Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks guys. Updated witness statement accordingly with dx's post. I have a draft order. As follows, is this ok?   It is ordered that: 1. The default judgment dated 10 November 2021 be set aside. 2. The Claimant pays the Defendant’s costs of this application to the sum of £275. 3. The Claimant has permission to file and serve a reply if so required.   4. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.   So with the N244.. include the Witness statement, draft defence, and draft order? And include a copy of all evidence?   Thanks
    • we need the exact particulars of claim, not what you have put please.  
    • Thank you everyone for your quick responses I just wish I posted here in the first place    I probably shouldn't have filled in the claim form however on the letter it said I had limited time to do so and because I was dealing with CST law trying to come to an agreement with paying off the debt I didn't think it would get to this point and now I have probably made my situation worst. Of course, I would have posted here first before sending it off had I not been in communication with CST to set up an agreement.    I sent the letter back to the court as some point in early August, the issue date on the claim form is 28th July and the most recent letter I have received 'Notice of fast track' is dated 18th November    If I am honest I can't fully remember what I wrote word for word in my defence, it would have been along the lines of why I left, my reasons and the fact I returned to my old career in an office plus taking a pay cut to do so. There wasn't much room to write a long winded defence so I kept it relativity short.   The above document Andy has posted is the exact document I am now looking at very confused in what exactly I put where    I just want to re-iterate I never agreed with this money I owe due to the training bond but it has gone on for so long at this point I'm happy to set up a payment plan if the balance can get reduced or a small one off payment upfront and this is exactly what I was trying to do prior to receiving the most recent letter    I have had zero communication from CST law, Centrica advised me to deal with them directly and I was waiting for a response from CST with the offer we had put across to Centrica - I chased it multiple times the following weeks and they kept telling me they haven't had a response and when they do we'll contact you which they still have not   Ideally I would rather not give them any money however I feel like I am out of options at what I probably should have done years ago is attempt to get it reduced and set up a payment plan    Please let me know if I have missed any critical info out    Thanks again for everyones help    What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? I left a British Gas apprenticeship within the first 12 months of starting and went back to my old career in an office , my reasons for leaving were down to the completely differant job role which I realised quikcly was not for me and it was impacting my mental health massively. The claim is for a training bond which was in a contract I signed based on a sliding scale Year 1 - £9,000 year 2 £6,000 year 3 £3,000     What is the total value of the claim? £13433    Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No  Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Training bond due to leaving an apprenticeship before 3 years    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 ? They have sent me a virtually signed document with the contract   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? No   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. Centrica are claimant, CST law are dealing and the court   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I believe so yes   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I have had multiple letters like everyone else who has been on the forum over the years regarding this matter   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? I am unsure, but when I left I had contested the original claim as I was dealing directly with Centrica’s collection team and they never got back to me after the final email I had sent and didn’t hear anything until years down the line   Why did you cease payments? N/A   What was the date of your last payment? N/A   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Correct I oringinally contested what was owed back in 2017 and gave my reasons for leaving and I assumed the matter was closed   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No  
    • OK thanks again Andy.   And understood 👍😉
    • Thank you for this. The first thing to be say is that this means that you are winning. It is pretty well unheard of in my experience for the bank to give way and finally return the money. The fact that they have done this under the threat of a judgement for breach of statutory duty indicates even more that they are worried about their position. Nowhere have they indicated that they have complied with the requirements of the Proceeds of Crime Act and informed the National crime agency. I don't believe they have and this is a very serious breach of statutory duty. Not only that it is a very serious breach of the FCA BCOBS regulations in that they are required to treat you fairly. Treating you fairly in this case means that they must comply with the rest of their statutory duties. It appears that they really haven't done this at all and that they have acted in an arbitrary way in disregard of the law and that they are hoping to get away with it. I find myself wondering how many other hundreds of people have been treated in exactly the same way – and you are probably the first ever to have stood up to them and to get them worried. I think I've already indicated that a press contact of mine in the Sunday Times would be very interested in this story. He has already run stories about the very poor standards applied by banks when deciding that their customers are involved in some fraudulent behaviour. The first thing to say about the letter which you have received is that they are trying to apply conditions to releasing your own money. It's your money and there should be no conditions and my suggestion is that you object to this. Secondly, not only are they threatening to continue to withhold your own money – but also they are saying that if they release it to you you will simply have the net figure without any kind of interest or compensation. It's clear that while they have had your money, they have invested it and earn money on it. They have probably been lending it out at between 16% and 20% and although the usual rate of interest is 8%, it seems to me that justice can only be served by repaying you your money plus the commercial rate of interest – at a compound rate. Normally the 8% is calculated at simple. Thirdly, they are not offering to pay you any compensation and clearly they are hoping to get away with it without any kind of sanction or not even a slap on the wrist.   Fourthly, they had the nerve to impose a seven day deadline. Don't worry about their deadline. It's a load of huff and puff. This is all part of their bluff game designed to intimidate you. At the end of seven days – what? Are they then going to insist on going to court?   If they really believe that they had done everything correctly and that the money was fraudulent, then they would not offer it to you back under any circumstances. It would be illegal for them to do so. You can be certain that these people do not want to go to court. In fact they probably wish they had never started.   Finally, they want the matter to be kept confidential – and I can't say I blame them. I would be ashamed if people knew that I had treated somebody else in this way and I'm sure they are worried about reputational damage. I'm also sure that there are extremely worried about what will happen if you get a judgement against them for breach of statutory duty. It will have to be reported to the FCA. It will have to be reported to the NCA. And of course it should be reported to the newspapers because people need to know what is going on. If you want, you can simply accept their proposal – get your money back, given confidentiality – and that's the end of the matter. However, you have no idea how this will impact on your record in the future. I imagine that they will bar you from ever opening an account with them again. – But at least you will have your money and you can get on with your life. However, if you want you can stand your ground and make it clear to them that you are going to be mucked around and treated like this and that you are prepared to go to court if they won't make a proper offer. I understand that you need to pay a court fee of about £350 in the next seven days. I expect that the bank is making this offer now hoping to dissuade you from spending any more money and hoping that you will back down. If you have the money to proceed then I would suggest very strongly that it will be a very serious sign of strength that you tell the bank that you're not interested in that you are paying the fee for the next stage of the court process. If the bank knows that you've called their bluff on this and that you have been prepared to invest further money in moving this legal action forward, then they will start to reflect and I can perfectly well imagine that they will make you another more interesting offer – once again on conditions of confidentiality. Without seeing any further offer, I'm already suggesting that you will probably be best off turning it down. In any event, I would remind you going back several months that I already predicted that the bank would make you confidential offer – and that has happened. I'm not saying that I'm always going to be right here – but I think that now basically the bank have pretty well admitted that they need to pay you your money, there is no chance of you losing it. You will get your money and it really is just a question of how much else you will get in addition. If you'd like to continue then let me know and I will suggest a draft response to them.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

OFCOM decision Can't Pay special


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2188 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

Not having watched the special where Ms Merritt was evicted along with her 11 year old daughter, it seems Havering Borough Council were not happy bunnies.

 

In this bulletin from 26/10/2015 OFCOM dismissed a complaint from HBC.

 

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb291/

 

(click the link at the bottom)

 

The report is at page 17

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb291/Issue_291.pdf

 

This link takes you directly to the report - scroll down to page 17.

 

I didn't see the programme either.

 

You would have thought a Homeless department would be staffed for longer than just 9-5 ?

 

Well done that HCEO who very kindly ensured that the Mother and daughter were safe that evening.

 

Shame on Havering Borough Council.

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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame they aren't and weren't so quick to defend the rights of the vulnerable they are supposed to look after!

 

I wonder if they have retrained their staff to accept the fact that the old days of a Bailiff not turning up for at least 2 months to perform an eviction are long gone, and most landlords are simply going via the HCEO route and getting it done in a couple of days.

 

The refusal to rehouse until the Bailiff turns up and performs the physical eviction is unlawful anyway, and I believe Councils have been told off for it years ago, but simply ignored, as usual "Leading Beyond Authority" aka "Doing what we want, not what the Law says"

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it also breaches Human Rights and who knows what other legislation, because they are forcing people to defy Court Orders, which is technically speaking, Contempt of Court, isn't it?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a shocking council, at least in this case Paul Bohill really did go an extra mile for a vulnerable debtor, he had no duty to her whatsoever but did help despite having to evict her. The council certainly didn't cover itself in glory, and OFCOM were correct to dismiss their mealy mouthed appeal.

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

What a shocking council, at least in this case Paul Bohill really did go an extra mile for a vulnerable debtor, he had no duty to here whatsoever but did help despite having to evict her. The council certainly didn't cover itself in glory, and OFCOM were correct to dismiss their mealy mouthed appeal.

 

I have been away the past two days and had not read this thread until this morning. Your above comments mirror my thoughts entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The refusal to rehouse until the Bailiff turns up and performs the physical eviction is unlawful anyway, and I believe Councils have been told off for it years ago, but simply ignored, as usual "Leading Beyond Authority" aka "Doing what we want, not what the Law says"

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it also breaches Human Rights and who knows what other legislation, because they are forcing people to defy Court Orders, which is technically speaking, Contempt of Court, isn't it?

 

I admit to be quite heartened to hear the HCEO's comments. I understand that many will regard this as a PR exercise but the very fact that he makes these observations and that many are applauding him for it must be helpful.

 

 

I am not aware of any legislation which states the authority must rehouse the debtor before the EA calls , I would certainly like to see it if there is.

 

As regards human rights, there is a problem here also. The rights of the debtors "family life", has to weighed against the creditors rights to "peaceful enjoyment of his property".

It is as you say however unconscionable that this should be the case.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit to be quite heartened to hear The HCEO's comments. I understand that many will regard this as a PR exercise but the very fact that he makes these observations and and that many are applauding him for it must be helpful.

 

 

I am not aware of any legislation which states the EA must rehouse the debtor before the EA calls , I would certainly like to see it if there is.

 

As regards human rights, there is a problem here also. The rights of the debtors "family life", has to weighed against the creditors rights to "peaceful enjoyment of his property".

It is as you say however unconscionable that this should be the case.

 

No, your misunderstanding. the Local Authority has the lawful duty to rehouse the debtor, and there refusal to do so until an EA comes to perform the physical eviction was pointed out by central government as unlawful years ago, but LA's still persist, even though it basically means they then have a massive urgent rush to rehouse someone, sometimes at 4pm because of their own refusal to follow law. This is nothing to do with the EA, or the Landlord. So the LA's are basically forcing tenants to breach Court Orders, by not leaving as and when ordered by the court, but waiting for the EA.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, your misunderstanding. the Local Authority has the lawful duty to rehouse the debtor, and there refusal to do so until an EA comes to perform the physical eviction was pointed out by central government as unlawful years ago, but LA's still persist, even though it basically means they then have a massive urgent rush to rehouse someone, sometimes at 4pm because of their own refusal to follow law. This is nothing to do with the EA, or the Landlord.

 

No sorry it was a typo I have already corrected it.

 

Do you have any links to this ruling ?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

No sorry it was a typo I have already corrected it.

 

Do you have any links to this ruling ?

 

I don't think there was a "ruling" it was just becoming a problem as evictions began to rise, and Central Government pointed out to the LA's that they were "accidently" to give them the benefit of the doubt the rules and legislation governing their responsibilities when they have a duty to rehouse someone, the same sets of legislation etc that allows them to refuse a duty of care to people for becoming "intentionally" Homeless and so on.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm probably wont be "illegal" then, unfortunate.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is about when a person becomes homeless and the councils duty to them under the law. Many councils wont consider a person homeless until they are actually evicted and this causes all sorts of problems for the tenant, the landlord and also bumps up costs enormously for both sides. However the person is homeless when the court says they have to leave and this makes the person effectively a squatter after that date and liable to criminal prosecution because the council wont obey the meaning of the statute.

make a few of these numbskulls vicariously liable for their actions and you will see a big change in the interpretation and application of all sorts of things in government. There again, pigs might fly

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not here to defend the council, but I am sure that they would say they have a duty of care to everyone on the housing list and limited resources. Unless you think that all the people who need homes should sue.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless someone should find legislation or a case where it was proven that the authorities must provide housing or they are committing an offence, then I am afraid it is not illegal.

 

Please do not mention the children's act 1978 because that has absolutely nothing to do with housing.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not here to defend the council, but I am sure that they would say they have a duty of care to everyone on the housing list and limited resources. Unless you think that all the people who need homes should sue.

 

No, AFAIK they have a Duty of Care to specific groups of people, where Housing is concerned. For example, A Single Parent with young or sick children, they don't have a DOC to everyone. If I turned up tomorrow in Birmingham, Brum CC Would not nominally have a DOC to me as I am not from there and have no long term family connections in the City, its possible that a couple health problems I have mean that they would, but probably not.

 

But in the situations where they DO have a legal DOC to a person facing eviction, they are breaching that Duty, such as a single parent with young or sick children.

 

I don't know what breaching a DOC is seen as - for example Council's have a DOC towards Children and their safety, which Rotherham Council recently and spectacularly failed to follow, was that failure unlawfu;?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may influence the eligibility to available housing stock in accordance with the particular authorities individual [procedures, but that is all.

There may be a dty for the children or disadvantaged, but it is unlikely to require that the council rehouses the whole family. In any case there maybe any number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed, so it is again down to supply, you cannot hold an authority liable for a situation which is not of their making, unless of course you can show it is.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Coughdrop very useful leaflet.

 

Fact is councils will almost always wait until a family is on the street before doing anything.

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

Unless someone should find legislation or a case where it was proven that the authorities must provide housing or they are committing an offence, then I am afraid it is not illegal.

Please do not mention the children's act 1978 because that has absolutely nothing to do with housing.

 

 

This may help you DB see here >http://www.project17.org.uk/media/7763/s17-Factshet-May-13.pdf

 

'There is no legal definition of destitution. However, it is a high threshold (much higher than the test for welfare benefits). The test most commonly used is:

 

- No adequate accommodation; or

 

- Unable to meet basic living needs

 

If there is domestic abuse in the home, the accommodation is unlikely to be adequate.'

 

This is under the '89 Act not the '78 Act

 

For more information on the HRA and social landlords this is a good guidance >>http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/human_rights_at_home.pdf

 

With case law here >>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1004.html

 

For s17 see here >>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/17

 

 

Edited by citizenB
font sizing

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

A partial quote from that case

 

 

'I determine these issues as follows:

  1. i) The duty of assessing the needs of homeless children falls primarily on the local authority (children's services authority) for the area in which the children are physically present (even if living there only temporarily) at the material time under section 17 of the CA 1989. In this case, this was LB Havering;

 

ii) The duty to provide interim accommodation for the children pending the outcome of that assessment is primarily a housing duty and will fall on the local authority (housing department) for the area in which the children are living when the duty arises (section 188 and section 190(1)/(2) of the HA 1996). The exercise of the local authority's functions in this respect is covered by section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 ("the CA 2004") which requires the housing authority to discharge its functions "having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children";
'

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seem to have sparked a debate, it is all good. MM the last quote refers to the child not the family and not the case which is the subject in question which involved the supply of accommodation before the eviction, also too many links find the relavant sections put them up and if they are relavant I will comment.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

That job is for you to investigate and not for me to provide, you asked I provided. There is so much available to read even in the 2004 Act. If you follow the links and read what is available you will find all of the answers you require.

 

 

As far as the family unit this is covered in the links provided....

 

 

Failing to read makes us lazy this is how we learn!

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...