Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1374 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

Thanks Sequenci for your superb and clear explanation. Now I understand.

 

My charge order clearly states that I cannot use the equity in my house as security against any loan.

 

Therefore the charge order implies that I have no equity until the charge order is paid off.

 

My house is owned outright and solely in my name. I have no other debts or loans.

 

Regarding paying off the charge order, my situation is complicated.

 

Thirty months ago my wife disappeared and left me with the debt that led to the charge order.

My wife is legally entitled to half the value of this house when she files for divorce.

My wife was responsible for the debt that caused the charge order to come about.

 

Now if I pay off the charge order that will result in my wife receiving more money when the house is sold.

 

Last year I had a free half hour with a solicitor who told me that because the house is solely in my name

I can legally sell it without my wife's knowledge.

 

However, the solicitor said that any solicitor acting for my wife under divorce proceedings would track me down for selling the house

to deliberately deprive my wife of her half the value and then award my wife more than 50%.

 

I therefore assume that an order for sale against my wishes would make it impossible for my wife's solicitor to accuse me of selling the house

with intent to deprive my wife of her half of the value.

 

Her solicitor would have to blame the water supplier and the county court judge who forced the sale.

 

I cannot be blamed for selling the house if the selling is forced by the court.

 

Under these complicated circumstances I don't know which is best, a forced sale or bankrupcy.

 

A CCJ screws you up for six years satisfied or not.

Bankruptcy removes CCJ's and screws you up for one year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No replies therefore I assume that bankrupcy is the best solution to my situation.

I thought so in the first place.

How can I get my water supplier to abandon the charge order and apply for bankrupcy instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites
No replies therefore I assume that bankrupcy is the best solution to my situation. I thought so in the first place. How can I get my water supplier to abandon the charge order and apply for bankrupcy instead?

 

Hello there.

 

I haven't been involved in this thread so far, but in your place, I wouldn't go for bankruptcy with all its ramifications without taking face to face professional advice.

 

In my view it would be hazardous to take such a far-reaching decision based on some views on an internet forum, however well intended the advice is. If you have a face to face interview, you can disclose all the information to enable informed advice to be given.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

why cant you just start paying the sum off?

 

I take it the water bill was from a time when you and the ex were living together in this same house the charge is against?

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
My charge order clearly states that I cannot use the equity in my house as security against any loan.

 

Therefore the charge order implies that I have no equity until the charge order is paid off.

 

My house is owned outright and solely in my name. I have no other debts or loans.

 

Regarding paying off the charge order, my situation is complicated.

 

Thirty months ago my wife disappeared and left me with the debt that led to the charge order.

My wife is legally entitled to half the value of this house when she files for divorce.

My wife was responsible for the debt that caused the charge order to come about.

 

Now if I pay off the charge order that will result in my wife receiving more money when the house is sold.

 

Last year I had a free half hour with a solicitor who told me that because the house is solely in my name

I can legally sell it without my wife's knowledge.

 

However, the solicitor said that any solicitor acting for my wife under divorce proceedings would track me down for selling the house

to deliberately deprive my wife of her half the value and then award my wife more than 50%.

 

I therefore assume that an order for sale against my wishes would make it impossible for my wife's solicitor to accuse me of selling the house

with intent to deprive my wife of her half of the value.

 

Her solicitor would have to blame the water supplier and the county court judge who forced the sale.

 

I cannot be blamed for selling the house if the selling is forced by the court.

 

Under these complicated circumstances I don't know which is best, a forced sale or bankrupcy.

 

A CCJ screws you up for six years satisfied or not.

Bankruptcy removes CCJ's and screws you up for one year.

 

 

 

 

How is your wife solely responsible for this debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx.

 

 

Yes we were living together during the time this debt accumulated.

During this period my wife was the only earner and the water account was in her name only.

Unknowingly to me she wasn't paying the water and sewerage bills.

The water company then put my name on the account and slammed a CCJ on me.

 

 

I didn't know anything about the CCJ until 8 months after it was issued.

My wife was obviously intercepting my post to hide her deception.

 

 

Shortly after my wife running away I was informed that the water company were applying for a charge order against my house.

I have a letter here from Bristol & Wessex water that clearly states that I am not allowed to sell my house.

I therefore assume that my house is worth nothing as I have no equity due to the charge order.

 

 

The charge order clearly states that I am not allowed to borrow money against my house as equity.

Therefore the charge order means I have no equity.

 

 

Before the charge order I owned my house outright with no mortgage or any debts.

Now it appears that the court and the water company own my house due to a relatively small debt.

 

I am astonished that the law has now allowed a creditor with a 2% ownership of a house to have power

over the owner and reduce his equity to zero.

 

 

I think that this would still apply if a creditor only owned 1% of my property due to a charge order.

Therefore according to the law, 1% is greater than 99%. Forty years ago my dad said the law was an ass.

 

I think he has been proved right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

**you can post up images/letters by this method immediately..you don't need 10 posts**

.

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

.

************************* ************************* *******

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

************************* ************************* ***********

.

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

..

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or http://www.freepdfconvert.com/

or

use www.pdfmerge.com

 

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though dont use full bank names or CAG in the title

i'e Default notice DD-mm-yyyy TSB

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

...

YOU DONT have to put a link to the attachment in the msg box..just upload it ..job done

.

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
Hi dx. Y

 

es we were living together during the time this debt accumulated.

 

During this period my wife was the only earner and the water account was in her name only.

 

Unknowingly to me she wasn't paying the water and sewerage bills.

 

The water company then put my name on the account and slammed a CCJ on me.

 

I didn't know anything about the CCJ until 8 months after it was issued.

 

My wife was obviously intercepting my post to hide her deception.

 

Shortly after my wife running away I was informed that the water company were applying for a charge order against my house.

 

I have a letter here from Bristol & Wessex water that clearly states that I am not allowed to sell my house.

 

I therefore assume that my house is worth nothing as I have no equity due to the charge order.

 

 

then you are equally liable sadly.

 

don't know where you keep getting this silly idea your house is worth nothing because of this

 

simply arrange to pay it off at a small monthly amount.

 

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 house in my name so how have my wife and I become equally liable?

 

I have a letter from Bristol & Wessex Water clearly stating that I am not allowed to sell my house until the full amount is paid.

Small monthly amounts does not release my equity.

 

Why don't the water company demand half of the debt from my wife as you say we are equally liable?

 

Small monthly payments will not get rid of the charge order and allow me to use the equity.

Therefore why do you consider my comments as silly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The house in my name so how have my wife and I become equally liable?

I have a letter from Bristol & Wessex Water clearly stating that I am not allowed to sell my house until the full amount is paid. Small monthly amounts does not release my equity.

Why don't the water company demand half of the debt from my wife as you say we are equally liable?

Small monthly payments will not get rid of the charge order and allow me to use tha equity. Therefore why do you consider my comments as silly?

 

Hello again.

 

As I said before, I think it would help us to advise you if we know the content of the letter minus any personal details. dx has told you how to post a pdf, or you could type it up for us.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The house in my name so how have my wife and I become equally liable?

I have a letter from Bristol & Wessex Water clearly stating that I am not allowed to sell my house until the full amount is paid. Small monthly amounts does not release my equity.

Why don't the water company demand half of the debt from my wife as you say we are equally liable?

Small monthly payments will not get rid of the charge order and allow me to use the equity. Therefore why do you consider my comments as silly?

 

I mean the water bill

you were jointly livin there

so you are both liable for the debt.

 

the water company will not care who or how they get the money.

 

a charging order does not stop you selling your house

 

like all charging orders..

 

you either leave it there till the house is sold

and they get their money

 

or

 

you pay it off by making payments

 

once the debt is paid the CO is removed.

 

its a simple as that.

 

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

I don't understand why you aren't able to sell the house. As far as I'm aware a charging order does not stop you from selling. If you want to sell then go ahead and approach estate agents.

 

You are incorrect to state that the water company own the house. If you sell the house, the £1800 or so will be paid to the water company and the remainder will be paid to you.

 

You are incorrect to think that the order for sale would affect divorce proceedings. In long marriages, the court will start from the position that each side gets 50% of marital assets, subject to ensuring that the basic needs of both parties are met. This can be achieved in whatever way is most appropriate depending on the individual circumstances. It could mean a 50% share in the marital home, it could mean the house is sold and the money divided, or it could mean something else entirely. If you are forced to sell the house by the water company the wife could simply ask for 50% of the money. You can't really get around this.

 

I don't see how you can be 'accused' of selling the house with 'intent to deprive'. The accusation doesn't mean anything. The concept of 'intent' is not really relevant in civil cases and it would only be criminal if you moved the money outside the UK to try to stop her from getting anything. I think you need you need to think about the division of marital assets between you and your wife and the charging order from the water company as separate issues.

 

Bankruptcy is not appropriate here. Even if you do go bankrupt and it is discharged after 1 year, the CCJ would remain on your credit record for the full 6 years. Your credit record would also show a bankruptcy for 6 years ... which is worse than just having CCJs. Furthermore, the CCJs would not simply get 'wiped away' - the water company would still get paid because it has a charging order.

 

It sounds unlikely that the court would order a sale of the house over a debt of £1800. Your best option is to send an income & expenditure statement to the water company and seek to agree a repayment plan, even if you are only able to make very small repayments. You can approach an organisation like https://www.nationaldebtline.org for help.

 

I don't understand why you think this is entirely your wife's debt when you are the sole owner of the house. If you are the owner surely water usage is your responsibility and presumably you were using the water.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Risking your home for the sake of £1800 is madness.

 

Arrange an affordable payment plan with the water company, set up a standing order to pay it on time each month & move on with your life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello again.

 

Would you mind typing up the water company letter minus any personal details please?

 

I think it would help us to advise you.

 

HB

 

My flat bed scanner won't work with this computer so here goes as I copy type my letter from Bristol & Wessex Water.

 

Dear Mr Smith and Mrs Smith,

 

We have a charging order secured against your property.

The charge order prevents you from re-mortgaging, taking out a secured loan or selling the property.

If you pay in full we will remove the restriction.

We may take further enforcement action if you do not pay.

Please contact us to arrange payment.

 

Yours, Sincerely, xxxx

 

A payment slip is attached to the bottom of the letter for payment of the full amount.

I don't know why they addressed the letter to Mr & Mrs because the CCJ is in my name only.

Also I have a charge order and not a restriction because the house is in my name only.

The water company seem to have their legal wires crossed.

 

I don't understand why you aren't able to sell the house. As far as I'm aware a charging order does not stop you from selling. If you want to sell then go ahead and approach estate agents.

 

You are incorrect to state that the water company own the house. If you sell the house, the £1800 or so will be paid to the water company and the remainder will be paid to you.

 

You are incorrect to think that the order for sale would affect divorce proceedings. In long marriages, the court will start from the position that each side gets 50% of marital assets, subject to ensuring that the basic needs of both parties are met. This can be achieved in whatever way is most appropriate depending on the individual circumstances. It could mean a 50% share in the marital home, it could mean the house is sold and the money divided, or it could mean something else entirely. If you are forced to sell the house by the water company the wife could simply ask for 50% of the money. You can't really get around this.

 

I don't see how you can be 'accused' of selling the house with 'intent to deprive'. The accusation doesn't mean anything. The concept of 'intent' is not really relevant in civil cases and it would only be criminal if you moved the money outside the UK to try to stop her from getting anything. I think you need you need to think about the division of marital assets between you and your wife and the charging order from the water company as separate issues.

 

Bankruptcy is not appropriate here. Even if you do go bankrupt and it is discharged after 1 year, the CCJ would remain on your credit record for the full 6 years. Your credit record would also show a bankruptcy for 6 years ... which is worse than just having CCJs. Furthermore, the CCJs would not simply get 'wiped away' - the water company would still get paid because it has a charging order.

 

It sounds unlikely that the court would order a sale of the house over a debt of £1800. Your best option is to send an income & expenditure statement to the water company and seek to agree a repayment plan, even if you are only able to make very small repayments. You can approach an organisation like https://www.nationaldebtline.org for help.

 

I don't understand why you think this is entirely your wife's debt when you are the sole owner of the house. If you are the owner surely water usage is your responsibility and presumably you were using the water.

 

Surely if the water company force the sale of my house my wife would know nothing about it

because she hasn't registered an interest in the property at the land registry.

Therefore a forced or unforced sale would only require my signature on the sale contract agreement.

I cant possibly see why my wife's signature would be required under these conditions.

 

Also you imply that my wife ownes half the house but me being the sole owner is responsible for all the debt.

Surely if she ownes half the house she must therefore own half the debt.

 

You can't own half of something and not own half of the same thing simultaneously.

 

You either own half or you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely if the water company force the sale of my house my wife would know nothing about it because she hasn't registered an interestlink3.gif in the property at the land registry. Therefore a forced or unforced sale would only require my signaturelink3.gif on the sale contract agreement. I cant possibly see why my wife's signature would be required under these conditions.

Agreed. Your wife's signature would not be required to sell the house. She has no ability to stop it from being sold. My point is that if she asks for 50% of your assets as part of sorting out the divorce, you'd need to explain what happened to the house as that is your main asset.

 

 

Also you imply that my wife ownes half the house but me being the sole owner is responsible for all the debt. Surely if she ownes half the house she must therefore own half the debt. You can't own half of something and not own half of the same thing simultaneously. You either own half or you don't.

I don't think your wife owns half the house. It sounds like you are the sole registered owner and therefore (I assume?) liable for the water bill. Assuming the house is a marital asset, she can ask the court to allocate her some of the marital assets accordingly. The court has a general power to reallocate marital property on divorce ... but she wouldn't actually own anything until the court makes an order or you both reach an agreement.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have been told several times

 

 

you can sell your house whenever you want,

 

 

you just need to pay the water company first from the proceeds before you can have the rest of the money.

 

The debt is joint and several so you are both responsible for the full amount until the debt is repaid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks for your advice.

 

I therefore assume that the water company stating that the charge order prevents me selling my house is a lie.

 

You say that the debt is joint however, if I offer to pay half the debt the water company won't accept it because the CCJ is in my name only.

I therefore assume that the debt isn't joint.

 

I asked the water company how they would recover the debt if my house was sold due to a divorce.

 

They said that the charge order debt would be taken from my half of the proceeds as the CCJ was in my name only.

 

I therefore don't understand how this can be a joint debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When a debt is 'joint and several', that means the entire debt can be recovered from either party.

 

 

The creditor can pursue either party for the full amount.

 

 

It would then be up to the person who paid the full amount to seek a contribution from the other person

- but this does not concern the creditor.

 

 

The creditor would be entitled to pursue only one party for the full amount and obtain a CCJ against them only.

The creditor could pursue both parties but does not have to.

 

The way it would work on a sale is like this.

A charging order is mentioned on the land registry.

 

 

The buyer would insist on the charging order being discharged as part of the sale.

 

 

Accordingly your solicitor/conveyancer would undertake to use the sale proceeds to pay off the charging order.

You would then get the remainder.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a joint debt because you lived there too

just like CTAX electricity / gas is.

 

you were a couple.

 

so any of the util companies can go after either or both partners.

 

and get a CCJ against either one of you.

 

how many more times do you need telling these things?

 

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

Joint and several means they can pursue either. They don't have to pursue each person for 50% of the debt.

 

 

Also bear in mind the utilities company, I assume, will have no idea who is actually living in the property from time to time. They only know what they are told and potentially who is registered on the land registry.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks.

 

Therefore the courts persue the partner with no income rather than persue the partner with a full time job.

 

I therefore assume again that the courts are trying to make people homeless when there is a much simpler and faster way to recover the money

by placing the CCJ on the sole house earner and then applying for an attachment to earnings.

 

If the water company had done that, they would have been paid back by now.

 

If I was the water company and a county court judge I would have placed the debt on the partner with a full time job.

 

I therefore assume that county court judges think that people with no income are getting more income than people with full time jobs.

 

I think that my wife's £26,000 salary per year is greater than zero income.

 

However the courts seem to disagree with my simple logic.

 

Since when was 26,000 less than zero? Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The water company have no idea what you earn or what your partner earns, neither did the county court judge.

 

The water company will simply pursue the person who is liable to pay the bill according to their records.

 

As the home owner you need to accept responsibility for things like this.

 

Leaving the outstanding debt as a charging order on the property is probably the best solution.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...