Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You cant get defaults removed dont get scammed.   they would have been registered by the original companies before or upon sale.
    • I'm disappointed it didn't go to court, a hearing would have been interesting if Priti Useless had been compelled to testify. But I understand that Sir Philip might not have wanted the stress and uncertainty of a hearing.
    • Well stuff and all they can do with only a restriction k  £13k thats one hell of a card debt..   wonder why rbs decided to sell it on ....should they have allowed you to have such a large balance? Were you well solvent at the time? Looks like you were not if you had to pay your mortgage with it for god knows how long to run up £13k..   smacks of possible irresponsible lending to me esp if your credit file was shot with all manner of default s and lots other debt/ lending .
    • Hi guys    First post so apologies if I've made any mistakes on posting location or if this information if held in a general file location.   I have been declined a Mortgage recently based on defaults on my credit file that I genuinely didn't know anything about (details below)    British Gas - Defaulted in July 2019 owing £1,871 and £992 (settled Oct 2019)  Cabot – Defaulted Sept 2017 owing £330 (settled July 2017) Lowell – Defaulted May 2018 owing £79 -  Bt Consumer – Defaulted Feb 2016 owing £34 - This one isn't even in my name!    I was looking to see if anyone has a process or maybe letter templates for challenging Defaults and ultimately getting them removed from credit file?   I have spoken to a credit repair company who are looking to charge me £250 per Default to have them removed, however I would prefer to try and challenge these myself however have no idea where to start.    Any help appreciated. Happy to make a donation to the running of the site too if anyone can assist.   Many Thanks   
    • Priti Patel reaches £340,000 settlement with ex-Home Office chief Philip Rutnam "Priti Patel has reached a six-figure settlement with a senior civil servant following claims that he was forced out of his job for intervening in her alleged bullying of fellow staff, it has emerged."   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/priti-patel-reaches-six-figure-settlement-with-ex-home-office-chief-philip-rutnam   Now Johnson needs to explain how and why he over turned the assessment on her breach of ministerial code https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-rules-priti-patel-did-not-breach-ministerial-code-over-bullying-allegations-12136986
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4063 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Yes my girlfriend lives with me Kelcou.


My letter from the CSA is as follows ...


Your child maintenance arrears Arrangement


I can now confirm the arrangement we made on 20/07/09 for the amount of child maintenance you should pay for:




We agreed you should pay:


£100 by Direct Debit monthly


This means that your maintenance payments will be as follows:


£100 monthly by direct debit


As agreed, this arrangement may be reviewed at the discretion of the Child Support Agency or as a result in a change to your circumstances.


As discussed, we will still apply for a Liability Order through the courts. If you do default on this arrangement, further enforcement action will be taken without prior notice to you. A Liability Order is a legal recognition that debt exists and will not affect your credit rating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

were you ,before the period of being unemployed paying, anything on a regular basis?


I wasn't even aware a claim was made against me until they eventually got my correct current address and gave me the big bill. I tried to explain how the bill was made up a rubbish i.e. charging me £50 a week csa when i was unemployed getting £45 a week - for 9 months! "Not my problem" was the repeated response. So the amount i no longer care about just paying it what i can afford.



Link to post
Share on other sites
If that made you laugh try this....it's a xmas prezzie from the staff..thought today was Thursday haven't done their wages:oops::oops: for Friday



Might be the last xmas prezzie they buy you.:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thankyou everyone, looking like a busy start to the week, Need!

Do keep a copy of all correspondence.


Just to try to recap...

Contact your MP, write to the CSA, contact your local Magistrates Court for a hearing [if you're on a low income you should get help towards the cost], copy relevant correspondence to the bailiff company.


Does your girlfriend live with you? If this is the case, than you need to bring this to the attention of the Court and the bailiff, due to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. :



Department for Constitutional Affairs - Enforcement - National Standards for Enforcement Agents


Those who might be considered vulnerable include the following:

the elderly;

people with a disability;

the seriously ill;

the recently bereaved;

single parent families;

pregnant women;

unemployed people; and,

those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.


Hope you're feeling a little better about your options.


Best wishes.



I'm not convinced these apply to CSA debts

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i know that and that was my argument but as i didnt tell them i was no longer employed (because i didnt know there was an ongoing claim against me) it's MY FAULT!


funny how they find out within 30 seconds that you start work but none the wiser when you are made redundant!!!


Anyway im past the argument about how much i owe - i just need to stop any more charges being added and get an agreement somehow to pay what i can each month.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not convinced these apply to CSA debts

Given that Marstens are Enforcement Agents, I'd be rather surprised if the CSA was a get out clause from the National Standards for Enforcement Officers.

They may choose to pretend that the Standards don't exist but I am nowhere near convinced they don't apply.

What makes you think such a thing?


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I suggest you google dead beat dads or nacsa both offer CSA advice they will be able to get you on track.. but as you are dealing with a government agency you really do need to get specialist advice.

The Bailiff is a easy compared to the CSA and you will/have had good advice on here how to keep him at bay.


good luck


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have delt with this problem before with a friend. As far as the Bailiff is concerned the rule is simple. DO NOT let him in. Lock your doors and windows. They will if they can just walk in. BUT they CANNOT force entry so as long as your locked there is nothing whatsoever they can do.


The Bailiff will visit at least 3 times and attempt entry. Do not open the door, do not listen to the lies he will tell you to trick you into letting him in. Bailiffs will try and sweet talk you. Do not be worried by the locksmith threats, its rubbish and wont happen (assuming they have never been in your home). Do not fall for the mr nice guy act. He just wants money. Do not waste your time explaining your finances. He just wants your money.


After 3 visits (approx) they will return it to the CSA and you can start talking to the CSA.


My friend who had this got visited 3 times and the LO returned to the CSA but never had to pay the bailiffs a penny nor did they ask.



If you think I have helped you, please add to my reputation by clicking the star button to the left.


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that Marstens are Enforcement Agents, I'd be rather surprised if the CSA was a get out clause from the National Standards for Enforcement Officers.

They may choose to pretend that the Standards don't exist but I am nowhere near convinced they don't apply.

What makes you think such a thing?



Because of the additional powers and sanctions available in collection of CSA debts.


Plus i'm not sure the national standards are referred to in the CSA contracts so there would be no obligation to adhere to them.


I'm not saying i'm right i'm just not convinced either way and have a niggling doubt.


Does anyone know for certain?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken from TT's website. this may help;

Powers available to the Bailiffs.

The main aim of the Bailiff is to try and gain payment in full or to obtain an effective agreement with the non-resident parent to repay their arrears. If an arrears agreement is made, the Bailiff would visit each week/ month to collect the agreed monies. However if the non-resident parent refuses to cooperate, the Bailiffs may levy distress.


Bailiffs are not allowed to force entry into premises in order to levy distress, therefore, unless they are invited in, they cannot list any goods for distress (potential sale) The Bailiffs will always take a percentage of any monies that they manage to secure as part of their charges.


The relevant Statutory Legislation concerning this is the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Section 30 see below.


When Bailiff action should be considered.


Prior to taking Bailiff action, consideration has to be given as to how effective levying of distress would be. The following factors should be taken into account in any decision made.


• Welfare of the child

• Would the agency be criticised for insensitivity, for example if there had been a recent bereavement in the household

• Is the non-resident parent on a very low income or in receipt of a benefit

• Non-resident parent is known to have no goods on which to levy distress

• Is the non-resident parent under 18 and classed as a child (Child Support act 1991 Section 55 (1)

• Non-resident parent potentially violent status


Although levying of distress may not be appropriate in some cases, the threat of a Bailiff visiting the non-resident parent can sometimes be enough to prompt the non-resident parent to make an arrangement to pay.


Bailiff action.

When the decision to appoint a Bailiff to levy distress has been made, the Bailiff will require as much information as possible about the non-resident parent to ensure this action is a success. For example, details of their lifestyle, business address, and confirmation of any items owned by the non-resident parent e.g. a vehicle, details of interim maintenance assessment in place and any voluntary payments made.

If the non-resident parent is a serving member of the armed forces and lives in military accommodation i.e. the Bailiff has to go through a military checkpoint to gain access to the property, the Bailiff will require details of the Commanding Officer and a contact number to request permission to enter the premises.


Note: On receipt of a referral from the Agency, the Bailiffs will take initial action to levy distress within seven days.


If they are unable to contact the non-resident parent on the first visit, a contact letter will be left warning of Bailiff Action. If the non-resident parent fails to respond, a further visit will be made within 14 days of the warning letter. If the second visit fails to result in contact being made, the case will be returned to the Agency.


If contact is unsuccessful, the Bailiffs should not hold on to a case for more than 13 weeks, unless:


• An arrangement to pay is in place, or;

• The Agency have specifically advised them to keep the case for longer


Bailiffs usually try to make an arrangement where the debt will be cleared within 13 weeks, but this is not always possible, depending on both the size of the debt and the non-resident parent’s ability to pay.


In exceptional circumstances, the Bailiffs may return a case earlier if:


• The Agency may have asked for the return of the case if the non-resident parent’s situation has changed, he has paid the debt in full or the parent with care has withdrawn their authority

• The non-resident parent may be untraceable, the case would then need to have trace action taken on it

• The agreement with the non-resident parent has fallen through and they are unable to levy distress


If Bailiffs become aware that the non-resident parent is no longer living at the address provided, they will discretely try and find out the non-resident parent’s new whereabouts. This could include consulting:


• Neighbours’

• Landlords

• New occupiers


When they locate the non-resident parent, the Bailiffs will visit the new address within seven days to obtain an arrangement and notify the Agency.


If they are unable to trace the non-resident parent, the Bailiffs will retain the case for seven days following the final visit, and if contact is still not made, the case will be returned to the Agency with a Nulla Bona certificate (gone away) Another example of when a Nulla Bona certificate would be issued is if there are insufficient goods to levy distress on.


Appeal against distress.

Where a case has been referred to the Bailiffs and there has been an attempt to, or an actual levy of distress, the non-resident parent can appeal to a Magistrates Court if they believe the levy to have been irregular.

Taxation of the costs of distress.


There may be occasions when a person who has been the subject of levying of distress may decide to appeal against the amount of the Bailiff costs. They will lodge the application in the County Court and enclose a copy of the bill of costs.

If the court feels that there is a case to answer, they will arrange a hearing date for the District Judge to consider the matter. They will send a copy of the application and the costs to the appropriate Business Unit. The case officer should inform the appropriate Bailiff when an application is received. The District Judge will notify the non-resident parent and the Child Support Agency of their decision.


Complaints about Bailiffs.

All complaints about Bailiff action should initially be directed to the relevant Bailiff Company. (Our advice would be to write to the CSA also)


However, if the company concerned are not bailiffs, but are a Debt Collection Agency (DCA), then by law, they must hold a Consumer Credit Licence. In this case, you would need to address your complaints to the Office of Fair Trading. For further details on this, you will need to visit our section on the front page entitled : How to Complain.


Agreement in place…… what next?

If the non-resident parent makes an agreement with the Bailiffs, this would be for the arrears covered by the Liability Order only. The non-resident parent should be contacted to make an agreement to pay the regular maintenance and any other arrears, as appropriate. If the non-resident parent refuses to comply, the Bailiffs should be left to deal with their agreement. Further action should then be taken against the non-resident parent for the remainder. This would normally mean applying for a further Liability Order to register the debt on the arrears that have accrued since the previous Liability Order was granted.


If the non-resident parent is paying their regular maintenance and there are no further arrears then the case is retained on enforcement until such time as the Liability Order has been satisfied


Liability Order paid in full


• The non-resident parent should be contacted to ascertain if they intend to pay regular maintenance and contribute towards any other arrears which may have accrued, (if appropriate). Arrears can be outstanding from the beginning of the case (if a safe period has been applied for) or from the end date of the Liability Order to the present day.

• Agreements made should be monitored to ensure that they are honored. The Agency must have received three monthly payments or six weekly payments for the case to be deemed as compliant for enforcement purposes. Once honored the case can be cleared from enforcement.

• If the non-resident parent is not willing to make regular contributions towards the maintenance assessments and/or arrears then a further liability order would need to be applied for and the process would begin again.


Liability Order debt Outstanding – Non resident parent makes agreement.

• The agreement must be to pay the regular maintenance due, arrears covered by the Liability Order and any other outstanding arrears. The Agency must have received three monthly payments or six weekly payments for the case to be deemed as compliant for enforcement purposes. If the method of payment is direct the case officer will need to confirm with the parent with care that payments have been received. However the case should not be cleared from enforcement until the Bailiffs Agreement has been met in full.


Note: To read the entire section on Enforcement Options you will need to visit the following web address:

www.Dca.gov.uk/enforcement/mccreview/summary/pdf (tomtubby, this link is no longer available)



Under the Child Support Legislation (Child Support Act 1991, Regulation 35 and (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Regulation 30, the Agency is empowered to utilise private bailiff firms to levy distress for arrears of child maintenance.

Edited by seanamarts
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because of the additional powers and sanctions available in collection of CSA debts.


Plus i'm not sure the national standards are referred to in the CSA contracts so there would be no obligation to adhere to them.


I'm not saying i'm right i'm just not convinced either way and have a niggling doubt.


Does anyone know for certain?


Thanks for the reply, fluffy.


My viewpoint is that the 2002 Standards set the standard for all Enforcement Agents irrespective of what they are enforcing. I don't think it matters what extra powers may be in place for the differing needs of collection. Neither do I think any contract would include a clause which boils down to 'and please ignore the National Standards for Enforcement Agents'.


Whilst you are absolutely right, in a way, to say there is no obligation per se to adhere to them - as they are not law - they are agreed with by the vast majority of Enforcement Companies, the vast majority of councils and I've not yet come across a Magistrates Court that won't support them. So, in my view, they hold some worthwhile weight and are very well worth bringing to peoples attention. Not necessarily - except in exceptional cases - as a single tool in itself, but as another string to the bow of defence against bad practice when they are applicable.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...