Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Coughdrop

  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
  13. You do sound harsh, and it is not our place to judge. Have you never tried to help family out of a tough spot? Just paying it off may not help him, but enabling him to pay it off might. Why were you shocked? Anyone of any age can get into financial difficulties, forcing them into actions they may not otherwise take. I lost my house at around that age through no particular fault of my own. I know people in their 60's with money issues. They can happen to anyone at any age - a look through this site is sufficient to tell you people of all ages and backgrounds hit problems. We should not make assumptions. Anyway, back to topic.
  14. Hi Sally, Remember you do not have to engage with the bailiffs. Don't let them in to your property, they cannot force entry, whatever they may claim. They may well try to take control of a vehicle if you have one, so keep it parked well out of the way. The last thing you want is to go out and find your car clamped! Whilst trying to negotiate a settlement with Equita may suit you, they will have added £75 for each liability order onto your debt, so if you have four LO's, they will have added £300. They will add a further £235 if they come out to visit, plus an amount of 7.5% for the sum over £1500 owed. If you agree a repayment plan, the first £300 will go directly to the bailiffs. After that, any further payments are split pro rata, so neither the sum nor their fees are paid completely until the final payment. There is the option for some people, and you'll possibly be told this is ridiculous by others on here, but it remains an option (see Leakie's recent post) of sitting things out until the debt is passed back to the council. If you chose this route, you might avoid the fees, but would be under a degree of stress, especially if you have a car - it is not for everyone. It would be important to let the council know you are willing to pay the debt, and you would have to put money aside so you had a decent lump sum to pay. We could go into more detail if this was a route you wanted to consider. If agreeing a repayment, it is critical not to allow entry to your property and to keep anything outside of value out of the way, as mentioned above. National Debtline have a good Income and Expenditure form which you can print off. It is worth working on this in the interim period so you have it ready, and time to think carefully about the figures. Do not agree a figure greater than you can afford as this would almost certainly cause problems further down the line. Are you working full time now, still on a zero hours contract with no guaranteed work, or in a different situation altogether? Don't worry about them forcing entry or anything - they may threaten this, but they have no right to do so, though they can open and enter through an unlocked door, hence me saying keep them locked.
  15. There is very little the EA can do if you have nothing of value to be seized. I remain a little concerned about you overstretching yourself given recent events and the suspended possession order on your house. It really is critical you agree only what you can afford comfortably with B&S, don't feel pressured by them into agreeing more than this (they will try). Your I&E, along with proof of the SPO, would back up what you were telling them, so hopefully there won't be a problem. If you don't already have an I&E completed, it would be worth completing one (National Debtline have a comprehensive one which can be printed off). They may not want to see it, but if they do, it's better to be prepared.
  16. A further question from me, sorry. Would I be right in assuming you have not been able to pay your CT because of the problems you've been having with Nemo and the SPO on your house? Remember the importance of not allowing the bailiff into your property, or leaving anything of value outside which he can take into possession - this is why BA is asking about other vehicles. Keep doors locked! Are you able to afford and sustain the repayments you've agreed? You've clearly been under a vast amount of stress recently.
  17. Leakie, I'm so pleased you've got a resolution after everything you've been through. I posted a little while ago that you cannot understand what it is like to have bailiffs at your door unless you've been through it. Despite being shot down in flames at the time, I stand by that comment. It is truly horrendous, and as you say, the charges added (and dare I say tactics used by some) do anything but encourage you to engage with the bailiffs. We did, albeit under the old system, and their behaviour was shambolic. I have little reason to believe things are vastly different now, especially in terms of trying to reach a sensible repayment plan which can be sustained. BA is right that too many claim vulnerability over things which are not vulnerabilities, or only temporary issues. This does the truly vulnerable a lot of harm, but the bailiff is supposed to look to identify issues of vulnerability, so they are at fault if they fail to do so.
  18. For those interested, there's a good summary of the changes here (one of many good summaries): http://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/760154/consumer_credit_act_2006_amendments_to_the_consumer_credit_act_1974.pdf The important thing is the inaccurate information has been corrected.
  19. Hi Big Amzz, As BA has stated, yours is a good example of why these exist. It is important they are completed properly, but don't be tempted to part with money for completing one, unless you prefer to do so. There is plenty of very good, free help out there for these, but some businesses will still try to charge you.
  20. Leakie, Well done. At the end of the day, as long as YOU are happy with this resolution, that's great. To say the behaviour has been ridiculous is an understatement, but it's great to see you got there in the end - well done.
  21. This is ridiculous. You have a perfectly reasonable offer, you've proved your desire to pay, but the bailiffs appear to be refusing your offer purely so they can add further fees to the account. This used to be common advice on here, is used far less often nowadays, but I'd be inclined now to write directly to the CEO of the council, copied to the Head of Revenues, stating exactly what has happened, the fact it has been passed for enforcement, you are going abroad and need an affordable repayment plan in place before you go. You could even link to this thread as a diary of what has happened and how people have tried to help you. Explain you are not willing to pay the £235 enforcement stage fees because you are trying your best to resolve this at compliance and simply cannot see your indebtedness increase due to their unwillingness to instruct Rossendales to accept your offer of repayment. It will be interesting to see what others have to say about this.
  22. I know this is possibly too obvious a thing to ask, but better asked than assumed - Have you asked them what you're supposed to do if you're not in the country, but are trying your best to arrange repayment of the debt? Perhaps sending evidence you are going to be abroad for a while will prove to them you're telling the truth, as they may assume you're just saying it to avoid payment. I imagine many such claims would be untrue to try to avoid payment.
  • Create New...