Thanks very much, will give that a try.

Does anybody know how I can contact BT in the UK, as opposed to some call centre in India or wherever? I would just like to speak to somebody I feel I can relate to more easily. The problem is that I paid my bill by bill payment on 9th Spetember, but a couple of weeks later found my line was restricted "because they hadn't received payment". I spent the best part of the next half hour trying to explain to the indian guy that my payment HAD been made, while he was trying to explain that it wasn't on his screen therefore they hadn't got it. I phoned the bank. BT HAD got the payment. I phoned BT back with the reference number from the bank, and within a minute they acknowledged that there had been a mistake and they had got the payment. Line was reactivated. Except that a couple of days ago I found it had been restricted again. same thing, no payment received - according to another Indian BT employee. Another debate ensued with me trying to convince him that I had been through all this once, so he agreed to reactivate the line while they investigated. That was yesterday. However I've just had to ring up and go through the whole rigmarole again because the line hasn't yet been reconnected - same promise yet again that it will be SO, I would like to speak to somebody here in the UK, where my account is held, to sort out this mess once and for all. Yes I could write a complaint or contact Ofcom or whatever, but in the meantime there is a very real danger I would think that my line will be disconnected completely, and I need the broadband connection (in fact I don't use the landline at all, I only need it for the broadband connection) as I run an online business - disconnecting that now would be a disaster, so I need this sorting quickly AND my next bill is probably due soon. Any help/advice appreciated.

WOW, it's almost three years since my post above but it still applies - my point is that there are speed camera signs on a road where there "are" speed cameras, but those cameras are dummies - not even wired up in fact so never have been working and thus are not actually cameras as such. This is within my locale and to the best of my knowledge it's not an area where mobile cameras have ever been used either, surely they can't just put signs up anywhere on the offchance that one day they might have a mobile unit in place there? If that was the case you could arguably place a speed camera sign on every single road!

We co-operated with the OR throughout. The bit in bold, that's my point - the crucial issue here is that the bankruptcy should have been annulled because we didn't receive the relevant documnets which is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT but this issue has been ignored throughout. The solicitor sent a letter to court outlining the facts and said that it wasn't necessary for him to attend, it was that straightforward. Whilst I was unimpressed ultimately, he seemed to know what he was doing at that stage, all we could do was go along with the advice given although I have to stress that I primarily went to court to ask for an adjournment as my partner was too ill to attend having only recently been discharged from hospital, but my request for that adjournment was rejected. To this day I don't understand why that was or why the main issue wasn't considered by the courts. toddle, I really don't understand your attitude. I did not have a blinkered view at all, I spent days and even weeks seeking extensive advice on here and via CAB and a number of solicitors before eventually hiring who I thought was the right one, and rang the helplines from just about every bankruptcy advice website I could find. All the letters from 'ambulance chasers' went straight in the bin. The bottom line is I don't see what I could have done differently, other than ensuring that a solicitor had been present but hey, hindsight is a wonderful thing. You state that I have question the advice given in the forums, that is correct. There IS just cause because we have become victims of a bankruptcy that should never have been allowed to stand according to the law, and a lot of the advice on here suggests that it may be an easy way out. All I am saying is it may not be - we are living proof that it CAN go awry even if you seek what you believe to be good advice. We trusted a recommendation from a very big firm that only dealt with corporate bankruptcy and it didn't work out for us. This thread was never intended to be a debate on our own situation, just a warning to people to be careful and not take it with a pinch of salt that bankruptcy is an easy option. I have no wish to get into a slanging match, It's too late for us now anyway, what is done is done so I have nothing to gain personally from this. I just wanted to warn others and no matter what anybody else says, I repeat for the last time - THIS DID HAPPEN.

My point about the farce of a hearing is that I was arguing a point - that the bankruptcy should not have occured because we didn't receive the Stat Demand - at THAT stage we (or to be accurate, my partner) was NOT bankrupt and therefore at that point the OR was not involved - they only came into play later and that should have been taken into consideration, hence taking the OR out of the picture. In otherwords the OR was there because we were bankrupt, but the issue was that we shouldn't have been because the Demand wasn't served, hence nullifying the OR's case. This should have been between us and the council, not the OR. Anyway that's my argument, we will be looking into taking the IVA people on though at the very least.

In what way? Would you care to elaborate? I disagree. The point of the hearing was to have the BR annulled because the correct procedure, a legal requirement, had not been followed i.e. the Stat documents had not been served on us in any way. At that point (the time of supposed serving of the docs) the OR was NOT involved, and thus was not in a position to give any evidence to the contrary. You are questioning what I have said but I, or my partner at least, is living proof that an IVA can be entered whilst in bankrupcy because that was exactly what happened. You also categorically state that IVA's run for 5 years, well ours didn't, a simple but true fact. If anybody is misleading anybody here it's you, to date you have accused me of being dishonest and are ignoring the facts presented. I'm just pointing out what CAN happen My "story" is 100% true, I have all the documents to prove it and at no point have I stated it is as a result of advice received on this forum. All I am pointing out is that if people with equity enter into bankruptcy this is what CAN happen because it HAS happened to us, and that if people are stating "all your worries are over" etc. if you enter into bankruptcy in these circumstances then that is not necessarily good and thorough advice. I am a long time member of and avid supporter of this forum, I have no reason to post anything that isn't true and accurate and spent some time going through the documents again to make sure I had got it right. If you are telling me otherwise you are wrong because we've been there. I'm not looking for the sympathy vote but we sought an awful lot of advice on and off here and at the end of the day you can only go with what you are advised to do by a seemingly experienced solicitor, which is what we did. The rest is history but after all we have been through I resent the implication that I am not telling the truth.

Thank you, I may do that although I must have read through just about every bankruptcy advice site on the internet and then some. The problem is our case is a little bit unique in that we didn't know about the bankruptcy until after it happened - most if not all advice sites deal with how to make yourself bankrupt or what to do if it is going to happen. I still believe that we have a valid case in that it was illegal because the correct docs were not served; I don't believe the server came up from Norwich and travelled 300 miles or so every time and I believe he lied on the paperwork (i.e. the description of our house). I also believe that the OR should not have been present at court, and that they are liable in some way for influencing the judges decision. I also believe we have a very strong case against the IVA company, who seriously misled us about the cost if we entered into the IVA v. the cost under bankruptcy, and for not offering my partner a better deal than one year even though they knew she was on a minimum wage and had a lot of time off for sickness. The trouble is without finding a top lawyer to try and do something about all this and the money to pay him we're stranded in the current situation. As it stands we're just trying to move on and rebuild - we have no other viable option. I know. I was a member early days when the site was known as the 'Bank Action Group'. I also do a lot of my own research as well as asking and was one of the people who helped that euro-mp (whose name escapes me for the moment) who forced the local council to change the illegal wording on their PCN's which then referred to an "offence". I also run a reasonably successful business which I have managed to keep going throughout this mess despite my head being all over the place, though like most businesses the recession has hit me, but I am making enough to live on. All I'm saying is I'm not your average clueless numpty who jumps into things blindly, and I spoke to a LOT of solicitors and advice people before deciding xxxxx who came highly recommended from a large Manchester concern who dealt with corporate bankruptcy. I also spoke to the Bankruptcy Advisory Service, although their advice, such as it was, came too late. xxxxxx were the ONLY people I found at the time though that said this could be overturned, which ultimately it wasn't. Generally speaking, we were just unlucky and that's the point of the thread. Far from being misleading, I wanted to point out that - even WITH advice and a solicitor, bearing in mind that you pretty much have to assume they know what they are doing unless you know better, and most people don't - it could happen to anybody. We're obviously not xcxxxx only customers!

We couldn't pay the debt at the start but since we hadn't received the Statutory documents we were focused on getting an annulment on that basis at the time - this was what Citizens Advice told us to do, at which point we spent some time looking ofr a solicitor. Most solicitors we contacted were only interested in dealing with the bankrupcy and not getting it annuled. Prior to all this happening we did apply for, and were provisionally granted, a loan in June 2006 but I phoned the council to ask for a settlement figure - we didn't want to apply for any more than we needed - but they said that the issue had "gone too far" and we would be hearing from their solicitors so we waited. We heard nothing until we got the bankrupcy order from the court. Back in 2006 the house was valued at £110-115,000. The £90,000 figure ios as a result of the rescession.

With all due respect you can believe what you like. Many people have told us that this doesn't happen this way, but what I have told you is 100% true. I have no reason not to be totally honest, it doesn't matter now anyway. We did NOT receive the Stat documents, and on the advice of the solicitor (who said he wouldn't need to attend) I went to court on behalf of my partner to have the bankruptcy annulled. We found out later that the guy who serves the documents, who was apparently based 300 or so miles away, had stated that he had been unable to serve the documents personally and had been granted permission to serve the documents through the letterbox. His description of the property didn't match - he described it as a Victorian terraced house, it wasn't Victorian and it was a semi-detached. To this day I believe that all along he had been going to the wrong house. At the hearing there were two people there, one from the council and one from the OR's office. The youngish guy from the council looked as though he had never been in court before and said little or nothing. The OR did all the talking and said they opposed it on the basis that the debt hadn't been paid. the judge agreed, that was basically it. I had actually gone to court somewhat unprepared anyway as I had gone to ask for an adjourment as my partner was recovering from an operation so could not attend, having spent much of the previous 3 years in and out of hospital and a full year off work, which was part of the reason why a lot of arrears had built up. Correction: The bankrupcy order was made on 22 November 2006. On 13 Noveber 2007 an application was made to the court by the trustee to get a "temporary suspension of the automatic discharge from bankrupcy" as nothing had been paid - at this time we were still negotiating with the solicitor who insisted he was dealing with the issue and now advised an IVA. The IVA was signed on 21 December 2007, the agreement was that the debt be paid off within 6 months and if not we would put the property up for sale to repay the debt. Even after the IVA was signed we tried to remortgage but were told that the bankrupcy had not been annuled even though we were in an IVA. There is still some confusion as to whther it was or not. The solicitor we used was recommended the IVA people. When they visited on 21 December we were told that if we did not sign there and then, we would be too late and they would not be able to prevent the house being repossesed. They also said it was ultimately up to the creditors whether the IVA was accepted or not and it would help if we could pay something upfront "to show willing" and we paid the £3,000 we had saved, which was earmarked towards paying off the debt anyway. OK obviously on hindsight we were badly advised, but at the time we simply followed the advice of the solicitor who seemed to know what he was talking about. There is a long thread on the issue elsewhere on the board. I stand by my original post and title because THIS HAS HAPPENED TO US regardless of what anybody chooses to believe, and if you are badly advised it could happen to you too. ORIGINAL THREAD HERE

Sorry but having read through a number of threads on here, I felt I had to post this. I feel it is important for people to realise that if you apply for, or are made bankrupt, even for a relatively small amount, and you own your own home or have some equity in it, you may lose the lot. I have posted details of our case, dating back to December '06, elsewhere so I'll keep this as simple as possible, but it's still a long read I'm afraid, but an important one I feel. My partner, who solely owned the house and had around £65,000 of equity, was made bankrupt for council tax arrears totalling around £4,000 in December '06. The total was around £6,000 with other creditors added on. To cut a long story short she didn't receive the statutory documents prior to bankrupcy, so wasn't aware of the bankrupcy until after it happened. If we had been we could have applied for a loan at that time. We appealed at court (because she hadn't received the statutory documents), but with the help of the OR the council won the case because the debt hadn't been repaid (in otherwords they would have reapplied anyway had they lost). 12 months came and went, and with the trustees demanding to know how she was going to repay the debt, and the property having been transferred to them so to speak (sorry, I don't know the correct terminology), we sought further advice from our solicitor (who was less than useless) an he advised we go into an IVA which she did in December 07. Their illustration showed that she would pay around £20,000 under an IVA, more than double that under bankrupcy, but in any event we couldn't get a remortgage to repay the debt so the IVA failed, though it ran the full 12 month course - the deal being that she repaid the debt witin 6 months or sell the house to repay it. Because the IVA failed the issue was referred back to the trustee (who had been appointed by the OR) earlier this year. They told us that they had, by law, to realise the assets of the property within 3 years of the bankrupcy to pay off the debts. So we put the house on the market at a knockdown £70,000 - £20,000 less than it's value, and sold it at the end of July. Around half of that went to pay of the mortgage outstanding, and the cheque went to the trustees. Their bill (along with their solicitors and the debts etc.) totalled about £29,000 but the interest is still being added. At that time they stated that they now had to advertise for any other creditors to come forward for 21 days, after which she will get anything that remains. So a £4,000 debt has cost us: Our home £20,000 in lost value because of the need to get rid quickly £29,000 + whatever to the trustees £1,000 estate agents fees £900 house-sale solicitors fees £3,000 I paid to the IVA people upfront, most of which only covered their fees £2,350 in solicitors fees which has been a complete waste of money. Total = £56,250, not including the £35,000 owing to the mortgage company The stress has been hell and still affects me badly, and if anything we will only see maybe a few hundred pounds from the property. 3 years had a few debts but were scraping through, but had £65,000 equity. Now we have nothing. Bottom line is you SERIOUSLY need to know exactly how much bankrupcy will cost you if you have assets or equity before considering it, it's not cheap, it's not painless and it is definately a last resort rather than an 'easy' out. Please read the Default bankruptcy: protracted realisation unit & bankrupts for more information on this. I can't add any more advice, other than if you think the debts disappear after the bankrupcy has been annuled after the intial 12-month period you need to be aware that it is NOT the case, they still have to be paid regardless if the trustee holds your assets together with huge fees and interest.

Just a thought, but if the debts are over 6 years old are they legally enforcable anyway?

It is important to understand that if you own your own home (or if it is mortgaged but you have some equity) it will effectively pass into the hands of a trustee who will then contact ALL CREDITORS and do a search for them/advertise for them to come forward, and you will have to repay them out of the assets of your home/equity, plus the OR's fees, plus the huge amount of fees and interest the OR-appointed trustee and their legal people charge. This will mean that you will either have to raise the money - and you will have no chance of getting a loan - or sell your house to realise the debts. This happened to us, we were badly advised and as a result we had to sell the house at a knockdown price (£20,000 less than valuation) or face the trustee repossessing it anyway, and with all the fees and so on we ended up with a bill approaching £30,000 for around £6,000 of debt. We were made bankrupt - it may be different if you declare yourself bankrupt, but I can't see it myself. I can only conclude that it's only a good idea if you have no assets/equity or owe more than the equity, but be prepared to lose your house either way.

Quite frankly it's about time these companies were taken to court for trying to obtain money by deception, because that's what it amounts to.

You didn't say there was protection for a chargeback, but you implied, albeit in innocence, that if the seller/OP had shipped to the confirmed address then Paypal would take the hit. I'm just pointing out that in the case of a chargeback, as is the case here, that Paypal would NOT take the hit, but are required by law to give the money back to the credit card company. Incidentally there are no confirmed addresses any more, ALL addresses are covered whether confirmed or not as long as you posted via a trackable method (I need to check whether this applies to all sellers or just Powersellers) - but be wary of this folks if the buyer wants to collect, you won't be covered if he subsequently claims he didn't receive it even if you obtained a signature. But again, you still wouldn't be covered in the event of a chargeback in any event. Put simply, there is no protection whatsoever against a chargeback. Things to check for are that the buyer's ebay address and email are the same as his paypal details, if not then at the very least try to find out why and don't be afraid of ringing ebay and Paypal to see if they smell a rat.

Sorry but you're wrong - there is NO Paypal protection whatsoever for a chargeback. The position is that Paypal have to repay the funds to the card company by law, if the cardholder claims that he didn't authorise the purchase, and it's not just overseas buyers either. Believe me I know, I have a business on ebay and lose anything between £1,000 and £2,000 a year through chargebacks. Paypal claim to help fight chargeback cases and claim a success rate of over 60% but they have never won a case for me. What makes me angry is there is no mechanism in place to ask the buyer to send the item back that he says some months later that he didn't order, and it's impossible to get any cardholder details from them so making it almost impossible to fight the case yourself. What is particularly annoying is therer is nothing within Paypal to tell you whether a transaction has been paid for from a buyer's Paypal balance or whether he has paid with a card - or somebody completely different has paid with a card (a chargeback is usually the result of somebody who has had their cards stolen) - if at least they gave you the cardholder's name you would be able to compare this with the actual Paypal account holder's name, but you get nothing.

Yes but they also say ONLY in the direction of the arrow which suggests to me that you MUST go in that direction: "...traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow..." There was a similar classic one a couple of years ago when the council pedestrianised the town centre. The main road into the town centre suddenly "ended" at the pedestrianised part, marked by a sign which said "Buses and taxis only". The only place for traffic to go was left into a side street, but there was a "No left turn" sign so legally the only thing you could do was a U-turn....errr, no you couldn't do that either because it was a one-way street! There's also a small cul-de-sac with no houses or businesses or buildings of any kind in it, with a "No entry except for access" (to what exactly?) sign at the start of it, and double yellow lines all the way around it. Total farce, you couldn't make it up.

The whole issue is a farce, from the over-the-top "fine" for the most minor of misdemeanors in most cases, the overzealous policing of often needless no-parking areas and enforcement and collection of the fines, that remember are issued without the law (or even the council) now needing a trial to prove your "guilt". But when it comes to situations like this where the councils, and more importantly private companies whose sole purpose in life is to make a profit, are using the police to illegally stop motorists to relieve them of their cash then something needs to be done to reverse the trend. I warned years ago that people's apathy would lead to this sort of thing, but it's now far worse than anybody ever envisaged, and I hope the Information Commissioner realises how serious this is - the very fabric of our society is based on fair trials and as far as motorists are concerned in 21st century Britain, all that's been snatched away from us. I personally have had bailiffs force their way into my house, breaking a door and causing £650 worth of damage on the way, to try to enforce a single unpaid council-issued parking ticket. The police did nothing. I've had police threaten me with arrest if I didn't allow collection agents - not bailiffs, and without a court order - take away my £8,000 car which was on HP, and I've had the local council trying to illegally tow awy my car for parking in a suburban residents parking zone because my permit had expired 36 hours previously (and the renewal office had been closed throughout the 36 hour period). It's now gone way too far and needs to be stopped.

I'm not going to get involved in a slanging match, but you need to grow up instead of firing accusations at me and insulting all who fought in the war, and all the victims of the Nazis. When you see what councils and their bailiffs are doing to people for unpaid council tax and parking tickets, and the way banks have been fleecing people for years (ironic that as taxpayers, customers now have to pay up AGAIN to bail them out) then what T-Mobile are doing pales into insignificance. They are only acting like any company would who are owed money, and why not? They can't do anything to those who have paid up - you simply tell their debt collectors to take it to court or to take a hike - and again, if you owe and haven't paid then you should try to come to some sort of arrangement. It's not rocket science.

Do try to keep it real. Chasing 4 year old debts is hardly "Nazi tactics", it's standard practice to use a debt collection agency and if you owe it you should pay it; if you don't there's nothing to worry about.

Here's another interesting "grey area" too, this time from form ex345 from HMCS: Ex.345 So in otherwords a bailiff "would be wrong" to seize, say, a £10,000 car for a few hundred pounds debt!?

Well this makes interesting reading from the HMCS site: Now that would appear to suggest that if the defendant is (found) at a different address then an application must be made to reissue the warrant, thus suggesting that the original warrant would NOT be valid at anything other than the original address. The way I read this, it also suggests that the warrant must be served at the address on it. Warrant of Execution Then click the "next" button on that link and you come to this little gem, which contradicts the above suggestion that a warrant cannot be reissued: "How long does the warrant last? The warrant lasts for one year. If the warrant has not been paid or if the bailiff has not made a final report within this time, it is no longer valid. You can ask the court to 'extend the warrant's life'. You will have to pay a fee for asking the court to do this. You should try to do this before the year is up. You can also do this after the year is over, but you will have to give reasons why you did not do so sooner."

Not wishing to contradict anybody, but I have definately read somewhere that the warrant can only be served at the address for which it was issued, if so the rest would surely fall into place? I can't find anything for or against on the TEC of HMCS sites though. I would imagine there must be some sort of ruling, otherwise there would be no need for an address on the warrant!

You sure about that one??? That's news to me!!!

That gets my vote, but hang on a minute - isn't there another issue here that, as far as I can see, hasn't been mentioned? It's this: Doesn't the law state that a warrant for a PCN has to be served at the address for which it is issued? If so then surely that means that the bailiffs can't seize the vehicle or otherwise enforce the warrant (not legally anyway), e.g. force you to pay up under threat of seizing the vehicle unless they are actually doing so at the address on the warrant? Doesn't it therefore follow that the vehicle cannot be taken if it is not at (or presumably very close to/adjacent to) that address?

Yet another area where there needs to be some sort of clarification. I recently obtained a T-mobile sim card with a number that I wanted to transfer to my own network (O2), but T-mobile refused to do so as I had not "topped up" the sim card. I contacted Ofcom, who issue the numbers (the numbers don't actually "belong" to any network) but they said they wouldn't have a problem with this as T-mobile would have their own costs involved - what costs there would be exactly with issuing a PAC code for a sim card that had otherwise never been used is the point of contention in my opinion, but it seems that the networks can charge whatever they like!