been accused in the past of debt evasion, when all I have been doing is helping the debtor save money by paying the creditor directly once a warrant has been returned, or because the bailiffs refuse to accept an affordable repayment for that particular type of debt (I only advocate this option for one particular debt in any case). I agree, as said above, that everything should be done to check the legality of the debt, and the debtor should have all options explained to them so they are in a position to make an informed choice about what they want to do. I'm pleased all is resolved in this case anyway.
  10. It was being collected by bailiffs acting on a warrant issued by HM Courts, so one assumes there was a process followed during which the debt was found to be owed. For the record, I'm very much in favour of ensuring all debts all legally due, and indeed of minimising any possible bailiff fees, though that is rarely feasible. I don't condone debt evasion, but would certainly agree that waiting to see what happens might be the sensible way forward. There is a real chance to keep the channels open with the SS here though, to encourage more responsibility with money, as borrowing it, then simply failing to repay it is not going to be sustainable in the long term.
  11. Hi Sonia, I didn't want you to think you were being ignored and nobody was reading your post, getting on for 24 hours since you posted, after being asked to post by another member. I'm sure they will reply shortly; failing that, I, or another member can have a stab at replying to you.
  12. You can find a copy of the form here: https://www.gov.uk/county-court-judgments-ccj-for-debt/if-you-do-owe-the-money-pay-the-judgment
×
×
  • Create New...