Coughdrop
-
Posts
1,098 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Coughdrop
-
If you read my two posts correctly, you'll see they were aimed to help readers of this thread who may researching things in the future. It's important for them to have accurate information when doing this. For this reason I went to some lengths to explain it all very simply.
-
Yes indeed - of course it was. It was also based on approximated figures - for this reason I removed the 7.5% uplift entirely from the equation when stating a simple point. I just felt it important to mention for other readers who may read the post in the future. I take on board entirely PT's point in post 24. In fact I'd go further (and did in the post) and say an initial debt of approx. £1125 (as the £1200 mentioned would have included the Compliance Stage fee). I agree that anything over that, increasing the bill to £2700 would have been fees. The point I was trying really to stress was that when everything is returned to what, at best guess, we think it should have been, the reduction is not a significant one - I set this out as simply and clearly as possible for the benefit of future readers. There can be no denying the reduction from £2700 to £1350-ish is a result. I appreciate the six posts taken to look at this issue. As someone says, "Every Little Helps!"
-
It seems to me your offer is entirely reasonable. Would it help if you set up the standing order now to show good faith? It 'might' help your cause, though judging from your council's actions, perhaps not. It's certainly not hard to see their point of view, but if you show good faith in setting up the SO, and write telling them you're doing it as a gesture of good faith to try to move towards a resolution, and to avoid further indebtedtedness which is simply unnecessary. It's just a thought which may or may not work - at the end of the day, you can always cancel the SO if they do pass it for enforcement. I don't really understand why you need to know what the council would consider as a repayment option - you can only pay what you have got available. You've made an offer which takes you close to your total disposable income, so I'm unsure what you're supposed to do if this isn't good enough for the council.
-
I'm happy to be shown to be wrong here. To me though, while this is undoubtedly a reasonable result, it is nowhere near as good as some appear to think. So the debt was £1125 + £75 Compliance Stage fee = £1200 This bill should now have been around an extra £190, so £1200 + £190 = £1390, not the £2700 being demanded (see Post 6). So the bill reduced by 50%, from the £2700 being demanded to £1350. As shown above, if calculated correctly in line with Post 6, it should have been around £1390. Enforcement fees payable should have totalled £265 based on Post 6. The debtor appears to have been charged £225 in enforcement fees, a saving of just £40. Obviously I do not need to point out this is very far from a 50% reduction in enforcement fees as claimed above. It's actually a reduction of just 15.1%. As stated above, it is certainly a result, just not as big a result as claimed. It goes without saying your kind words are indeed very much appreciated. It's always nice to have a pat on the back - thank you!
-
Zoltron was unable to respond until they had been told enough to respond. The questions were posed just after midday yesterday; I asked for clarification about two hours later. I noticed you were marked online throughout the afternoon, along with various other experts on the forum, yet there was no response, so I provided one, sadly some seven hours after your initial questions had been asked. Clearly by that stage, Zoltron would have been unable to phone the council to ask how many LO's there were, and won't be able to until Monday now, so it's not really surprising they have not reported back. It's also a fact that quite a few on benefits are not sure exactly what benefits they are getting, and have to phone to find out. I'm sure Zoltron will reply, as they have done previously, when they are able and furnished with the requisite information. With regards to the vulnerability issue and the LGO, the LGO rules on individual cases, it does not 'hold views' on things. Each case is judged on its own merits, and it's unwise to prejudge any of their decisions. I think most I've seen on here have been quite open about mentioning issues which may suggest an element of vulnerability. I know of only one person who states definitively that someone is vulnerable, as opposed to 'you may be considered' vulnerable. On Social Media Sites you see people regularly telling others they are vulnerable and should tell their council they are vulnerable. It is not for any of us to determine vulnerability, it is for us to inform the debtor they may be considered vulnerable, and to inform the EA and provide proof accordingly. Zoltron, of course, has already done this.
-
The issue is ostensibly resolved now, so I can raise something as a point of interest. Was the NOE, "delivered to the debtor personally, giving them 7 clear days (excluding Sundays and bank holidays) to pay the sums due in full, at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business?" I appreciate this is likely to be seen as looking for a loophole which is why I didn't mention it earlier. However, the legislation states what it states. It's hard to misread really. It's interesting to note that other current advice from the Sheriffs Office states a new NOE would need serving - obviously this would not be a problem if they know where the debtor is.
-
We are clearly unable to answer your question without knowing which benefits are applicable. I've posted the information needed above in order that they can answer your question. Hope this helps!
-
The relevant benefits, from which deductions can be taken are: Job Seekers Allowance Income Support Employment Support Allowance Pension Credit Guaranteed Credit The weekly amount which can be taken is £3.60 and unlike an Attachment of Earnings, only one order can be in place at any time.
-
Do you have a link to the information about benefits - how much the debtor needs to be getting, and which are eligible please? It would be useful information for many on this forum, and potentially save loads of unnecessary posts on future threads.
-
That sounds like a great step forward Starbug. I'd say just keep on at the DRO company, as you need to ensure they make that call. Maybe phone on Monday and see if they've done it yet, then Tuesday, Wednesday and so on. Just keep pushing. You're coping with a distressing situation very well. It's unfortunate it takes 4 or 5 posts to mention NOE's, when I don't believe it was even an issue at the moment; that's why the threads end up so very long, but as long as you get what you need, that's the important thing. What you need is the DRO!
-
How rude. Yes, PT put things bluntly, and fankly, putting things equally bluntly, made assumptions which are possibly incorrect. If you have problems dealing with that, tough. Posts on here always run long, and for once I cannot be blamed. The poster is who and what they are. Do we give up on them because of that? You clearly think yes. I'm afraid I think CAG is about continuing to help people, even when it can get frustrating. Making assumptions is not helpful, and the insinuations were not welcoming. It is pretty much common sense to be honest, but then I'm making assumptions that everyone has common sense, which we know is not the case. ADDED: As you can see the OP posted at exactly the same time I made this post, but has confirmed that PT's assumption was wrong.
-
This is helpful Dodgeball. When I posted above, it was solely to clarify to Ploddertom where 'elsewhere' probably was, given the mentions earlier in this thread. When I mentioned it earlier in the thread, I stated very clearly I know little about High Court issues, and stressed it repeatedly. The OP stated they had read the same pdf from The Sheriffs Office - it is dated November 2015, so should really be current, or has it changed in the past 7 or 8 months?) I don't think there is any issue of looking for a loophole, nor am I sure why you think the OP is looking for a loophole. Perhaps I've misunderstood, but anyway, I was just trying to help, and reading something the OP had already read themselves, which should really be current given the date on it, though apparently isn't, in the absence of any other response at the time.
-
Vulnerability is a difficult issue. While it has to be taken into account in terms of the way in which you are dealt with, it obviously doesn't, as you know, mean the debt is not rightfully owed still. In terms of the length of time it takes to repay a debt, it's really a case of they can't have what you haven't got, so they should be pleased you're wanting to repay it. If you only have a small amount of money spare, as proven by your I&E, then that is all they can have. It's as simple as that really. My concern for you is that if it is passed for enforcement, your indebtedness will increase. This is counterproductive, when they could do an attachment to your benefits without you incurring further levels of debt. To me that is obvious. To the council, enforcement is possibly a simpler and cheaper route for them. For other people helping you on here, the norm is to advise you pay bailiff fees. If that suits you in order to get a steady repayment, that is absolutely fine. If it doesn't, given the history of this debt, I really think the council should consider a form of collecting the debt which does not imediately cost you more money.
-
Ploddertom, I think Starbug was actually referring to the advice from the Sheriffs Office, downloadable in pdf form and entitled "The Sheriffs Office Guide to High Court Enforcement." I quoted from this earlier ("If you do subsequently find the HCEO needs to attend a different address where the debtor is now located, the HCEO will have to serve a new notice of enforcement on them, giving a further seven clear days’ notice.") Starbug stated they had also read this, so I took the comment to mean there. It's not helpful always assuming people go to another social media site, especially when this thread suggests that not to be the case. Starbug will no doubt confirm to what they were referring, but I felt a little sorry for them when I read that. It was not a welcoming comment.
-
I haven't read some of this thread as I've been 'encouraged' to take a couple of months away from the forum, so am not really posting much. Apologies if this has been suggested before, and it sounds obvious, but has your Dad told them you do not live there and everything in the house belongs to him? He can show them a Council Tax bill to prove that, and really they should leave him alone. He is under no obligation to tell them where you live. Just a quick thought really, but worth just mentioning.
-
Assist the OP in what way?
-
Have you managed to move this forward at all?
-
Hi Zoltron, I'm sorry I've been a while responding as I've been busy elsewhere. It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me to read I believe the council should deal with this. They appear to be the ones who have messed things up; they are the ones who have ignored the decision of the ombudsman. If they were to increase your indebtedness by passing the account to Bristow and Sutor, or any other enforcement company, it would simply be wrong. The council should reinstate the attachment of benefits, or oversee a repayment plan themselves. If they are passing the account to an enforcement company simply because their welfare department could oversee repayments more easily, they should pay any fees due, not you.
-
Very interesting reading indeed Zoltron, thank you. It's interesting the account was returned so swiftly (within 3-4 months) given we were told yesterday that companies are holding onto accounts for much longer now - it would appear in your case this was not so. On a quick read, it seems the council have handled your case appallingly. However, I'll have a really good read back through your thread later on, and will post a reply.
-
Do you have an update Zoltron?
-
Hi Starbug, I'm no expert whatsoever on High Court enforcement. However, there's a handy guide from the Sheriffs Office which I've got as a pdf, and the following is cited directly from that: "If you do subsequently find the HCEO needs to attend a different address where the debtor is now located, the HCEO will have to serve a new notice of enforcement on them, giving a further seven clear days’ notice. Check the debtor is not subject to insolvency proceedings If they are, you may well decide that the time and cost of suing would be good money thrown after bad. You can check with Companies House to find out if a company is in Liquidation or Administration with an “L” or an “A” next to the name. The Insolvency Service allows you to check individuals and “trading as” names for bankruptcy and IVA. They also have a helpful “Guide for Creditors” on their site." The above would lead me to think that if you push hard for your DRO to progress, they may consider it is not worth pursuing you further. Thus the advice to concentrate your efforts in that direction seems to be fair to me, based on what I've read. As I said, I'm no expert. With regards to your final question, I think if an HCEO doesn't collect, they don't get paid, so I assume the fees die when it is returned. All is a 'best attempt' from someone who admits to knowing little about this area, but given you've had no other replies, I've had a go at helping you. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will come along, there's plenty on here.
-
5am is, as you know, outside legal times for a visit. Is this CT? If so, what is your intent with this, to wait for it to be returned and ensure no goods are taken under control, or are you wanting to get a repayment arrangement with the EA? Given your lack of response to Newlyns I'm assuming the former, but it's better to check. As DB stated, it may be best to start a new thread for this if it is going to be an involved post. If mentioned only in passing, then obviously there's no need.
-
As someone who does this, though only for CT debts as you are aware, I don't put a time frame on it, nor does it matter too much. As long as the debtor is putting as much money as possible to one side to make a payment once it has been returned, then in a way, the longer the better. They won't keep it for more than 12 months as the warrant will die, by which time the debtor will hopefully be in a position to make a decent payment towards the principal sum owed. Incidentally, have you come across many, or even any cases, where the warrant has been kept for 10 months for Council Tax?
-
I'm reasonably sure MM will be doing things by the book, as that seems to be how he operates. However, I share your concern about posters holding personal data and complying fully with the DPA. If anyone here is concerned about what they can and cannot do, the ICO website is superb, and I have always found them extremely helpful when chatting to them over the phone. I know this is a slight diversion from the main topic, but as you mentioned it, it is worth reiterating for other members. MM You are far more important than this thread, so do what you need to look after yourself before feeling the slightest bit obliged to answer anything on here. Your health comes first, and I have little doubt we'd all say that.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS