Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the property is not yours you are not on the deeds you are/were not ever on the mortgage..   stop trying to do their job in scamming you.        
    • Capital assessments are based on the:   amount or value of the asset at the time of the application outcome of checks carried out to protect against fraud As with income assessments the partner's share of the equity is included in these calculations - unless there is contrary interest. Just found the above in the law society website.  So am I screwed.  So confused.   
    • I am bound to say that their alleged contract is probably the weirdest I have seen. Considering it is supposed to be a serious legal contract to set out the conditions under which CEL manage the parking on land that does not belong to them it leaves a lot to be desired.   For a start it does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice which is   7.3 a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.   So no mention of hours: no mention of types of vehicle restrictions: no mention of who is responsible for the erection and maintenance of signage   and much more serious -no mention that CEL have to comply with the BPA Code of conduct-that one is listed on 7.1.    All it states is that the operator can pursue outstanding PCNs in accordance with the COP but that is not the same as saying that CEL will abide by the CoP which it must say.   Also AFAIK the only entity that can pursue for trespass is the land owner regardless of what this quasi agreement says. There is also no mention of the financial aspect of the arrangement nor how the long it lasts and what notice is required for either side to terminate.     It might be worth writing [not emailing ] to Medburn Estates asking them to confirm if this is the only agreement with CEL and whether they think it right that CEL have not received planning permission for their signs from the Council rendering their signs illegal which is more serious than unlawful and therefore all PCNs issued are worthless and should not have been issued as it is impossible to form a contract with motorists when the signs are illegal.   Also that as CEL are their agents Medburn Estates LTD are responsible for the actions of their agents. You could also ask them to cofirm that the signature on the paper is that of their Director, Anthony Brown and whether their copy has a counter signature of a CEL representative.   Carry on that CEL are taking you to Court and as another Judge has asked a Landowner to appear in front of him to explain their contract, whether it might be in the best interest of Medway to have a serious conversation with CEL to avoid any possible  embarrassments in your  [ie Laluna] Court appearance.   I have not looked much at your WS though it is looking good.   I would have mentioned that as they failed to comply with  Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.   that they are in breach of their agreement CoP with BPA to keep to all the legal requirements in running their parking  operations.   It calls into question their right to apply for motorists data from the DVLA.   I would wait for their WS to arrive so that you can pick holes in that too. however watch that if they are late that you send yours off just within the Court guidelines.   What you are tying to do with your WS is to put your side of the case plus put CEL in as bad a light as possible for them to  decide that they don't really want to go to Court after all.
    • UncleB - where you write "This could lead you to facing the Bank in Court..."   1stly -  would that mean now?  by remote hearing?  Or when the courts open after the summer?   2ndly - Does the application for set aside automatically prevent the B hearing going ahead?   3rdly - Will sending in an application to have the B petition set aside mean that I have to disclose an address for service?   I can only give a mailing address   4thly - Could having an early (remote) set aside hearing potentially quicken up the process for the bank if I am obliged to give them a suitable place for service?  At the moment I assume the hearing was adjourned for lack of physical service.   I want/ need to get a set aside.  But don't want to shoot myself in the foot.  
    • Where I have sight of a letter which states the following: "a) the case is removed from scheduled date and time on the court list forthwith    b) the case will be re-listed on the 1st open date after x few months, a date to be advised" Is there any way a hearing would be any earlier than suggested?  Lockdown closed courts but may they open early?    Could the bank ask it to be brought forward even with lockdown still in place officially til end July?    Would that depend on them physically serving a b petition?   Could the 1st open date be any time up to Christmas with such a potential back log of cases?  
  • Our picks

    • View this quiz Employment status during COVID-19
      What do you do if you’ve been told not to come to work due to the current crisis.  Watch the video here or on the Youth Consumer Service Instagram page.

      Did you learn anything? Do the quiz
       
       
      Submitter BankFodder Type One Right Answer Time 5 minutes Total Questions 8 Category The Youth Consumer Service Submitted 15/05/20  
      • 0 replies
    • One Parking Solutions - Damning judgement. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421148-one-parking-solutions-damning-judgement/
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 63 replies
    • View this quiz Coping with extreme hardship
      Life can be tough when you're entering the world of work and in the present virus crisis, things are even more difficult.

      Watch the video below or go to the Youth Consumer Service Instagram page . Afterwards, you can see if you've understood the points which are being made by taking the quiz.
       
       
      Submitter BankFodder Type One Right Answer Time 5 minutes Total Questions 8 Category The Youth Consumer Service Submitted 15/05/20  
      • 1 reply
    • View this quiz: Pre-pay meters
      An explanation of how some gas and electric companies offer emergency quarantine support.

       
      Watch the video here – or go to the Youth Consumer Service Instagram page and watch it there. Then come back here and do the quiz
       
       
      Submitter BankFodder Type One Right Answer Time 5 minutes Total Questions 6 Category The Youth Consumer Service Submitted 15/05/20  
      • 1 reply
Bailiff Advice

Liability Orders...Government wants to substantially increase Attachment of Earnings Orders...Seeking help from HMRC.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1557 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

These fines are a criminal sanction CD

 

I understand that is what the local authority imply and do infact say in the wording of such, but can they enforce such a request which is what it is stated as being able to do. After all a request is not the same as a demand or is it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not implying they just are CD. fines are generally criminal in nature these are given under summary judgment (magistrates court)and under section 2 and 3 of the scale, ala criminal justice act section 37.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ignored it at the time anyway and nothing happened..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I have said above, there are quite a few problems with the proposal and although the '14 day' letter is the main one, there are many others;

 

With the '14 day' letter being revoked, local authorities have naturally made large savings in administration time and postage etc. These saving would come to an end for the following reasons:

 

This proposal would require over 3.5 million additional items of correspondence being sent by the local authority.

 

If the '14 day' letter were reintroduced, it would naturally add significant costs to the local authority. Not only would the local authority have to send these letters, they would also have to deal with the many replies with employment details (and no doubt complaints as well).

 

There would also be additional administrative costs on the local authority in setting up the Attachment of Earnings.

 

Additional administrative costs would also be incurred by the local authorities in making data requests to HMRC for employment details of those individuals who had failed to voluntarily provide their employment details.

 

The above are just a few hurdles that have to be overcome. There are many more.

 

I wonder how many authorities will still have the procedure for sending 14 day letters available( from before 2014) and if they can just be reactivated in an amended version ?


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume that would be a yes as they will still have a post room! Not only that the EA can do the job as it will form part of the enforcement process, so not costing the LA any money....


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only that the EA can do the job as it will form part of the enforcement process, so not costing the LA any money....

 

This is not the case at all MM. In the case of council tax arrears, the enforcement company are permitted to 'take control of goods' (using the procedure in Schedule 12 of TCEA 2007). That procedure has nothing at all to do with an Attachment of Earnings order.

 

As things stand at present,some enforcement companies are administering attachment of earnings order but cannot charge a fee for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And neither can they do this if they are still acting as a bailiff under that enforcment power, with regard to the same account.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ba this was not what I said. I stated that why cannot the EA send out the 14 day notice after all giving and extra 7 days will not make any difference to the enforcement and will save the LA posting out the letters. So in reality if the EA'S office write giving 14 days instead of 7 then this will suffice.

 

Plus the cost would not be anything would it? Why because the EA has to by law send the notice.

 

So IMHO 14 vs 7 will always be best... and NO cost...BTW I was just continuing what you and DB quoted earlier...


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ba this was not what I said. I stated that why cannot the EA send out the 14 day notice after all giving and extra 7 days will not make any difference to the enforcement and will save the LA posting out the letters. So in reality if the EA'S office write giving 14 days instead of 7 then this will suffice.

 

Plus the cost would not be anything would it? Why because the EA has to by law send the notice.

 

So IMHO 14 vs 7 will always be best... and NO cost...BTW I was just continuing what you and DB quoted earlier...

 

The enforcement agent cannot send the 14 days letter unless he is not working under the schedule 12 procedure, it is not a compliance letter, it is notice to supply information to the LA so it can commence the AOE, which is a different enforcement power.

Edited by citizenB

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Getting back to the discussion...if the regulations were to be changed to permit EA's to undertake this task, I would be surprised if the enforcement agency would be permitted to have access to HMRC data to establish the debtors employment details.

That would be a very bad idea to give EA's access to HMRC, the data protection issues alone if the EA is chasing an innocent by mistake would be a good reason nor to. Mind you doeCapita in the guise of an LA have some access, or is it only DWP?

 

There are definitely issues with the 14 days, given that the LA would probably have to send them anyway, and now the duty is on the EA for 7 days. The legislation would have to be amended at the very least imho, as you point out BA.

Edited by citizenB

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be a very bad idea to give EA's access to HMRC, the data protection issues alone if the EA is chasing an innocent by mistake would be a good reason nor to. Mind you doeCapita in the guise of an LA have some access, or is it only DWP?

 

There are definitely issues with the 14 days, given that the LA would probably have to send them anyway, and now the duty is on the EA for 7 days. The legislation would have to be amended at the very least imho, as you point out BA.

 

I think so BN and at a very basic level, two enforcment powers cannot be exercised at the same time as it stands, so the EA could not instigate an AOE. In any case theree is no facility in the fees regs for paying him to do so.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/52/made

 

(2) Steps under this Part by way of attachment of allowances, attachment of earnings, distress, commitment, bankruptcy, winding up or charging may not be taken against a person under a liability order while steps by way of another of those methods are being taken against him under it.

 

Power to enforce via bailiffs is one power a power to use an attachment of earnings is another power as per the legislation above two cannot run at the same time :)

 

Of course as already said if he was not working under a power he could , by why would he, he would not be acting as a bailiff anyway but as a council worker

Edited by citizenB

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am familiar with this of course and LAs may contract out certain tasks, it does not limit or affect in any way the requirements of the council tax amendments mark, there is no revocation or amendment it is about simultaneous use of powers not the single contracting out of tasks.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a question here if I may... If the debtor has fallen in to arrears and has already been to Court, is now the subject of a LO and this is already being done, if the LA then goes for a 2nd LO for PREVIOUS years (same debtor) can the LA now use a 2nd method of enforcement? In as much as just putting it out to the EA for enforcement, therefore there is now two forms of enforcement against the same debtor? But for different years? Just a question that's all!


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So a question here if I may... If the debtor has fallen in to arrears and has already been to Court, is now the subject of a LO and this is already being done, if the LA then goes for a 2nd LO for PREVIOUS years (same debtor) can the LA now use a 2nd method of enforcement? In as much as just putting it out to the EA for enforcement, therefore there is now two forms of enforcement against the same debtor? But for different years? Just a question that's all!

 

Yes it's fine because it is for different debts. A single LO can only use a single enforcment power at a time.

 

An AOE can be used on the same LO but it would have to be called back from the bailiff first and the new power used or vice versa.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for my question although may not be clear (recent issue) is if the LA already has the 1st LO with an AoE, do they HAVE to use a second AoE or can they put it out the normal way in as much as straight to the EA to try to enforce, or are they obliged to use a second AoE?

 

 

If they can use the normal enforcement then the debtor will continue in the debt trap and losing money and subject to normal enforcement as well as an AoE!... But this was already covered in asking to suspend a second AoE, to keep them from the poverty trap. Or the possibility of losing what little money they have left to live on. Or maybe relying on food banks and the like or even applying for a payday loan to assist them, either way debts of more than one years worth of CT can and will become very contentious in the very near future.

 

 

I will also add this in as well, with the cutbacks and the Government looking to remove the entitlement to a guaranteed right to social housing.. This I think in the next year or two is going to be even more dire for CT arrears.. Do you not think?


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes MM, they do go for more money, an LO to them is money in the bank over any other priority debt you may have. It is irrelevant that the debtor may be on minimal money and have no means of paying other bills, council tax comes first and foremost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With over 3.5 million Liability Orders being issued each year for arrears of council tax, this new thread is of huge importance as the following proposal from the government will affect many thousands of council tax payers. For this reason I would hope that the moderators will allow this thread to remain on the main section of the forum for a few days before transferring it to the new 'bailiff discussion' section.

 

Today the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) announced that they have issued a Consultation paper regarding proposals to extend the data sharing facility with HMRC to enable them to share data pertaining to higher income debtors. The purpose of which is to enable the local authority to make an attachment of earnings order against the debtors employer.

 

 

Just a question is this related in any way to this >> [PDF]Local authority data sharing guide - Gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/.../data-sharing-guide-april-14.pdf[/url]

 

 

 

It is particularly aimed at Housing Benefit teams but will also be useful to ... Work and Pensions and Local Authorities 2013 – 2014 for the Access, handling .... Schedule 5 to the Tax Credits Act 2002: allows HMRC to give LAs data relating to ..... purpose of administration of HB, and is stored on a local database, in order to.


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM Reboot your router and your IP address will probably change. They are dynamic set on demand by the ISP unless you pay extra for a fixed IP if available. That is why they cannot rely on IP address as evidence for stuff like use of certain Torrent sites.

 

Anyway, back to the topic, the government is anxious to digitise finance as much as possible as it is easier to get at money via attachment and direct debit.


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The correct position is that if the local authority consider that the total arrears would not be paid off under a Attachment of Earnings Order before the next council tax year, then they can use another method of enforcement (in this case, referring the 2nd account to JBW Group).

 

It is always worthwhile reading back on recent Local Government Ombudsman decisions and in particular, as there have been many complaints regarding Attachment of Earnings Orders. The following recent decision is almost identical to the case of the young lady above:

 

 

Broadland District Council and decision 1st July 2015

 

 

Mr X agrees that he owes council tax. He says
he earns the minimum wage
and has been unable to find better paid employment.

 

Mr X did not maintain payments as set out in the instalment plan for 2013/14. The Council agreed proposals to pay off the arrears, but these were not adhered to. The debt was referred to court and the Council obtained a liability order for £957 plus costs. The Council obtained an attachment of earnings order.

 

Although payments were made for the 2013/14 arrears, through attachment of earnings, Mr X did not pay the charge for the following year, when instalments fell due.
The Council obtained a second liability order. Mr X suggested the Council could deal with this debt also through an attachment of earnings. The Council did not agree to this because the total arrears would not have been paid off before the next council tax year.

 

I have reviewed the background correspondence and am satisfied that the Council has offered appropriate advice to Mr X at each stage. It advised him of the availability of council tax benefit, subject to an assessment of Mr X’s income, and he was provided also with details of the Council’s Debt Advisor.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/14-014-572

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some confusion about how an enforcment power is made on attachment of earnings.

The power originates from the local governance finance act 2992 and is issued AFtER the liability order has been obtained

 

here is th section:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/14/schedule/4

 

Attachment of earnings etc.

 

5(1)Regulations under paragraph 1(1) above may provide that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order against a person (“the debtor”) and the debtor is an individual—

(a)the authority concerned may make an order (an “attachment of earnings order”) to secure the payment of [F1the appropriate amount] ;

 

my emphasis :)


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the AoE have an expiry date? No so why the need to push two in one go, leave one suspended until the 1st is clear, this allows the debtor time to catch up an not run the risk of arrears in the next year! My thoughts ;)


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the AoE have an expiry date? No so why the need to push two in one go, leave one suspended until the 1st is clear, this allows the debtor time to catch up an not run the risk of arrears in the next year! My thoughts ;)

 

If you read BAs post you will see it repeats the point I made earlier

 

LA.s do not want a situation where the tax is perpetually being paid a year late.

The purpose of the AOE is not for that. The idea is that it is used in exceptional circumstance to enable someone to work towards paying their bill on demand.

Continuingly applying AOEs every year for the previous year is not the answer, as the debt will be there forever.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the AoE have an expiry date? No so why the need to push two in one go, leave one suspended until the 1st is clear, this allows the debtor time to catch up an not run the risk of arrears in the next year! My thoughts ;)

 

For the past week or so I have been reading through many Local Government Ombudsman reports and the overwhelming message in each one of them is that the local authority are obliged to ensure that they collect council tax and that debtors should pay what they owe.

 

Given the importance of these LGO decisions, (almost all of which are decisions made under the new regulations) it may be a good idea to publish copies here in the discussion part of the forum. In order to avoid confusion, it would probably be better to separate them under different threads (Attachment of Earnings/Council tax/road traffic debts).

 

Turning back to your question; the deduction rate is set by law at a high rate as the governments aim is that this will likely lead to the Liability Order being repaid within the current council tax year. This would avoid the debtor getting into further arrears under the new council tax year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to publish them just a link will do... Unfortunately neither you nor Db has confirmed nor denied that a debtor can reasonably ask the LA to suspend a 2nd LO. Neither of you will look for my post from the post I made on a different thread regarding what has been written on the NDL site...


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...