Jump to content

payingonlyencouragesthem

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

203 Excellent

About payingonlyencouragesthem

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Can you post a full copy of the TO? From what you are saying it seems like they are trying to shaft you for the total alleged debt plus some or all of the legal costs that would have been payable had you lost the original dispute. Is this correct? We need to see if the TO implies you would be liable for this if you became unable to meet the repayments. This is important and may affect any redetermination decision.
  2. Tomlin Orders give the creditor an automatic CCJ if they are defaulted on, hence Link's unsurprising rejection of your offer. Are they asking for the payment of the full debt or the full debt minus the amount paid to date under the Tomlin Order? We would need to know this in order to advise options.
  3. You might want to ask Incasso if they would accept a Tomlin Order. This boils it down to a court overseen admission of the debt with a payment agreement that must be adhered to but no CCJ is registered unless you default on the payments. If you Google around this site you'll find out more about these orders and hopefully find someone who will help you draft the order if you go down that route. It will also stop interest being added.
  4. Do they have a signed overdraft agreement? How long ago was this account opened? When did you last make a payment into this account? Was it ever a joint account? Are NatWest suing you themselves or are they using a debt collector / solicitor, if so who is it? Depending on the answers to these questions it may well be possible to avoid a CCJ here. If you admit it at this stage it's probable that you will just get a default CCJ entered against you with the court ordering you to pay in line with your i&e so there's nothing to lose by exploring all avenues.
  5. It sounds as though that hand delivered letter you got initially was an SD. I would ring Lowell (they should have provided a name and contact number with the SD) and tell them that it's not your debt. If this is really the case their petition should fail and they would have just wasted their money and owe you costs. I very much doubt they would want to proceed if you are going to totally deny the debt and they have no proof that it's yours. If talking to them doesn't get results there are other things that can be done but they involve costs and should be very much "Plan B" at this stage.
  6. Well, either the balance they are pursuing is part of the same debt and is thus covered by section 35 or its a separate debt which hasn't been paid or acknowledged in the past 6 yrs and is thus SB. If DCA's were to be allowed to swap court failed debts among one another in order to re-flag and reset the claimant status then it would make a total nonsense of the whole system and this is something you would need to point out if this went back to court. You seem to be in something of a a test situation here - annoying for you but with a bit of nerve and perseverance you should come out on top.
  7. They probably passed it on to their legal buffoons who seem to sit on things for ages. Expect a court action or Statutory Demand threat in due course.
  8. "What possible "spoilers" to the SB status could they conjure up" Phantom token payments to the account within the last 6 yrs is the most popular. If you sent £1 for a CCA request or £10 for a SAR they may try to claim these were actually token payments that reset the clock. Also, they might try saying that something in any correspondence you had with anyone in the last 6 yrs constitutes a written admission of the debt. 42man - glad to see you are still fighting the good fight!:shock:
  9. Might it not be a good idea to phone Weightman's and explain the SB aspect? If it really is SB they will almost certainly back off without any further fuss. On the other hand if they have an SB spoiler up their sleeve you'll certainly need to know about it first before you file your defence.
  10. DS is completely correct in every respect. I didn't post further comment as I assumed from what Vint said that things had wended their way in accordance with the reasonable agreement of all concerned, which can happen. law and intestacy rules not withstanding. However if this is not the case there is a problem and DS's advice should be heeded.
  11. We just need to know who the creditor is to take the initial step, certainly don't publicly or privately post any info that could be used to identify you.
  12. There are generally 3 types of SD issuers: 1)The Capquest pure hot air type who just want to frighten you into paying something to reset the Statute Bar clock, 2)someone who knows you've got money/assets and wants to force payment and 3)someone who wants to force you to show all your cards so they can shake you down for the max poss payoff. Nobody really wants to go the whole hog and pay your bankruptcy expenses(although they may well do so if you fail to respond). I suspect that this creditor falls into the number 3 category. If you can tell us who it is we can advise on the next step.
  13. "I, and an awful lot of other people, find this an absolute scandal given the amount of interest the Creditor will have received under the "unsecured" banner. Where was this warning on the loan agreement? In a lot of cases, they are also trying to take a chunk of all that some families have left to their name. In my particular case, my ex wife was being charged 29%pa because she was deemed a risk because of only being able to repay minimum after losing her job. This was despite no missed payments with anyone. When she contacted the company involved to ask for a reduced rate of interest during her unemployment they REFUSED saying they were "contractually obliged" to charge that rate of interest" Exactly. The real scandal is that the courts are prepared to give the lenders what is effectively a bail out for an eventuality (the default) that's already been paid for by the outrageous interest rates they charge their customer base. Also, the financial sevices industry regularly advertises unsecured lending as something that does not put your home at risk. One further thing to bear in mind - a Restriction holder will also have a CCJ in his pocket so even if he was bypassed by the completion process he would probably not have too much difficulty in getting hold of the money, either via a garnishee order or bankruptcy petition.
  14. The Northamton BCC claim pack. Check with the magnifying function on Acrobat before reposting
  15. You havn't blacked out the figures properly on the PDF's you uploaded - Cabot read these threads and have been known to produce them in court. Change them or get a mod to remove them if you can't. From what I can see I think you should be thinking along the lines of a well worded Tomlin Order But others may have better ideas.
×
×
  • Create New...