Jump to content


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1662 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

In 2014,

I was due in court for an alleged crime which was fitted up and racist.

my wife and I signed to apply for LAA, and it was based on the earnings she was receiving as I was a poor musician.

before the case date or I even had a Barristor, I had Rossendales harassing me to pay them £586. 00 per month,

which I retaliated withe vitriolic replies.

 

The case date was not set up until Oct, and by that time I had ignored all notices from Rossendales,

and was going through nasty Divorce.

 

As soon as I was divorced they started harassing me again,

but I am fighting this tooth and nail because they have not bothered to go after my nasty ex wife, just me,

and their insipid excuses is that I was the one who signed the agreement,

 

my argument is that under the Consumer Credit act 1974, this is a joint agreement,

hence both parties are responsible for the debt and the bailiff fees etc.

 

They have visited my house and I received several letters with costs and threats to take control,

to which I have vitriolically replied stating my case which seems to fall on deaf ears.

 

I have made complaints through Resolve, and to Matrons and the LAA, which seem too have stopped the visits,

and I have read all the anti bailiff blogs , and the law , but these seem to be a law unto themselves.

 

Fortunately I have a partner with whom I am able to stay with,

whilst I make my case, and can take evasive action,

like purchasing my own wheel clamps for when I do have to leave my car on the driveway,

when I am at my address.

 

My question is :

Am I right that the CCA agreement is a joint one,

or am I liable for these ridiculous fees plus the LA costs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry what is LAA .....legal aid?

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

sorry was on a small screen.

 

 

legal aid is not covered by the consumer credit agreement.

 

 

so are marstons operating as HCEO here or simply their debt collection wing?

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

What were rossendales after £568 a month for? Couldn't be a fine if you hadnt been to court yet.

 

The post is a bit confusing, what does the cca have to do with an application for legal aid?

 

Please can you clarify

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
What were rossendales after £568 a month for? Couldn't be a fine if you hadnt been to court yet.

 

The post is a bit confusing, what does the cca have to do with an application for legal aid?

 

Please can you clarify

exactly my point within a month ROSSENDALES started writing to me stating that I owed £568 to which I replied with vitriolic replies and it has progressed , and now they have been taken over by marstons .
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,please correct me if i have misunderstood anything.

You have been accused of an offence and whilst still married, applied for legal aid to assist with defence. LAA has nothing to do with CCA 1974, its not a consumer credit agreement.

Within a month of i presume being found guilty of the alleged offence, rossendales began chasing you for an unpaid fine, this has been passed now to marstons to collect?

Please could you clarify and correct anything i may have misinterpreted.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

me thinks this Is simply the DCA wings of each and is related to the following situation.

there are loads of them here

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421236-Rossendales-DCA-chasing-old-legal-aid-debt-**WON!!**

 

 

because you have a thing about bailiffs you are thinking along the same lines.

ignore the stupid dca's they can do nowt on a gov't debt

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

Ok,please correct me if i have misunderstood anything.

You have been accused of an offence and whilst still married, applied for legal aid to assist with defence. LAA has nothing to do with CCA 1974, its not a consumer credit agreement. I disagree, Yes it does.

 

Within a month of i presume being found guilty of the alleged offence, rossendales began chasing you for an unpaid fine, this has been passed now to marstons to collect?

Please could you clarify and correct anything i may have misinterpreted.

 

Accused yes, court date not set, yet harassed for payment towards Legal aid 9months before the date of the case , and at the time that this was happening, I was been chased by Rossendales for £586 to be paid, before the case date was even set,which is not right.

 

The case did not finally come to court until Oct 20th 2014, I was coerced into pleading guilty, and is my biggest regret, fined £170 and had five points put on my licence. My argument is that the application was signed by BOTH PEOPLE so therefore BOTH people are LIABLE FOR THE DEBT! I have paid the fine, but the harassment is for Legal aid costs

 

Rossendales stopped pestering mental i was divorced, and have now started again,but Rossendales have been bought out or are under the same management, so they have sent Bailiffs to my address, and left threatening letters with their stupid costs.

 

I still believe until someone states why I should not think this way, is that we are/were both liable for the legal aid, and now we are both liable for the costs etc, because we both signed the agreement to replay the costs, whether it was my case or her case or were jointly prosecuted, the signatures on that application was not mine alone, and the cost, extortionate as they are, were based on her wages, not on the pittance I was earning at the time.

 

Bailiffs in this country seem to think they have the `law unto themselves, but there is a growing resistance against them , b because of the injustice and the harassment they cause, by their bullying of people who don't know the law, but I glad to say that I am not one of those, but try to help the less knowledgeable, hence my question.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what letters have you had and from whom scan them up

 

 

I still say these are not bailiffs but marston/rossers operating under their no powers dca wing.

 

 

none of the legal aid threads here ever turn out to be bailiff related.

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

Even if you have both signed it means they can chase either one of you. They may not have your ex's current details and find it easier to go after yourself.

 

I do agree with DX though unless you have a Court Order that says otherwise. It matters not whether Rossendales have been sold.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon applying for legal aid as a married man you would have been means tested which would include your now ex wife's income.

The reason they will be chasing you now is that you were the offender, coerced or otherwise who pleaded guilty.

 

That said i too am inclined to believe that the rossendales/marstons wing is that of dca and not bailiffs.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My argument is that the application was signed by BOTH PEOPLE so therefore BOTH people are LIABLE FOR THE DEBT! I have paid the fine, but the harassment is for Legal aid costs

 

Bailiffs in this country seem to think they have the `law unto themselves, but there is a growing resistance against them , b because of the injustice and the harassment they cause, by their bullying of people who don't know the law, but I glad to say that I am not one of those, but try to help the less knowledgeable, hence my question.Thanks.

 

From reading your posts it would seem that your anger is aimed towards Rossaendales because they are not pursuing your 'nasty ex wife'. In fact, because the debt is a joint one, both of you are jointly liable but this does NOT mean that Rossendales should split the debt 50/50. They can pursue each or either of you. However, if you pay the debt, then you can legally pursue you ex wife for her 50%.

 

This debt is to the Legal Aid Agency and Rossendales have had a contract to pursue these debts for quite some time. It is important to remember though that Rossendales have two separate and distinct parts to their business. The main one is naturally their 'bailiff' one where they represent many local authorities collecting mainly council tax debts.

 

They also have a very large 'debt recovery' company (Debt Collection Agency) where they have contracts with the Legal Aid Agency and DVLA (to name a few). Your debt is with this separate company. Accordingly, the company cannot use 'bailiffs' to recover the debt and neither can they charge bailiff fees. You have mentioned that you have been charged fees, can you let us know what charges have been added to the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine it depends on what paperwork the Ex Wife actually signed - just because as a married couple her income was included in the means testing does not necessarily mean she signed anything that makes her liable, especially after a divorce.

 

I have to say, why should the Wife in her new life be forced to pay for the OP, when the OP committed a criminal offence, In all honesty it sounds like the OP is just trying to use this maliciously as a weapon against her, we would need to see what documents were signed to know if she really is liable.

 

Something is not adding up - how could Rossendales have been chasing a Legal Aid bill, before the Magistrate or Crown Court Hearing, ie before the actual costs of the Legal Aid were known? Also, hiring a Barrister for what sounds like a straight forward driving offence is a bit extreme. Something just smells funny.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

the divorce will probably kill the liability unless it is referred to in the settlement. even if it doesnt that only gives the people chasing the money the right to pursue her, it doesnt force them to.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...