Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If anybody has any advice here, it would be greatly appreciated, I already suffer with pre-existing disabilities & have struggled with this so far. 
    • so return of goods order etc etc read upload  scan pages to jpg, redact in mspaint. the convert to and merge to one mass PDF  read upload and use the online listed sites for all 3 stages. do you want to keep the car? i will guess this was a manual paper claimform direct from the co.court or was it org sent from salford bulk processing and has just got reaq ssigned?      
    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue –  29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached  2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00. The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month. 3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement, Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us. Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement 9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate 4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:- a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement  number xxxxxx. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     The total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by First class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges 5.  At the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage. Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024  What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg  
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3329 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 need some advice please

 

I had a 82.00 parking fine that I didn't pay (stupidly)

I was unemployed for over 4 months

had letter from marstons with 70 fees on top.

 

 

Seeked advice from cab and Baines & Ernst ,

emailed marstons to offer £5 a week repayment ignored!

 

 

Then got a 2 nd letter from Marstons debt now 397,

which I rang and complained as to why they didn't accept my repayment offer to which they replied was withb bailiff!!!

And to speak to him which was a waste of time he wants all the money...

 

I'm now working so I paid my original fine of 82.00 via website which I was suprised I could do

 

So now a week later a baliff has been posted a FINAL NOTICE to pay £310 today

 

Do I have to pay these fees?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount being requested is due to Marston's as payment of the amount of £82 has been paid after the warrant has been issued and enforcement commenced. The way in which the fee scale works is that from any payment made (whether to the council or Marston's) the Compliance fee of £75 is deducted at source and the balance of payments is apportioned on a pro rata basis between the amount of the debt to the council and bailiff fees (approx 60/40 split).

 

The payment of £82 will therefore be notified to Marston's and the Compliance fee of £75 deducted. The balance of £7 will be apportioned as outlined above an approx £4 would be allocated towards to debt to the council. Until full payment is made the warrant can continue to be enforced.

 

The problem that you will have with a parking ticket is that the warrant has upon it the number plate of the car involved in the contravention.

 

Is the car still in use and if so, is it subject to any forms of finance as this could make it exempt from being taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi the car is currently sorn

 

What is it worth? does it have MOT? I am asking as Marstons may still try to thteaten to take the vehicle even though it is scrap value to pressure you some more

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baines & Ernst ?? hope you are not in one of their fee paying schemes!

watchout.

 

 

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 sad fact is that you probably do have to pay the extra costs.

 

 

When you first got the ticket had you contacted the parking authority and explained you were out of work

and could they delay or accept notional payments until you were back in work,

yor request would have been granted most likely.

And would have prevented the situation you are in now.

 

As it is you would have received several letters from the parking authority with each letter

advising you how much the debt was now and that if you further failed to pay, the debt would go higher

and then bailiffs would be involved.

 

 

Once they become involved a further £75 is added to the amount outstanding.

 

There are those on other forums who would advise you that you do not need to pay these additional costs

once you have paid the original amount but they are wrong.

 

 

Should you fail to pay, the bailiffs will call at your property

and that will add a whopping £235 to the bill so you do need to come to an arrangement with them and quickly.

Yes all they will talk about is money because that is their job-to collect money from people who have not paid so far.

 

I am sorry if what I have said is a harsh but it is the reality and many of us on here [including myself] have done what you are doing.

Fortunately when I did it the bailiff costs were much less than now and you do have a large cost of £235 about to be added.

 

What you could do is send a payment to the bailiff company [and no £10 will not be enough]

to acknowledge that you will pay the rest but need time to pay and request a breakdown of all the costs involved.

 

 

Once you have that let us know what has been charged in case they have overcharged in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I offered repayments I but I have literally only just returned to work and don't get any money till the end of April which is irrelevant to those people

I didn't think they could add anymore costs now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im Sorry but I am very new to this.

 

If the original debt has been paid off the the creditor does that not make the warrant void? I mean the bailiff is allowed to recover all charges upon execution of the warrant but if the goods weren't seized or sold, and the bailiff didn't get the money from the debater but the creditor has the money how much power does the warrant have?

 

I don't know the legal know how just trying to follow the issue through with logic.

 

Am I just being ignorant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im Sorry but I am very new to this.

 

If the original debt has been paid off the the creditor does that not make the warrant void? I mean the bailiff is allowed to recover all charges upon execution of the warrant but if the goods weren't seized or sold, and the bailiff didn't get the money from the debater but the creditor has the money how much power does the warrant have?

 

I don't know the legal know how just trying to follow the issue through with logic.

 

Am I just being ignorant?

 

Most warrants will retain their entire authority. So goods can be removed. Fees can continue to ba added, and in extreme cases, the courts will authorise the forced entry and removal of goods on fines warrants.

Paying the original bill does not void a warrant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ok, I thought the point of the warrant was for the bailiff to recover the fees, and if the fees were recovered through them or not there would be no point in the warrant.

 

Must have completely misread what the point of the warrant was.

 

 

Something else, just want to get know:

 

I know someone who appealed a pcn of his after they siezed his goods, but they refused to give him his goods (his motorbike in the case) until the appeal has gone through the TEC. In the end the PCN was taken off him and the tax payers ended up paying the storage fees (as the council had to pay them).

 

Does that sound right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ok, I thought the point of the warrant was for the bailiff to recover the fees, and if the fees were recovered through them or not there would be no point in the warrant.

 

Must have completely misread what the point of the warrant was.

 

The point of a warrant is to collect an outstanding court ordered debt. The fees charagable to that enforcement/warrant are added to the warrant balance and the collection of the fees is part of the enforcement process.

 

 

Something else, just want to get know:

 

I know someone who appealed a pcn of his after they siezed his goods, but they refused to give him his goods (his motorbike in the case) until the appeal has gone through the TEC. In the end the PCN was taken off him and the tax payers ended up paying the storage fees (as the council had to pay them).

 

Does that sound right?

I would need far more detail than that on the case in question, but its possible. Its also possible the person you know lied to you and said he had appealed it and low and behold it got thrown out and he had got his bike back when low and behold, he just paid his debt. We see cases like that day in day out where the other half thinks the matter has been sorted only to find out the husband/wife/gf/bg/sister/brother had lied to hide their mistakes. You need to quote a specific court reasons for dissmissing a fine for answers on something like.

 

 

Hope that helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ok, I thought the point of the warrant was for the bailiff to recover the fees, and if the fees were recovered through them or not there would be no point in the warrant.?

 

It is the warrant itself that actually provides the POWER to enforce the debt and in so doing, the bailiff may only enforce (the debt) in line with the PROCEDURES outlined in Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act and its supporting secondary legislations , the most important being:

 

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

 

The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand that it gives them the power to do enforce the collection of the outstanding debts.

 

And I understand that they can charge the fees as outlined in the Regulations.

 

My question is that if the debt it paid directly to the creditor, how can the bailiff charge their fees?

 

So even if they don't collect a debt, they can still charge their fees?

 

So what happens in the instances when the bailiff are unable to recover the fees and it goes back to the council?

 

 

I've had one like that, with Jacob Bailiffs and then I've paid the council off once its gone back to them.

 

 

Even the council themselves advised that I had the option to wait until the debt was passed back to them and then pay it off.

 

 

I was then NOT REQUIRED to pay any fees to the bailiffs.

 

Isn't that the same thing? Because I was not required to pay the bailiffs fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but was the above example pre the new regulations?

 

 

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 fully understand that it gives them the power to do enforce the collection of the outstanding debts.

 

And I understand that they can charge the fees as outlined in the Regulations.

 

My question is that if the debt it paid directly to the creditor, how can the bailiff charge their fees?

 

So even if they don't collect a debt, they can still charge their fees?

 

So what happens in the instances when the bailiff are unable to recover the fees and it goes back to the council?

 

I've had one like that, with Jacob Bailiffs and then I've paid the council off once its gone back to them.

 

Even the council themselves advised that I had the option to wait until the debt was passed back to them and then pay it off.

 

I was then NOT REQUIRED to pay any fees to the bailiffs.

 

Isn't that the same thing? Because I was not required to pay the bailiffs fees.

 

You are correct.

 

 

If the bailiffs can find assets to enforce upon then you will lose the assets or pay the fees.

If they give up and hand it back, then the fees get written off.

 

If, due to the bailiff being involved and pressuring you to pay, then they have done their job,

no matter whether you pay direct or not, they will go for their fees.

 

Should you pay BEFORE they even send the notice of enforcement, then you wont have to pay fees.

 

If you are to be made bankrupt by the client, they can, and do, add the bailiff fees to the bankruptcy amounts if they feel you have assets and its worth the time and effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...If, due to the bailiff being involved and pressuring you to pay, then they have done their job,

no matter whether you pay direct or not, they will go for their fees...

 

This statement serves to highlight misleading news reports which are the consequence of lazy reporters accepting what they're told by bailiff firm

s and councils when they claim 'x' or 'y' amount of £millions have been recovered by bailiffs.

 

 

Just because £x million was recovered in respect of accounts that have been instructed for enforcement

does not mean £x million was recovered by the bailiffs.

 

 

The majority of that £x million will have been paid regardless of enforcement.

 

 

People in highly paid positions within local authorities are just too thick to realise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning

 

Thanks for the replies grumpy. I understand that and it makes perfect sense to me. Even thought the bailiffs and councils tell me otherwises, only a manager told me the correct thing.

 

One question. How does a bailiff prove the below:

 

If, due to the bailiff being involved and pressuring you to pay, then they have done their job,

no matter whether you pay direct or not, they will go for their fees.

 

Surely there is no way to prove that, it could all be circumstantial.

You could have had the money then, or got into a job at that time...see what I mean?

Seems a bit dubious.

 

 

Also, if a bailiffs job it to "pressure" you into paying, how are they any better than loan shark

or a "thug" for a gang going around "pressuring" people to pay for their protection etc.

 

Just makes them sound like absolute bullies, and its a bit strange that people now a days still have a job like that.

It must take a person of a certain mindset to become a bailiff.

 

Now if you do pay the council directly and then they pass it on to the bailiff, then it can be hard I understand.

But what about in those instances when the council keeps it?

Or even actually returns the funds to you (when you have not requested to do so)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning

 

Thanks for the replies grumpy. I understand that and it makes perfect sense to me. Even thought the bailiffs and councils tell me otherwises, only a manager told me the correct thing.

 

One question. How does a bailiff prove the below:

 

If, due to the bailiff being involved and pressuring you to pay, then they have done their job,

no matter whether you pay direct or not, they will go for their fees.

 

Surely there is no way to prove that, it could all be circumstantial.

You could have had the money then, or got into a job at that time...see what I mean?

Seems a bit dubious.

 

 

Also, if a bailiffs job it to "pressure" you into paying, how are they any better than loan shark

or a "thug" for a gang going around "pressuring" people to pay for their protection etc.

 

Just makes them sound like absolute bullies, and its a bit strange that people now a days still have a job like that.

It must take a person of a certain mindset to become a bailiff.

 

Now if you do pay the council directly and then they pass it on to the bailiff, then it can be hard I understand.

But what about in those instances when the council keeps it?

Or even actually returns the funds to you (when you have not requested to do so)

 

By pressuring, I'm on about the threat of removal of goods to provoke a payment.

 

Prove what? Once the compliance letter has been sent, any payments made after that date are said to be made under compulsion of a warrant or writ.

 

Person of a certain mindset? So we are reduced to inferring that a bailiff must be someone with "issues". Or is that just an insult to get a rise. Nice try.

 

If the payment is made after we are involved, then we enforce no matter who you have paid.

If you have paid before we are involved, then we are withdrawn.

Its quite simple.

 

Unfortunately, some people will always refuse to pay what they owe and therefore, bailiffs are a necessary evil. Unless you want to bring back debtors prisons etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaejay sorry sideaways user-offline.png

 

 

yet another of mark1960's plants on CAG

 

 

thread closed

 

 

as spoof

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3329 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...