Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK, so I've rather unfairly picked up a CCJ from a business overdraft debt that's been going on for years. I had court claim forms in 2014 which I managed to stave off. and again in sept 2016. This time I've acknowledged the service, filling in what I thought was the correct amount I thought I owed. I've since had the personal guarantee paper copies in my possession and I owe £21K. I sent them back along with a new address for all correspondence to be sent to, and then agreed to a Tomlin order to pay debt off monthly.  Now, these were sent back and forth and eventually signed, but apparently only partially. So DD was set up at same time, in Jan 2017. over next couple of months we paid, and also go letters to sign new Tomlin which we ignored as it was signed. In March we got another TO with 7 days to sign it and send back. We had one day to get this to them and phoned to say it wouldn't be there, that's ok they said, well extend it, just keep paying and send it back asap, we did send recorded (since lost receipt). We assumed they'd got it, and didn't hear a peep from them. Until July 18, when I found id got a CCJ from Feb that year. I've logged a complaint with solicitor, and had a response, they are denying any knowledge of anything. They had no TO so took it to court without my knowledge.  I didn't think there was anything I can do. However, as it turns out, the court sent papers to an old address even though solicitor had new address for 13 months, and address for correspondence was on the claim papers I sent back. Upon closer inspection the numbers are all wrong too, nor a lot but its about £200 adrift. We called their office too within the 30 day notice period, oddly they have no record of that.  And all this is on a "Business Charge Card Guarantee" …. anyone explain that?? In the mean time we've paid £5K+ of the debt off. At no point did anyone in the process let us know we'd had the CCJ logged against us. Is that right?? Or legal? I was intending to get it set side, but was told by them it was pointless. Just want to get back to point A. Paying it isn't the problem, it getting the CCJ reset. Please Help!!! 
    • same with jaguar s-types etc. all kind of weird issues if the battery is on the way out or the terminals/earth straps are not reconnected tightely/properly.   mine was the earthing strap to the gearbox, was rotted and got knocked during the gearbox oil change.
    • what have they got that they can respond too that counters your SB defence? zilch.   as with every erudio claimform or PAPLOC thread on CAG you solely got the claim because for whatever reason , to that date, everything was ignored.   once a response is made they go away.   default CCJ avoided. you must read up and understand how arrows [erudio!!] operate  
    • so won by a section 75 claim under the consumer credit act then   consequential losses are also covered by section 75 as the card provide is equally liable as you've already found out   as for the dealer and court there is no time limit, well 6yrs I believe   though it would be a tough battle but made slightly easier as BC coughed up. but again what would you in all reality 'win' probably go bust or change name        
    • It was settled by Barclaycard because I bought the car using my VISA credit card. Do you know if there is a time limit for taking the company to court to claim the consequential expenses incurred?
  • Our picks

Bailiff Advice

Housing Minister has told local authorities to stop telling tenants to stay till the eviction date.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1256 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

Strictly, speaking this is not a subject that would normally feature on the 'bailiff discussion' section of the forum. However, with the subject matter regularly featuring on the popular TV series; Can't Pay We'll Take it Away' it may well assist some viewers.

 

Anyone watching the TV series would have seen the many instances of a tenant is being evicted. Routinely, the tenants had been advised by their local authorities that in order to gain assistance with emergency housing, that they must remain in the property until the actual eviction. It would seem that this practice must stop.

 

The following is taken from a recent article from the Sheriffs Office:

 

 

Housing minister, Brandon Lewis has told all local authorities to stop routinely advising tenants to stay put until the enforcement agent arrives before they can be accepted as homeless.

 

Mr Lewis has written to all the chief executives of local councils saying that households should not be put in this position, and clarifying the guidance about homelessness.

 

In his letter he says,

 

“Authorities should not routinely be advising tenants to stay until the bailiffs arrive; there is no barrier to them assisting the tenant before this. By doing this, local authorities miss a valuable opportunity to prevent homelessness.”

 

Mr Lewis writes that the statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance, which local authorities are required by law to have regard to, is clear on this matter and contains guidance on how they should treat homelessness applications where a tenant has received a valid S21 notice.

 

This is what Mr Lewis’s letter highlights about what the guidance states:

 

-Housing authorities should not, in every case, insist upon a court order for possession and that no local authority should adopt a blanket policy in this respect.

 

-If the landlord intends to seek possession and there would be no defence to an application for a possession order, then it is unlikely that it would be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation.

 

-Unless a local authority has very good reason to depart from the statutory guidance, then they should not be placing households in this position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we will see councils doing the right thing and treating those families as homeless as soon as possession is sought.


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 OTHER

 

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
Perhaps we will see councils doing the right thing and treating those families as homeless as soon as possession is sought.

 

I would like to see a full copy of the Housing Minister's letter. I will make some enquiries later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see a full copy of the Housing Minister's letter. I will make some enquiries later.

Yes the devil is always in the detail. Incidentally Shelter regard anyone with insecurity of accommodation as homeless.


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 OTHER

 

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

My niece had to stay til eviction day even though her rent was up to date and she had taken care of the property. Her landlord had sold the house without informing her and she had a small boy as well.

 

If she had known the house was being sold at the time a relative would have bought it as it was ideal for them and they had the money ready and waiting.

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...