Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you so much for heads up.
    • Thanks DX - I wondered about the blacked out bits. That's their doing not mine obviously.   Attached is the exhibits part of the bundle. Sorry about this, no matter what I compressed the whole thing down to I got the oversize message, even if the filesize on my computer was showing as well under 4.8mb   The_exhibits-compressed.pdf
    • Thanks Bankfodder!   Hello again everyone.    I received my SAR back from Elderbridge and what and absolute load of **** it is!   1.  They did not send any transcripts or recordings of any phones calls  - both myself and my husband spoke to them in Aug 2016 (noted in their diary notes) and I called them in Dec 2018 (again noted in their diary notes) it was the same day they sent the reply even though they have mentioned me calling in their notes on that day, so not sure I should let that go or not!   I also spoke to them in July 2016 (again in the notes) and I spoke to them in Dec 2012 (again in the notes)    2.  Going through the diary notes in the beginning notes were sporadic mainly because we were making payment and everything was ok, then later as things changed there were notes almost once a month, then in NOV 2012 and Dec 2012 frequency of notes increase as this is when they began court proceedings.  and throughout 2013 again lots of notes made - mostly their in house stuff about court dealings and so on - so that's fine. then in NOV 2013 hey made a not re the court date in OCT - saying that they were ordered to treat the loan as having a fixed rate from inception and sent off etc.  BUT from 21 Nov 2013 to 17th June 2014 there are no notes at all!  Now the hearing was on the 10th Jan 2014!   17/06/2014 14:43 *****Substantial EVS costs to be added to any SF ****** 17/06/2014 14:43 EVS Defended + At the hearing on 10/01/2014 an SPO for 500 on 26/01/2014 and then CMI + £60 wef 26/02/2014 plus MJ for £103,331.03 suspended on the same terms. It was also held that we could add our costs - Defended costs on this case are £33,879.80. 17/06/2014 00:00 Reviewed Reviewed 17/06/2014 00:00 ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF ***Defended Costs*****:To be added to any SF 21/11/2013 04:13 ADHOC Statement Printed From 03/10/13 To 13/11/13 Batch 2015 Sequence 28 Printed 13/11/2013 00:00:00   Above you can cleary see the gap then suddenly the first notes talk about the court case and costs etc, at the trial in OCT the judge reserved cost till the next hearing (also stated on the documentation from the court)  but then at that hearing in Jan 2014 we did not discuss costs - the 6 month gap I feel is very suspicious.    The final court document  dated 13th Jan 2014 says to pay the claimant £103,331.03 which is the amount outstanding under the mortgage and goes on to says order were not to be enforced as long as we pay etc.  no mention of costs at all - so they seem to just be adding them   3.   They sent a field agent to me in Jan 2018, I only knew this as on the 9th Jan 2018 I was working at home and heard the letterbox, thought it was the postman, went to the door to find an envelope shoved through the door with a letter in it saying they had been requested to visit me and that they called today but I was not in! and gave a number for me to call ( I saw the woman walking down the driveway - but she did not ring the bell! and I wasn't about to run after her!)   But in the notes they have written this utter lie!   30/01/2018 12:44 Field Agent Report Received The field agent visited the security address on three occasions. The customer was spoken to through the window. They refused to discuss and refused to answer the door. The contact number on file is not recognised. RFA - Not known Reasons for items not verified:N/A Details of variances of items outside of expenditure guidelines and reasons N/A Property is a detached house in good condation valued at £406,000. Equity not known. I actually cannot believe what I have read here! Can I ask them for some kind of proof of this, because I don't know who they are talking about but it certainly wasn't me!   4.  the documents they had sent me a joke, they have sent 77 documents in total, none of these are copies of letter from Elderbridge (which is who I sent the SAR to) all from First Plus and certainly not ALL of them, they have been bulked out by sending me copies of documents that I sent TO THEM for my court defence and there are strange Black boxes over some of the text!? which I don't understand!     After receiving this info from Elderbridge I decided to send a SAR to Barclays and I got a small package with a couple of letters, some diary notes and screen shot of the account, as well as a short statement of account. This was for our ORIGINAL loan from Feb 2006,  (we topped it up in June 2006) and the first one was closed.  The second one is the one that has been transferred to Elderbridge but Barclays seem to know be denying ALL knowledge of it! and I know that they still hold the beneficial interest of these loans and that Elderbridge regularly contact Barclays for help and advise - I have contact with other account holders who have diary notes from Elderbridge showing contact to Barclays!..   This week I also had a reply from the FOS (only from an adjudicator not an ombudsman) and his initial opion is that it's ok for Elderbridge to claim the costs as we defaulted, he seems to be ignoring my argument that the relationship is unfair etc but I will be sending this back and asking for it to be looked at by an ombudsman.   But was hoping that someone here could give me any advise re all of this - sorry I know it's a lot!!
    • why all the blanked out stuff in the parking contract? and no proof its paid this year either?  
    • pop the exhibits as a sep file i'll merge them for you
  • Our picks

Bailiff Advice

Camden council want to exempt their poorest residents from having to pay council tax or be pursued by bailiffs.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1100 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

The following is an extract from a press article today.

 

Westminster Council already have a similar system in place. If only other local authorities could follow this example.

 

 

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/council-tax-exemptions

 

THOUSANDS of people in Camden are set to be made exempt from paying council tax to save the Town Hall cash on chasing for money they do not have.

 

Labour council chiefs are looking at a plan which would see around 11,500 of the borough's poorest residents no longer receive the bill from the Town Hall. The proposal will go out to a public consultation but could come into use next year.

 

The people who will be covered by the scheme already have a discount of around 90 per cent on their council tax bill due to their circumstances, but would move to a status of paying none at all.

 

Most are living on very low wages or entirely on benefits, and include families and disabled claimants.

 

Conservative opposition councillors said the idea was borrowed from neighbouring Westminster, where the Tories are in power.

 

In Camden, the loss of income would amount to around £1.4m a year, but the council estimates this will be offset by savings on bailiffs and court costs from no longer pursuing people and as the result of more money coming in from the recent increase in council tax.

 

“There is not much point chasing people for £100 or so bill, after the discount they already have, with court orders bailiffs if they are never going to be able to pay."

 

He added: “The rise in council tax will allow some room for redistribution. “In all, people get a good deal from the council with years of frozen council tax or below inflation rises.”

 

“They should have listened to us earlier, as in Westminster they are already doing this. The trouble with Camden though is that council tax is far too high.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The following is an extract from a press article today.

 

Westminster Council already have a similar system in place. If only other local authorities could follow this example.

 

 

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/council-tax-exemptions

THOUSANDS of people in Camden are set to be made exempt from paying council tax to save the Town Hall cash on chasing for money they do not have.

 

Labour council chiefs are looking at a plan which would see around 11,500 of the borough's poorest residents no longer receive the bill from the Town Hall. The proposal will go out to a public consultation but could come into use next year.

 

The people who will be covered by the scheme already have a discount of around 90 per cent on their council tax bill due to their circumstances, but would move to a status of paying none at all.

 

Most are living on very low wages or entirely on benefits, and include families and disabled claimants.

 

Conservative opposition councillors said the idea was borrowed from neighbouring Westminster, where the Tories are in power.

 

In Camden, the loss of income would amount to around £1.4m a year, but the council estimates this will be offset by savings on bailiffs and court costs from no longer pursuing people and as the result of more money coming in from the recent increase in council tax.

 

“There is not much point chasing people for £100 or so bill, after the discount they already have, with court orders bailiffs if they are never going to be able to pay."

 

He added: “The rise in council tax will allow some room for redistribution. “In all, people get a good deal from the council with years of frozen council tax or below inflation rises.”

 

“They should have listened to us earlier, as in Westminster they are already doing this. The trouble with Camden though is that council tax is far too high.”

 

At Last!!!!!! they have come to realise you can't get blood out of stone and it is costing them money trying to.. Imo, all councils need to ignite that spark of common sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At Last!!!!!! they have come to realise you can't get blood out of stone and it is costing them money trying to.. Imo, all councils need to ignite that spark of common sense

If only WD, but the bailiffs will be unhappy, as their business will drop. Don't think it would go down to well in Capita infested councils with a Capita/Equita/Ross 'n Robbers stitch up.

Less victims to fleece with fees.


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

Wonder how the people who pay are short of the CT by a £100 or so will feel?

 

Imagine trying to tell the council "it's only £100 mate"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If only WD, but the bailiffs will be unhappy, as their business will drop.

 

Over 6 million debts are enforced by bailiffs on behalf of various government agencies and I cannot see them losing too much sleep over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I his is a no brainier surely. £8.33 a month, I am sure the coasts pre enforcment would cover this.


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

This is welcome, but it isn't the councils who forced the issue of them paying in the first place, it is the government. Not that long ago, people in this situation did not pay towards their council tax, then in April 2013 the government scrapped the national CT benefit scheme. This left councils with only 90% of the income for this they had received previously.

 

Councils were allowed to ask people of working age (not pensioners) for a contribution towards their CT for the first time, so they did. They are now realising it was a stupid idea, and getting maximum publicity for 'helping the poorest.'

 

The reality is, they are just returning the poorest to the situation they were in previously, before the council made it worse for the poorest. They are putting spin on the truth of the issue, and hoping people will swallow it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new regulations regarding CT as from April this year is that everyone

has to pay an amount towards it, some are only£20 per month but take that

off an income of £480 a month (based on ESA) dose not seem a lot but that

£20 is a lot to the person.

 

Regards to all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new regulations regarding CT as from April this year is that everyone

has to pay an amount towards it, some are only£20 per month but take that

off an income of £480 a month (based on ESA) dose not seem a lot but that

£20 is a lot to the person.

 

Regards to all

 

I think you're referring to the default government scheme. Councils to not have to adopt this though, no more than they had to start charging people in 2013.

 

It's worth mentioning that even if people are awarded maximum CTR, councils still have the discretion to reduce the amount paid, or even cancel the entire bill.

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...