Hi all This one's a worrying departure from companies generally steering clear of taking people to court for old/possibly dead debts - Hoist Portfolio Limited (HPH2 Ltd) have had a CCJ issued on me for a years old debt that may be statute barred. *If* it is the debt I am thinking it is, it is from an old bank account and is an amalgamated loan, overdraft and credit card debt that I had when leaving them after I lost my job and became very ill. I had already made several years repayments on it while it was in the black, but then became unable to continue and had to default. I sought advice from CCCS and established I could not afford to pay them any more than a token £1 a month payment. Some time later, my father came into some money and kindly offered to settle it for me. I also had another debt so he divided the money up in a percentage between the two as advised by CCCS. The other company happily took the offer, this bank declined. He made them a second offer. They declined. We explained I was in ill health and would never be able to pay it back in full so they really should accept the offer as it was all they were likely to get and the offer would not be on the table forever etc. They declined. I am afraid I do not know the dates of any of this, only that it is several years ago now. I wrote to them asking them to correspond with my father not me as I was in poor health and could not reply in a timely manner. Several other companies bought the debt, my father made the first two or three the same offer, they all declined, we did not hear anything for about two years. Enter Hoist. They have decided 1) not to contact my father but myself and consequently I do not have most of their letters as 2) they also have the wrong address on their letters, the address of the 'main' building I live in, not the actual address so I have not been getting them. The first letter I did get was one from the court telling me they had issued a CCJ against me! immediately confirmed it was real and contacted CCCS (now Stepchange) who advised me to write to the court asking for motion to put aside, which I did and also sent a CCA request to them, which they returned with the postal order and no documents. still do not have the documents (August). the hearing to set aside is on Thursday, which I just found out, since they are STILL sending the letters - including the court - to the wrong address! made it quite clear in my reply they needed to address the letters properly for them to get to me. was not aware that there would be a hearing to decide if we were to have a hearing. presumed the judge would look through the letter I sent and decide. After digging through the junk mail, found a letter from Hoist, who said they will not 'challenge' this hearing to set aside, which is very nice of them, as long as I started making payments. They still did not enclose the documents I requested. the hearing is on Thursday am I was wondering if there was anything I should know/bear in mind from other people who have done this. My defence is 1) sent to the wrong address 2) asked to correspond with my father due to my ill health and have ignored request 3) they have added interest to the debt when I was told 'once it is amalgamated interest and fees can no longer be applied, so that's one good thing about this'. 4) the debt may be statute barred 5) I have asked to see original docs and they have ignored request 6) if this is the debt I think it is - my Dad made several offers which they declined, and he explained that they could either take it or nothing, and they declined. So...well... 7) it may not even be a real debt or mine - I need to see the docs, which they have not sent. My name is actually very common, it is not completely impossible. I guess I go there on Thursday in my best suit and go through those things? It is really having a terrible effect on my already terrible health and I am so fed up with the whole thing. I believe we have tried our best to come up with a solution and it is not my fault that I became ill and unable to pay. Our offer was fair and certainly, for a debt co who probably bought it for 15 per cent or whatever, I do not understand why they have chosen this route rather than the money. Thank you all in advance for your help. These forums are literally life-saving. xxx

Caroline Lucas created BASIC INCOME EDM 974. Jonathan Reynolds similarly supports basic income. John McDonnell said Labour are considering basic income. Basic income trials are set to take place in Canada, Finland, and Holland. The time is ripe for UK Parliament to debate EDM 974 BASIC INCOME. That this House notes the growing crisis of low pay and precarity in a labour market increasingly characterised by casualised forms of employment that offer little in the way of pay, predictable hours or long-term security; further notes the evident inability of our bureaucratically costly social security system, with its dependence on means-testing and often arbitrary sanctions, to provide an adequate income floor; believes that a Basic Income, an unconditional, non-withdrawable income paid to everyone, has the potential to offer genuine social security to all while boosting entrepreneurialism and the creation of small businesses; Much more on the link. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128234 And of course a thread open for those that perhaps do not know to much about Basic Income. Worth a read,in my view. Basic Income Guarantee-Do You Like The Idea-Any Views-Have Your Say. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?461005-Basic-Income-Guarantee-Do-You-Like-The-Idea-Any-Views-Have-Your-Say.

On 20th November, Jim Cunningham MP started an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons which is urging the government to include in their forthcoming bailiff reform to oblige councils to prohibit "multiple" fee charging for each visit and to develop guidelines to protect vulnerable persons who are faced with bailiff action. An EDM is a formal motion submitted to debate in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament for debate on an "early date" ( namely an unspecified date in the future). An Early Day Motion allows MP's to draw attention to the event and other MP's will then register their support by adding their signature to the EDM So far, 21 MP's have signed the EDM bit it is rather worrying that only one MP is from the Conservative Party!!! If anyone knows their MP....this is an excellent opportunity to ask that they add their signature to this EDM. Just ask them to support EDM number: 746 regarding Bailiffs. http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/746