johnhn
-
Content Count
335 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Thanks everyone, I'm aware of the limitations of the Limitations Act, the fact that the debt remains recoverable though unenforceable, and the implications for future benefit claims. I'm happy to deal with this if it's owed but it'll be when I can afford it and not before, and I won't be paying Jacobs a penny, just the local authority. I hope I never need benefits again too. The last time, which was a 6 week gap in employment, I didn't bother claiming because of how long it would have taken just to receive anything (more than 6 weeks...). The time before that, my housing benefit was £200 per month short of my rent. I honestly don't know how I survived.
-
Just spoke to the council - Decision Notice was issued on 21st April 2011. It's statute barred and Jacobs are talking out of their hat.
-
So why are Jacobs stating that they WILL take me to court? Lying to intimidate me?
-
"Application will be made to the County Court to obtain a County Court judgement against you" But the invoice date (which I would presume is the council's) is from April 2011, so they're too late to bring it to court aren't they?
-
Didn't know whether to post here or in a benefits subforum. I recently received a letter from Jacobs chasing me for an alleged housing benefit overpayment of just under £2000 from over 7 years ago. I have responded in writing by disputing the debt and stating that as it is statute barred it is now unenforceable although I understand it may be recovered by the local authority through an attachment of earnings order (I am self-employed though) or deductions from future benefit payments. I had no prior knowledge of the alleged debt, have never acknowledged it, and no court information pertaining to it has ever appeared on my credit report. Jacobs have responded by giving me 7 days to pay in full (expiring 12 noon tomorrow) or they say they are going to take me to court. They have provided no breakdown of the amount they claim I owe, or any proof that I owe it. What's my next step?
-
FOS decision is in - P2P to refund all interest and charges, plus simple interest, plus £150 compensation for being horrible
-
Barclaycard Charges Reclaim and, now, Default Removal
johnhn replied to johnhn's topic in Barclaycard
Rang the sols on Monday - "someone from the team will ring you back today without fail". They didn't Rang them again on Tuesday. The plonker who was supposed to send me the info in the first place, and again last week, is now on holiday, but they'd send the info "this week". I explained that if I didn't get it by Thursday I'd have a CCJ for 6 years, and right in the middle of a house purchase. Also, if a global financial institution is incapable of supplying an account number and sort code, it's not very impressive! Finally received the details, paid it, and sent proof of payment to the court. The email address the court gave me to use was very similar but not the same as the one previously given, so I sent it to both. Here is the reply: "It is noted that you have lodged documents in this case in more than one format or to more than one email box. We are writing to advise you that doing this, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, is unnecessary and unacceptable. You are referred to 5APD.5 in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Practice Direction 5.3 does allow for the electronic filing of documents. However the practice goes on to say, in mandatory terms, that if a document is filed by fax, and by implication, email, the party must not send a hard copy in addition. Your conduct in dealing with a matter in this way is significantly contributing to the delays in the court dealing with matters. Each item of correspondence, whether it comes in by email, facsimile or post has to be individually dealt with by a member of staff. Thus one item, which only requires one action, because of the way that you are dealing with it, may require two or three separate sets of work by the court staff. In the future please avoid doubling or tripling the amount of work that the court has to do, by only filing or lodging documents in one format. That is what the Civil Procedure Rules envisages, and that is what will assist the court in being as efficient as possible in these financially constrained times." I might send them an apology for not being thoroughly au fait with "5APD.5 in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998". To as many email addresses as I can find... -
Barclaycard Charges Reclaim and, now, Default Removal
johnhn replied to johnhn's topic in Barclaycard
Spoke to the solicitor on Tuesday - "Oh, sorry, I thought I'd sent the information to you - I'll send it out today". Postman's just been. Still nothing. Ringing the court on Monday. Complaint to SRA, or waste of time and energy? -
Barclaycard Charges Reclaim and, now, Default Removal
johnhn replied to johnhn's topic in Barclaycard
Yes, and that was the plan - under the circumstances I'd have paid it on the spot, but I still haven't been supplied with any payment details. -
Barclaycard Charges Reclaim and, now, Default Removal
johnhn replied to johnhn's topic in Barclaycard
Normally I'd agree, but I'm buying a house and need to not have a CCJ! -
Barclaycard Charges Reclaim and, now, Default Removal
johnhn replied to johnhn's topic in Barclaycard
3 weeks later, still no reply from the sols. Are they taking the p*ss? -
Barclaycard Charges Reclaim and, now, Default Removal
johnhn replied to johnhn's topic in Barclaycard
My dilemma in a nutshell. Probably won't to be honest, galling though it is. -
Barclaycard Charges Reclaim and, now, Default Removal
johnhn replied to johnhn's topic in Barclaycard
I emailed BC's sols after the hearing requesting bank details for payment of costs and added that I would pay the £129 default if only to have it marked as settled. Still no reply 11 days later. Meanwhile, I've been wavering about appealing* (the deadline is this Thursday), however, I have yet to receive a copy of the judgement (so don't know exactly what is written into it). Is this normal? *my interpretation of OFT v Abbey is that it actually supports my argument and the OFT guidance on credit card charges as it makes the clear distinction between them and bank overdraft fees, therefore the judgement is "erroneous"... -
Barclaycard Charges Reclaim and, now, Default Removal
johnhn replied to johnhn's topic in Barclaycard
Seems obvious to me, so why not to a judge?
