Connaught and First Credit

[spamheed]

In about 2006, First Credit obtained a CCJ against me , I knew no better and simply attempted to mitigate my losses, to that end the payment plan I entered into will take them 40 years to get anywhere near the full amount owed. I have paid Connaught Collections ever since, no payment has ever been missed.

 

 

Letter from Connaught this morning stating that the debt has been sold to First Credit Legal department.

 

 

Question 1. Are First Credit and Connaught still the same company?

 

 

Question 2. Is there any likelihood that they will attempt to go for a charge on my property after all of these years?

 

 

Question 3. Is it likely that they are just being stupid and not realising that this is actually a CCJ and they are going to try to squeeze me for an increased payment?

[fkofilee]

1) Yes, Still part of the Reigate Idiots

2) Maybe, How much is it for?

3) They cant squeeze your for an increased payment, unless its bought before a judge... Variation orders etc blah, blah,

[spamheed]

1) Yes, Still part of the Reigate Retards That's what I thought

2) Maybe, How much is it for? About £12k

3) They cant squeeze your for an increased payment, unless its bought before a judge... I Know they can't, but was wondering if they would try to bluff such in an attempt to intimidate Variation orders etc blah, blah,

 

 

I know there is a chance they will attempt to go for a charge, or try to bluff me into accepting a voluntary charge, but interested if it will be allowed in court if the CCJ is being serviced correctly in line with the order and there are no arrears

[fkofilee]

Awesome, well let it go to court, if they talk t you, then tell them that you are servicing as per what the judge ordered

[spamheed]

Awesome, well let it go to court, if they talk t you, then tell them that you are servicing as per what the judge ordered

 

 

 

Thank you for your comments my friend, all is fine and dandy, I have come a long way since I foolishly allowed them to get the CCJ in the first place and have few problems dealing with whatever they decide to try.

[fkofilee]

Once you get used to the collections industry, its a barrel of laughs xd ^__^

/They are easier to sort out xd

[oleg]

fko

 

By all means speak American [eg awesome] if you feel a reason to do so, but do not use terms considered abusive in the UK.

 

"Retard" is deeply offensive to people with learning disabilities - and hence to society generally.

 

It is not the first time this has happened; last time the post was quietly removed. Please cease and desist. Remember the site rules.

 

Many thanks and, as you "guys" in Wisconsin say, "have a nice day".

 

Oleg

 

[spam - apologies for intruding into your thread.]

[fkofilee]

Amended, sorry habit when looking at FC and Connaught.

[spamheed]

Just for info: It turns out FC are distancing themselves from the "Trading Style" of Connaught Collections.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Just for info: It turns out FC are distancing themselves from the "Trading Style" of Connaught Collections.

 

I think we'll see more of this sort of thing in the industry generally. I think this is a response to the FCAs rules, and the fact that the FCA is not the toothless tiger the OFT was.It may well be that the practice of using lots of different trading styles (and letterheads) to mislead debtors into thinking that debts were being escalated and passed to other, more aggressive, companies has run its course. However, until they remove the incentive of commission from their staff, DCAs will continue to struggle with 100% compliance, in my view.

[spamheed]

I think we'll see more of this sort of thing in the industry generally. I think this is a response to the FCAs rules, and the fact that the FCA is not the toothless tiger the OFT was.It may well be that the practice of using lots of different trading styles (and letterheads) to mislead debtors into thinking that debts were being escalated and passed to other, more aggressive, companies has run its course. However, until they remove the incentive of commission from their staff, DCAs will continue to struggle with 100% compliance, in my view.

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this, however they have mostly placed themselves into something of a situation with their previous duplicitous behaviours when, after years of telling "customers" that their accounts have been "sold" to a different company and then have to produce documentation which proves that they were lying through their teeth

[ericsbrother]

40 years to get their money back? Ah well.

Let them write all they want but unless is has a court seal on it I would ignore. I doubt if they will do that, it will stay on their books as an asset so they can tell their bank they are rolling in it when they go begging and to start proceedings to possibly get their money in 30 years is a risky venture and will cost them several years of the current return to try it on. They know this so they hope you have forgotten or didnt know.