Could someone please advise on the “6-years and it lapses” rule, I want to know if it still is in place, and also if it then has relevance for the following. 5 years ago I acted on advice from the wonderful people on this forum. I had previously retired at 65 after a business collapse, and was facing constant letters/calls from debt collectors regarding some related debts amounting to £36K across 5 business credit cards, 1 personal card, and a small-business loan. As a result of great advice I was able to hold my ground and even go on the attack, and after a year or so 4 of the debts were wiped out and a 5th “will not be pursued until we can furnish a copy of the original agreement”. That DCA was a total shambles, so that seems extremely unlikely 4+ years later still. My query today relates to the personal credit card, which was being dealt with by DCA 1st Credit. I offered a token payment of £5/mth because at that time I had not discovered this forum and had no idea that the financial sector worked in such heavily self-serving ways, nor that I had options. The offer was accepted and I made 3 payments, though by that point I had found this forum which opened my eyes wide! I wrote to 1st Credit notifying them that the credit card issuer had not dealt acceptably/completely with previous concerns (long story!), that I would not be making any more payments, that they should return the case, and that I would be contacting their client seeking proper action and that they would be included in any subsequent formal complaint themselves if they continued collection processes in the meantime. Other than asking for details once, which I ignored, I never heard from them again. I have now received two letters a few weeks apart advising “1st Credit has now become Intrum UK Ltd”, requesting a payment arrangement for that debt. I don’t know whether 1st Credit just changed their name, or Intrum Justitia (one of ‘my’ earlier DCAs) has bought their book, but either way it seems 1st Credit just shoved it to the back of the shelf 5 yrs ago, not returned it nor done anything with it themselves. My knee-jerk is that if the 6-year rule still applies, they are now trying to resurrect the case before it lapses. Part of me says to ignore them and see where it goes, though another part of me wants to snap-back setting a line of defence advising Intrum to return the case to the card issuer who I am contacting requiring them to deal properly with already-notified matters that they have yet to complete, with a warning of a formal complaint should they continue to chase. I’d greatly prefer getting to a 6 year cutoff however and just washing my hands of the whole stressful matter, than opening a level of formalities all over again and having all the stress for a year at least and most likely on in to our mid-70s. I’d just like to get on with living, as all was extremely upsetting to my wife who was/is not a strong woman after losing all our assets, our house and a second property, and living hand-to-mouth on just our state pension in rented accommodation and not the comfortable retirement we had expected. So regarding the “6-years” rule, is it still in force? If so, would contacting fresh-face Intrum with a stand-down notification letter end the 5 year lack of any contact just a year before it could help close the door? Or maybe has that already been ended with the appearance of Intrum asking for an arrangement, beginning a fresh 6-year requirement? So … should I ignore Intrum’s contact for a while longer, or get in quickly with a defence by going in to attack mode which no doubt would drag out for at least a year … by which time the 6 year rule would apply anyway if it is still in place as a potential backstop as long as I don’t break the silence? I would welcome some focus so I can see more clearly what makes the best sense … and also any pointers to new or changed legislation/codes-of-conduct /proper forms-of-words/etc that may be keeping me unknowingly out of step with things these 5 years later. Many thanks if you can guide me at all.

The following is taken from the Law Gazette website: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/supreme-court-ruling-on-litigants-in-person-could-redraw-cpr/5063855.article

I have just given Foxtons my 2 months notice to end my assured shorthold tenancy. Foxtons have phoned me numerous times telling me they will be doing viewings in 2-4 hour slots across the days & that I dont have a choice to be there nor the right to find mutually convenient times enabling me to be present. I have said I am happy for viewings to be arranged at a mutually convenient times when I can be present in evenings & weekends. I have said that I wish to be present for viewings. Foxtons are being very aggresisve & bullying telling me I don't have the right to restrict their viewings to when I can be present & that I have to do as they say - I have to allow them to conduct viewings as much as they like when I am not able to be present. Foxtons are intimidating me telling me I have to do it their way or things will get very difficult for me. Where do I stand? I understood a tenant has the right to be present at viewings and they should be arranged with the tenant at a time to suit the tenant too. Any help much appreciated.

We currently have about £6k outstanding of a DMP we have with Stepchange. We have been repaying for about 11 years and had 1 year left except my wife lost her job which knocked the payment right down and now some of the creditors are starting to harass us. BIggest concern is Barclaycard. My parents have offered us £1800 to act as a full and final settlement but looking around I came across this forum and 'Cash cowing'. Now i'm concerned what the best way forward is. Debts are: WESCOT CREDIT SE... £1,331.49 LLOYDS BANK PLC £1,245.25 LLOYDS TSB CARDS... £1,106.58 MOORCROFT DEBT R... £457.56 CABOT FINANCIAL ... £365.77 WESCOT CREDIT SE... £339.64 WESCOT CREDIT SE... £325.57 BARCLAYCARD £324.52 Wescot Credit se... £261.24 What is the best way forward? I remember CCA'ing Barclaycard previsously and they have the original agreements as do Lloyds.

Several weeks into the post-ESA struggle for existence and I received the oddest phone call today from my "benefits advisor". Essentially it amounted to her pleading with me not to close my ESA claim. It was so mind-boggling, given the current climate of attack on the benefits system, that I have to set it out here in some detail. The advisor was responding to my letter declining the appointment made between me and her by the powers that be. Essentially I'd said - if they've stopped my ESA to what end would I be attending the appointment. I assumed that the people who stopped my benefit forgot to tell those making the appointments about the stopping. We are all accustomed to government departments which lack joined up thinking or performance. The woman says she's received my letter but please, why don't I apply for income based ESA. I tell her that (a) I can't face going through the whole assessment procedure again because of the stress and negative impact on my health and (b) when my husband was forced into early retirement he got his lump sum which is just enough to put me out of the running for benefit At which point she plays another card. They'll still be paying my NI benefits so I can't get away with not attending the appointments. I then say fine, stop them. Surely you can't expect me to drag myself an hour's journey each way for the sake of a meagre NI payment? It knocks me back for a whole day. The same woman who gave me such uphill the few times I saw her then proceeds to plead with me to let her keep my claim open, register that she spoke to me so I don't have to keep the appointment, and thus buy myself time to rethink the issue. What's going on here? I don't for one minute imagine that she's concerned for my welfare. Or at least not beyond not wanting me to be another addition to the scandalous statistics of the despairing poor, ill and infirm who have died as a consequence of the attacks on the social health and welfare systems. I reckon she's merely acting on instructions to go through the motions of seeing that people who come off benefits are given "assistance" and "advice". Meantime, we all know that people like me, the walking wounded, are the targets whom Ossie Ostrich has in his budgetary sights. Someone in my situation would be declined for ESA were I to apply afresh today. An asthmatic epileptic with a history of biomechanical and mental health problems is considered perfectly fit for work. (Cross the floor of the job centre to the desks dealing with JSA and they would deny this but there you go...............) Then there's that pesky £16 000 my husband received after 30 years of public service. It makes us "wealthy retirees" - we can eke this out over the next few years. If we're careful and only use it to build his monthly pension to two thirds of the official poverty line, it will last three years or four years. By the time we run out of all our resources and have absolutely nothing, not even our ability to work, to depend on, state assistance of any kind will have disappeared. So why's this woman calling me? What's she after? .

The bailiff regulations (that came into force on 6th April 2014) provide a simplified fee scale that is the same for arrears of council tax, non domestic rates, local authority issued penalty charge notices and Magistrate court fines. How much are the bailiff fees? Compliance Fee: £75 This fee is added to the debt as soon as the account is passed to the enforcement company by either the local authority or the magistrate court and will appear on the Notice of Enforcement. The ‘amount oustanding’ will therefore include the Compliance fee of £75. Enforcement Fee: £235 (plus 7.5% on amounts exceeding £1,500) If full payment or a payment arrangement is not agreed during the ‘compliance stage’ the debt is passed to an individual bailiff/enforcement agent. When he makes a personal visit to the property, an ‘enforcement fee’ of £235 also becomes payable. How is the ‘amount outstanding’ calculated? The new regulations state clearly that the ‘amount outstanding’ includes the amount of the debt from the local authority or the Magistrate Court and the enforcement agent fees (and costs) calculated up until the dtae of payment. Making a payment arrangement. After the debt has been passed to the enforcement agency, a Notice of Enforcement will be sent and the ‘amount oustanding’ will include the Compliance fee of £75. The letter (NoE) must state a date and time by which payment (or a payment arrangement) can be set up. This is referred to as the ‘compliance stage’. All companies should be willing to accept a sensible payment arrangement during the ‘compliance stage’ and in most cases; will accept a payment plan over a period of 3 months and in some cases, 6 months. It is worthwhile providing a simple Income & Expenditure with the payment proposal. Due to the strict time frame, payment proposals should be set up either over the phone or by email to the enforcement company. It is at the 'compliance stage' that any 'vulnerable' circumstances should be brought to the attention of the enforcement company and evidence provided. Payments made will be split on a ‘pro rata’ basis. As outlined above, once the debt has been passed to an enforcement agent, the ‘amount outstanding’ includes bailiff fees. Of significance is the fact that the regulations state that when a payment is made, it must be split on a ‘pro rata’ basis with the Compliance fee of £75 being deducted first, and the balance split between the debt to the either the local authority or the Magistrate Court (in respect of court fines) and the remaining bailiff fees. Making payment direct to the council or the Magistrate Court. As outlined above, once the debt has been passed to the enforcement agency, the ‘amount outstanding’ includes bailiff fees. Following a Notice of Enforcement or a personal visit, some debtors may decide to pay the council or the magistrate court direct in the belief that in doing so, they can avoid paying bailiff fees. In the very early days of the regulations (April 2014) this method of trying to avoid bailiff fees may have worked but now, very rarely (if ever) succeeds. Generally, the local authority will immediately advise the enforcement company that a payment has been received by them, and the enforcement agency will allocate that payment in line with the following example: Example of how payments are allocated: Liability Order/Magistrates Court fine issued for: £525. Notice of Enforcement sent and with Compliance fee of £75 added, the ‘amount outstanding’ increases to: £600 If full payment or a payment arrangement is not set up during the ‘compliance stage’ the account is referred to the enforcement agent/bailiff for a personal visit to the property. An Enforcement Fee of £235 is added and the ‘amount outstanding’ increases to: £835 Payment is made direct to the local authority/magistrates court of £525 (being the amount of the Liability Order /or court fine). The Compliance stage fee of £75 is deducted at source and the balance of £450 is split on a ‘pro rata’ basis with approximately 70% being allocated towards reducing the debt to the creditor (ie: the local authority or magistrates court) and the remaining 30% allocated towards reducing the bailiff fees. Can the bailiff take enforcement action to recover 'his fees'? As outlined above, once a warrant has been passed to the enforcement agency, bailiff fees becomes legally due and the ‘amount outstanding’ includes bailiff fees. The enforcement regulations have made it a statutory requirement that all payments should be split on a ‘pro rata’ basis. Accordingly, unless the ‘amount outstanding’ (which includes bailiff fees) is paid in full, the warrant has only been part satisfied and enforcement action can legally continue. It needs to be made clear that paying the local authority or the magistrate court direct does not mean that the warrant has been satisfied. All that it means, is that a part payment has been made against the amount outstanding. It is as simple as that. Note: It is important to be aware that with magistrate court fines, if payment is made to the Magistrate Court (either in person or online) after a warrant of control has been issued, all courts now forward the entire payment to the relevant enforcement company so that the enforcement company (and not the court) can deduct their fees in accordance with the ‘pro rata’ provisions as outlined above and allocate the balance towards the court fine. Setting up a payment arrangement and whether you can pay the court or the council direct -------.pdf Before Printing the PDF TIP If you DO NOT wish to print Page 1 (Cover Page) of the PDF, please ensure to do the following: Ensure you go to your Printer Settings and set it to 'Print from Page 2' (this way Page 1 (Cover Page) should not print out). Note: This will save you Ink & Paper

In past versions of Windows, Microsoft has allowed users to configure how they want operating system updates to be delivered. Those looking for the ultimate protection configure Windows Update to automatically install them, while others may, accidentally or not, disable the feature or postpone installing any updates for a very, very long time. I have seen systems that last had updates installed years before I was asked to troubleshoot them. With Windows 10, however, Microsoft is taking matters into its own hands, by making automatic updates mandatory. This applies to both home and business users, unless the latter group turns to dedicated tools that allow them to have more control over how updates are installed. Basically, you have to go out of your way to keep Windows 10 out of date. The most up to date Windows 10 licensing agreement, from build 10240, says the following: Updates. The software periodically checks for system and app updates, and downloads and installs them for you. You may obtain updates only from Microsoft or authorized sources, and Microsoft may need to update your system to provide you with those updates. By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice. Microsoft has confirmed that this will, indeed, be the case going forward, with a company spokesperson saying that "The license terms for Windows 10 require Automatic Updates be enabled as a part of keeping our customers secure and delivering Windows as a service". As I said before, it will be possible for some users to tweak this behavior, but I believe it will be limited to enterprises, which naturally want more control over such things. Personally, I welcome Microsoft's approach, as, based on my experience, there are plenty of Windows users who need to be protected against themselves. Some can be so ill-informed that they will disable Windows Update simply because they do not want to deal with the notifications that pop up when their systems have not been updated in a long time. They will expose their systems and personal data without realizing it, then they will blame Microsoft or other parties for the performance of their system. Of course, Microsoft can expect some Windows users to have a problem with this. There are legitimate cases when having Windows Update download lots of updates can interfere with certain tasks, but, for the average user, this should not be a problem. It can also be argued that some updates need to be "proven" before they are applied, but, again, times when such issues occur can be very rare. Another thing to note is that, by making automatic updates mandatory, Microsoft will be making it easier to keep users' systems current after releasing major Windows 10 updates, not just minor updates and security fixes. If, for instance, there will be a Windows 10.1 in the foreseeable future, it could be possible to have it automatically install right after being made available. Such an approach would make it possible to avoid the Windows 8.x update disaster, where there are still lots of users -- 2.9 percent of all PC users, to be exact, which is more than Windows Vista has -- running Windows 8 despite Windows 8.1 being offered as a free upgrade. This is a problem that Microsoft does not want to deal with again, if it is possible to avoid it (and it is), because it hurts it in the long run. Source: WinBeta

Hi, I passed my driving test last year and went down the route of the examiner taking my provisional license to send to the DVLA in order to obtain the full one. According to everything i read and was informed about, the full license would arrive inside three weeks. one week in and in my excitement, i bought a car and via a comparison site arranged insurance. I had explained i did not at that time have the full license to send them, just passed etc and was told this would be OK as it should arrive before they would cancel anything, and to mail them the license when i got it. What i had failed to factor in was that my old provisional was valid but within the time frame that DVLA would require a newer photo. (they did not inform me of this until 4 weeks after i passed my test), so i had to fill in some forms and send them away, effectively triggering a new three week waiting period. This was to long for the insurance i had been offered and they cancelled it. (i was dealing with Autonet btw). They did however understand my situation and arranged a newer insurance with a different company (more expensive but hey ho) and i finally received my full license, sent them the documents and all was good. Now that my insurance is up for renewal (no points, fines, claims or anything - i have been a very careful new driver ) i am unsure if that first policy is something i have to declare to potential new providers? How serious a mistake was it on my part to go for a car before i had the paperwork in hand? thanks in advance

Hi I am posting with some questions for a friend of mine whom sufffers from mental health issues (anxiety panic attack, nausea, vomiting, depression) background she has just received notification of being placed in the WRAG group- contribution based ( migrated from IB). she is keen to get some support/advise re testing herself out for possible work WHEN she is well enough and is stuggling with coming to terms with admitting how ill she is. I believe she should be in the support group, as her mental health is such that she cannot reliably commit to work related interviews without risking exacerbation of her symptoms. ( i dont think she meets support group "descriptors" for mental health- but exceptional Circumstances Regulations -regulation 35 should apply "a “serious” or “substantial” risk of harm is likely, should the person be found to be capable of work-related activity" she wants support to get better and return to work but it would be better for her to be in the support group and voluntarily attending work related activity would be far more suitable than the pressure of WRAG group with the threat of sanctions hanging over her head when she inevitably is not well enough to attend. she is weighing up if she is well enough emotionally to consider an appeal wrag to support questions IF she was to ask for a mandatory reconsideration ( asking for scoresheet, statement of reasons and sends in letter from doctor and counsellor) and states Reg 35 as reason for consideration of support group) and the reconsideration response was to keep her in the WRAG group :- 1. what is the process now for mandatory recconsideration , and requesting the score sheet and statement of reasons and registering an appeal ....i vaguely recall some change since i went through this 2.would her money be dropped if she decided to appeal? 3. would she have to persue the appeal process or could she stop there? ( with the money at esa wrag contributions rate or would that be dropped) 3. many thanks in advance

I would like to try and sort / clean up my account as one day I would like to be ‘’normal’’ have a mortgage again etc. I haven’t heard that much recently from any one, the occasional letter arrived but I just chuck it as im unsure of the process I should follow and not to deal with DCA’s I have a recent copy of my Noodle credit file, most of the debt has been sold on, I have not acknowledged or paid anything towards any debt since 2010, supported by my credit file as they all state default every month. I have no recorded CCJ’s from what I can see. Could someone please advise me on the step by step process on what to request or do next…. I don’t have any account numbers or any paperwork either. Or should I just wait 2 mores years for the debt to be statue barded? Thanks in advance

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/community/opinion/letters/letters-friday-11-2013-1-5307722 Best to keep it moderate!!!

Hi My situation is this. I was previously getting income support based on sickness, was assesed by ATOS in oct 2011 and told in nov 2011 (25th or 26th) that I would not be transfered onto ESA. I appealed this decision in dec 2011 (28 or 29th) and eventually had a first tier tribunal may 23rd, which upheld the decision made on nov 2011. I have been receiving ESA at assesment rate since jan 4th 2012 whilst I appealed, I have received no letter from the DWP yet but having checked with jobcentre my last ESA payment was the 5th june and my claim was stopped on the 6th june and has put forward to be processed on the 6th june( i think that means send me out a letter?) My question is this - can I claim ESA yet under the 6 month rule, there's a confusion that I've been informed that it's 6 month from the date of rejection of ESA nov 2011 (the letter in nov 2011 giving the descision says 6 mnths from the date on this letter) and also by someone acting on my behalf who phoned dwp that it 's 6month from the tibunals decision may 23rd 2012. I don't want to claim JSA but don't know if I have any other option. I need to have a claim for benefit of some sort in by 6th june (which has passed!) in order that my housing benefit isn't affected. So is it 6 mnths from tribunal descision or 6mnths from letter giving the descision that I don't have lmtd capacity for work? I've phoned DWP(numerous times) who can't answer the question and also visit job centre who don't know either. I was told my best bet would be write to office dealing with my claim and ask them as the people who may know (a descion maker-ominious title!) aren't available over the phone. Any info would be great.