Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to ring northants bulk and ask for a copy of the judgement and the claimform by email pdf. it is quite usual for them to not have a copy of the claimform. so you need to record the call and ask them to read out the particulars of claim and the address it was sent too.     old wives tales , if you have a debt owing that shows on your credit file or you know exists from say the last 7yrs you should NEVER move without WRITTING to the debt owner with your new address. never run from debt which falls within the above .     all mortgage style SLC loans that were not deferred with erudio following the gov't sale in 2013 and that did not have a court claim raised within 6yrs are SB'd.   drydens simply did this because they wrote to your old address, got no response, and knew they'd get a default roboclaim CCJ where no human checks anything.   shot yourself in the foot.      
    • yep.   if all these are still owned/with the original creditors and you are not paying any powerless DCA's  then little point in any CCA requests at this stage unless any (non OD A/C's) are say pre 2000 opening.   our pro rata letters are the way to go you'll find those in the debt collection section of our library.   get any income payments on going or otherwise moved into a parachute A/c.   it is most probable that whatever you do most A/c's will be defaulted once this is done if not already. bearing in mine your wish to re mortgage or move in a future, it is most probable that the quicker you do default , the earlier a DN will be registered thus the earlier these will not show following their 6th birthday. this might involve you thinking about stopping all payments now ensuring this does happen, then resuming payment under a pro rata scheme self administered , once this happens.   just be aware that no DMP providers will ever question enforceability, should that be relevant.     
    • LL would have Absolutely no chance of getting the smart meter changed back.....
    • slow down ...read what i'm asking , stating and trying to clarify.. it all might seem useless or totally irrelevant but it's important information moving forward with the whole situation and useful in the SPC claim moving forward     there was not 2 loans - the litigated OD is not a loan but it appears from your comment here..     sorry but then you did get scammed on many fronts... they allowed you to settle the loan exploiting your confusion over thinking it was the litigated account. they didn't tell you either and they would also have been aware of your statement filed response form:   The respondent had a junior account with the Bank of Scotland since a young age.  The Bank of Scotland offered the Respondent a loan of around £2500. This Respondent serviced the loan until losing her source of income and ran into some financial difficulty resulting in defaulting in servicing the loan.   they settled for a discounted sum... why? we usually find this is because they hold no enforceable paperwork at all. or was full of charges , charges could have been the discount or it could have been due to 'a business decision' ...   but sure as eggs is eggs there is no way 1st credit would not have raised a court claim for both the OD and the loan unless there was a very good reason. they didn't that smells...badly.   OD 's are notoriously difficult to litigate upon if defended properly...but with a loan in the same claim, with enforceable paperwork, they would have almost been guaranteed to win.   it's also a shame you didn't come where before you did anything but we are where we are.   now the above might seem harsh..even petty but our posts are not only for you and your issue they are also for future readers that find us via search engines or read like threads here alerting debtors to frequent pitfalls and innocent wet myself actions many do that all these dca's will and have exploited time and time again over the last +40yrs .   i'll try and get around to properly redacting all your pdf's tonight and get them back up. but before i finish and get on with the above........the status of the claim as it stands now.   From what i can gather the claim now hinges upon proving her ex at the time settled by a discounted payment to HBOS well before the sale to Intrum and the SPC Claim.   In all honestly and with regard to your comments in your previous posts upon his character, i seriously doubt this ever happened. the disclosures from Intrum contain all the OD statements , should that have happened, it would be detailed in those.   there is little point in the claimant hiding that info as they would be in far more legal trouble should they have doctored them than insuring a mere +£1k claim win. Even 1st credit wouldn't pull such stunts.   Sorry but there is little point in requesting HBOS to attend any future hearing, nor hoping the SAR shows anything different to the statements the claimant has disclosed . That will cost you more money , and more money in terms of the claimant attending another hearing.   there is one exploitation i see. that being the mention of a default notice. the claim states:  The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement. A Default Notice was Issued by the Original Creditor .   now default notices are not issued for OD A/C's (which ties in to the possible loan confusion and scam settlement i mentioned) . This tallies with a common mistake that many DCA's, including why i keep mentioning 1st credit, which is the previous name for Intrum, made on numerous claims and was one of the reasons for the name change. To Hide that They lost many Statutory Demand and court claims over the non existence of a DN or proof of it's issuance by the OC (a DCA can't issue a DN) .. No copy of a default notice is fatal to to successful  litigation.   even though in this OD case one was not ever needed. (Poor particulars of claim showing copy and paste, and never expecting a claim to be defended but responded to by a wet themselves response , which you did by settling a loan which you believed was the claimed debt when it never was)    other than that you indicate you made an OOC F&F offer in 09-20  have you advanced this option since ?   dx
  • Our picks

    • 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
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3347 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

The same stories over and over again, isn't it about time that someone took a proper look at all this?

 

 

most definitely!!! but who?? I can quite easily see how the actions of some of these bailiffs could worry someone into the grave...I consider myself to be of a strong disposition...but all the grief and hassle I received from the bailiff's was so stressful and worrying!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Done some refinements to the document - the latest version is here, which I think pretty much nails it on the dot - lettertocouncilceo-phoenix.pdf - and it'll get sent today.

 

Any other feedback is appreciated. Thanks simonf1975 for the notes you sent through, I've used them to rework the wording on the document a bit :)

Edited by Microchip
Link to post
Share on other sites

I apparently received

two visits from a Robert Clegg on behalf of Phoenix on the 23rd of March at 10:49 and 29th of

March at 14:48,

 

 

cant find him on the register of bailiffs did you phone Ministry of Justice Public Register of bailiffs on 020 3334 6355 to confirm he is a certificated bailiff and his employer is/was Phoenix at time the visit fees were charged

Edited by hallowitch
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd really appreciate that if you could!

 

I'm going to make the call re Robert Clegg being on the Register when I get chance at work too.

 

If Mr clegg was not a bailiff in march(certificated to phoenix) when the visit fees were charged then the fees would have to be removed It would be good if you could find out before wonkey made a final draft of your letter so she can include this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here's the latest version - lettertocouncilceo-phoenix-v2.pdf - with the assistance provided by wonkeydonkey. Seems to look pretty reasonable, and I've incorporated a few things of my own, hopefully it'll be quite effective. If anyone has any feedback before this goes in the post to the council later, I'd appreciate it.

 

Once we get some feedback from the council, I'll post up here with the response.

Edited by Microchip
Accidentally left names in redacted PDF, added bits of text
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Well, it seems some feathers have been ruffled, and the complaint to the council finally got some action. Got a reply immediately from the Council telling us they were looking in to it, and they'd be in touch. Just got 2 letters from Phoenix - one by normal mail, and one by 9AM guaranteed next day special delivery!

 

The first one - phoenix-20111124-letter1.pdf - is an "if you want all personal data, send £10, but here's the statement we have to give you", with the information in the statement.

 

The second - phoenix-20111124-letter2.pdf - is a retort from Phoenix. We have no communications on 1st, 9th, 21st and 30th April which he is pointing out on the first page. I will see if there's a such letter that was sent out when the arrangement was made re the £10 broken arrangement fee - is it possible that's a binding agreement? I've been unable to locate such a document.

 

Not sure what to make of the comments about the 50p processing fees.

 

Regarding the comment about the bailiff "inadvertently entered the figures £285.50 manually and this was incorrect the figure had he acted would have been £259.50" - £259.50 being £140 above the amount currently due according to them - which doesn't seem to quite add up. Judging by their £120 van fee (if it was a second visit after a walking possession if he'd had one), where has the extra £20 come from? This seems to nicely gloss over the "error" made by the bailiff, which I think is complete rubbish.

 

They also comment about the querying or offering settlement on the debt - it was queried as mentioned earlier in this thread as soon as I became aware of it and consulted with the people on here. "Nobody was attempting to defraud you, or deceive or cheat you in any way" - sounded like the bailiff who turned up was attempting to do just that, just wish I'd recorded it now, but my phone was on the blink.

 

I'm also curious as to why "You, or rather a person identifying themselves as your friend, have since contacted our office and they were advised to deal with the bailiff as they in their conversation stated quite categorically you would not be paying the debt" - where at any point in the documentation was this stated? I suspect they're watching this thread themselves. :wave: (For the record, while I've helped her get the documentation she needs together to sort this out, and get the assistance we need to make sure she pays the fair legal amount, as I've said all along, but she's sent all the documentation off herself.)

 

I'd appreciate any feedback anyone has, I'm not sure exactly where to take this now.

Edited by Microchip
Clarified amounts
Link to post
Share on other sites

It clearly stated on one of the letters from the bailiff "I have called today to collect the sum of £285.50 being the amount now due in respect of Council Tax owing to.... As yet I have not removed any goods. I will however be returning on or after the 14th/10 when I will expect to collect the sum quoted above"

 

Phoenix are now trying to say that this figure is what the bailiff COULD have increased it to. The actual money owing being £119.50.

 

I'm sick and tired of it now. How do they get away with this rubbish? It clearly states he want £285.50 from me. No? This is this them clearly trying to backtrack isn't it? Throwing in a few clever words that they think will confuse me?

 

Every time I read the words Phoenix Collections, I just get frustrated and wound up. They KNOW their bailiff was trying to pull a fast one. Infuriates me.

 

I will have the money tomorrow to pay the council directly. I will not be sad to see the back of these idiots. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is indeed a case of "you have been a naughty person by not paying so don't complain" what it fails to do is answer questions. Clearly they state "if you don't agree to our terms then we won't allow you to pay", this is confirmed by having to agree a "broken agreement fee" for the right to pay? It must be noted they are also saying the fees demanded by the Bailiff would not have been taken had you "paid up" yet the evidence shows these were the fees the bailiff wanted 'like it or lump it'

 

Sorry but to me this is a totally unacceptable reply. Should you wish to pay the £10 for the SAR, they are wrong to suggest they do have to provide screen shots under the Data Protection Act as they well know, simply put if it is data they hold on the subject, then it is data they must release. I have the right to feel confident in this field for having actually taken a claimant to court for failure to comply in full with a Subject Access Request, their own Barrister acknowledged screen shots of the account was infact data that must be given under the act and the Court ruled that to be the case.

 

There is a need to reply and should you wish further help I will be happy to draft it for you.

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is indeed a case of "you have been a naughty person by not paying so don't complain" what it fails to do is answer questions. Clearly they state "if you don't agree to our terms then we won't allow you to pay", this is confirmed by having to agree a "broken agreement fee" for the right to pay? It must be noted they are also saying the fees demanded by the Bailiff would not have been taken had you "paid up" yet the evidence shows these were the fees the bailiff wanted 'like it or lump it'

 

Sorry but to me this is a totally unacceptable reply. Should you wish to pay the £10 for the SAR, they are wrong to suggest they do have to provide screen shots under the Data Protection Act as they well know, simply put if it is data they hold on the subject, then it is data they must release. I have the right to feel confident in this field for having actually taken a claimant to court for failure to comply in full with a Subject Access Request, their own Barrister acknowledged screen shots of the account was infact data that must be given under the act and the Court ruled that to be the case.

 

There is a need to reply and should you wish further help I will be happy to draft it for you.

 

WD

 

Again, I'd appreciate the assistance if you wouldn't mind! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs....good for you for keeping the pressure up with Phoenix they might eventually learn peeps will not just roll over or walk away when they get a load of waffling in reply to valid points raised.

 

Will get back to you asap, but ready to send by Monday at the latest.

 

 

WD

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...