Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Generally regarding the default judgement....lets clear up a few things.     that does not matter at all..'they' the fleecers, do NOT send the claimform.   the fact the OP returned 'whatever' letter(s) from the fleecers makes no odds whatsoever to why nor can have any bearing upon, the sending or not of a claimform by northants bulk to the advised address.   the claimant or their acting solicitors make a request to northants bulk court to issue the claim. telling someone that you don't live there does not allow the court to dispense with issuing one, no matter what the claimant says. it must happen.    now how do we deal with this one... the OP has confirmed northants bulk sent the initial claimform to the correct address, where it went is now not the problem.   the problem is as LFI correctly pointed out is a time limit now applies to what you do ..28 cal days+5 for service , so call it 30...the options are:   i. pay £257 within that timescale and it has zero effects going forward. this is the only way to ensure it is totally closed and erased. ii. let that time expire and live with the multitude of other issues it will have, as well as possible enforcement, bailiffs are explained above, there are also others enforcement options, but we've never seen them used in a Speculative invoice judgement to date. iii. set aside - cost £255 - no guarantee of success.   more on set aside.... there typically 2 criteria that need to be met to raise a set aside  1. a beyond reasonable doubt cause that explains why the defendant did not physically get the claimform i'e the claimant sent it to an old address when the correct address was already notified in writing prior to it's issuance or an admin error by the court etc etc. ignorance, by the defendant in doing the above if moved or of the actual form is ...not such.   2. a basic defence as to why the defendant does not owe the sum explained by the claimforms particulars of claim.   as it stands... 1, we are already sadly on dodgy ground..we don't know, neither does the judge, where it's gone, it's service address has proved correct, it's not what happened agree..but for all the judge would know .. the defendant could have simply ignored it. a big hurdle without answer....wheres that claimform?..   2. a basic defence, there is probably more worth in arguing the claimed sum contains for want of a differing term 'unicorn food tax' sums which are not allowed, thus thus is wrong... than going down the route of ...the invoice was issued in an area that is governed by xxxx, in that i mean, byelaws, road traffic laws etc etc..those are all 'paperwork' issues and are somewhat trumped by the default judgement, much like no signed credit agreement exists, in consumer debt default judgements.   my musings   the choice is the op's...the deadline is 28th....              
    • Thank you for the replies all.   Yes March 2020, apologies for that error.   I can take it or leave it with the membership, plenty of other spots around. If it means burning bridges to get what is owed, then so be it.   However, also happy to pay for membership when I have used it. I have stated this in an e-mail to their management. Fair's fair, however their refusal to refund OR transfer over extra payments from one franchise to another is not.   Particularly as they operate as one fitness group, with a centralised payment system, website, same branding, and the ability to access any site, worldwide! 
    • No apology necessary   If you had to work from home at all due to Covid, you can claim the extra tax allowance.   Follow the link posted above in post #2 and it takes you through the process.   Please update to let us know if you get your tax code updated for this.
    • Smaller and more powerful lenses promise to bring even better smartphone cameras. View the full article
    • Hi LX and welcome to CAG   Please confirm, have you signed anything before or after the relationship break-up confirming agreement to any DL m/ship terms ?   Forget calling them about this and, if they call you, just say, "I'll deal with this in writing only." and hang up. You don't need to discuss this with them and doing so will get you nowhere.   We also don't agree with their need for 3 month's notice and always tell folk to challenge this. But in your case, this is irrelevant.   We can help you with a letter in due course.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

help - delinking a ex husband nw m out of Iva


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2575 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

 

I am trying to clean my credit file up after being in a IVA. I was married when I went into the iVA and we both had separate iva I finished mine however my ex husband defaulted. I have filled in a notice of disassociation and the credit agency is refusing to take him off my credit file. A couple of the debts were joint but was in a separate IVAs We have been divorced 5 years. Help?

 

 

Also I note that a ex partner who I had a joint bank account which is now closed is still showing linked , I have filled in a notice of disassociation, however if there is a problem what is the next course of action ?

 

 

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi welcome to CAG,

 

 

If the debts are for joint accounts the associations must stay on file, as the CRA has to show an accurate picture of the conduct and liability for the debts. If the details are correct there is no reason for them to be removed.

 

 

The agencies cannot change the data supplied by creditors or DCAs without their permission.

 

 

All defaulted debt entries are removed on the 6th anniversary of the default date.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there,

 

Do you have a completion certifcate for your IVA? If so your liability for the debts has ceased. This means that you should not have a joint financial connection UNLESS there is something else that is connecting you - like a joint mortgage, for example?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a case of liability it is a matter of recording the history of the account which is in question, just as any defaulted debt remains on file for 6 years paid or not.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it is a case of liability it is a matter of recording the history of the account which is in question, just as any defaulted debt remains on file for 6 years paid or not.

 

The OP was talking about a joint financial connection. This is only relevant with current, active agreements. She's looking to disassociate financially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware after many years of using CRAs from " both sides" an account held jointly cannot be disassociated the CRA record is for the joint account which is treated in the same way as any other defaulted account it remains on the files as a true record of the account the OP was financially linked and that record is correct.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The query isn't about what appears on the credit file as far as historic debt information is concerned - of course that information will stand. The specific point is about disassociation going forward. Remember that the OP's liability for the debts has finsihed due to completion of the IVA. I hope that clarifies things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the OP has no liability, but I see the CRAs point of view, that a link exists as a matter of record and the CRA entry is correct, that clarifies things I think.

All will be gone on the 6th anniversary of the defaults.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just spoken to Experian to doublecheck, and I'm not going mad, so long as there are no longer any ongoing joint liabilities - it is possible to disassocate.

 

Any past history will still show on the file - but the link to the other person will no longer play a part.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...