Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The world's largest economy grew less than expected but rising inflation may delay a rate cut.View the full article
    • Hello, Following the submission of my defense, last night I received an email from DCBL indicating that the claimant intends to proceed with the claim (I've attached a screenshot of the email for reference) along with the N180 directions questionnaire. I'm unsure how they obtained my email, but I suspect it was through the courts' form when I completed the Acknowledgment of Service. This email almost slipped my attention. I have also today received a letter from court to state they have received my defense.  It appears they are requesting an online telephone hearing with the court. Could you please advise me on the necessary steps I should take at this point? Thank you for your assistance. Letter-Email 25-04-24.pdf N180 - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track).pdf
    • Default Amount £9237.88, all this started in 2006 Admitted debt £9075.65 Weightmans added £1515.01 immediately they became involved, no explanation The Statement shows when Marlin bought debt in May 2011 £10439.25 Their statements, not received until the SAR, are based on this. Cabot deducted £1515.01on their statements in January 2019, again did not find this out until SAR. Weightmans added in  2007 after the CH1 etc was confirmed by the court £741.50, made up of Process server fees, Court Fee (they tried for bankruptcy), Solicitors fee and Land Registry fee. Unspecfied Legal costs were added by Marlin in March 2015, again I did not know this until statements received with SAR I had been paying monthly, without exception until December 2018. I am minded to take the property charge, CH1 amount ,deduct all my payments and the subsequent fees, and request/demand a refund on the final payment made? I consistently disputed Weightmans balances, but they never responded. I also told Mortimer Clarke/Cabot that I disputed their amounts.  
    • Just follow this link and have read of some threads so your familiar with the process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5178739
    • Sorry,  I'm not familiar with terminology.  Direction questionnaire is what I've seen online as next step. Witness statement: I haven't gone that far, that's why I put the question marks.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

BPO Collections - CCJ debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3677 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 received a letter a few weeks ago from 'Hoist' (never heard of them) telling me they'd passed a debt of £2500 to BPO to collect.

 

That was the first letter I've ever had from Hoist. I

 

think the debt refers to some old student debt from the early 2000s but can't be sure as it doesn't state what it is on the letter.

 

If it is that I think I received a CCJ for this debt at a very old address, which was processed after I'd moved. The CCJ doesn't currently show on my credit file.

 

I received a notification that my credit file had been accessed by BPO and today received a letter advising me that

I need to pay etc etc or they would send a home visit, but offering reduced amounts if I paid by April.

 

Does anyone have any advice on how to deal with this?

 

I am a bit peeved that they've accessed my credit file, and I am not in a position to pay this.

 

To be honest I'd completely forgotten about it all because it's been years since I've heard anything about it and it being on my credit file.

 

I obviously can't use the statute barred defence as there was a CCJ. Any advice would be much appreciated.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

so the CCJ is the same debt?

 

if the original claimant has never enforced it

then they'll have a very hard job now

 

even harder if its been sold on.

 

DCA's are not BAIIFFS

 

and have NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO I would ignore them until they send you something which clearly states what it is they're chasing after.

 

Check your credit file and just make sure this is not on there.

 

If they had a ccj six years ago, then they will need to go back to court and explain to a judge why they didn't chase it earlier.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

thanks for replies. It is definitely not on my credit file.

 

Checked old reports that I kept hold of and

 

there is a CCJ for HSBC for the same amount but this was 2005.

 

I remember them trying for an attachment earnings order at time which I sent a defence as I was a student and never heard anything more after that.

 

HSBC have definitely not been in contact with me in that time and

 

this letter only refers to Hoist,

 

who have also not been in contact until the letter a few weeks back.

 

I live in a shared house so I really don't want debt collectors turning up out of the blue.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stevens

 

The chances of someone turning up unless its been sent out to a HCEO or Bailiff are very slim.

Even if they do, you can tell them to Politely leave as they have no right to just turn up to your doorstep to talk about your financial circumstances.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the other clue is the discounts

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the other clue is the discounts

 

dx

 

 

Im inclined to agree here, Discounts 95% of the time mean that something is wrong with the debt somewhere... Thing is here though we dont know what the debt is from.

 

OP could you give us anymore info?

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im inclined to agree here, Discounts 95% of the time mean that something is wrong with the debt somewhere... Thing is here though we dont know what the debt is from.

 

OP could you give us anymore info?

 

It was a student overdraft from about 2001. Ended up defaulting when I changed bank account. Then ccj in 2005. I've not had any contact with hsbc for years. Probably around 2005.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet it was not HSBC that took you to court?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It likes Lloyds and SCM... Those are the triggers when you know Lloyds has taken someone to court directly.

Same here with HSBC and im inclined to agree with DX... Ive rarely seen HSBC if ever, take someone to court directly.

 

If the CCJ was awarded in 2005 and wasnt enforced and it DOESNT Appear on you credit profile... I would imagine they would have a very difficult time trying to enforce this CCJ.

I wonder who was the company who pushed for a CCJ...

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

pers i'd just ignore then

 

its a phishing trip designed to make you respond

 

only the CLAIMANT can instigate enforcement

and after 6yrs, pigs don't fly.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...