Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Amex as with any creditor must help you the FOS should go with you and make them remove all interest charged from the very 1st time of asking for help. the FCA regulations actually almost dictate it, they most certainly clearly state that if the are FCA registered they must help.   it's very telling they have no marked your credit file....almost as if they know they are wrong. it's also telling that an irresponsible lending complaint might well be in order hear too, they can just keep upping the credit limit without checking you can pay. and ofcourse covid plays its part here and they've already admitted as they allowed payments holidays until october in line with the rest of the industry and they should be continuing that. you problem is you keep using the phone, no paperwork no record of things discussed. i'd get an SAR off to them. and get the comms/account log and all the statements from day one and go nail them.
    • Hello CAG, Bit of a long post, may want to get a cuppa before starting reading... 😁   after being a lurker for many years and trying never to get into a mess with credit cards like i did 20 years ago, i've got myself into a mess with Amex... I've tried being open and honest with them, but now getting the feeling they are messing me around.    Its not a chargecard, but a Nectar Credit Card with them. TAKEN out 2016. Balance is just under £15k as of today, was almost at £17k.  Debt still owed by Amex, not been sent to NCO/Arrow etc - YET...    Background (short version): Was all fine with more than min. payment (£500 or so), being made until April 2020 when a number of things reduced my monthly salary from work (mainly, take a pay cut or be made redundant), so I soon quickly realised i needed to tighten my belt quickly. Phoned Amex, advisor said nothing they could do except Payment Holiday. Was put onto that for 3 months, told that Amex will be in touch at the end to restart payments. I asked about interest being stopped/frozen/reduced - not possible. So agreed to payment holiday to give me breathing space. 3 months came and went, no contact from Amex... No payments made, interest still racking up at around £300 a month...    Rang Amex back (July 2020), we cant do anything today because your in the middle of the statement cycle call back next week. Called back week after, no solution yet (i asked about things i seen on Amex US website = Regain program - basically freeze card, lower interest rate and pay a set amount for 12 months - more about this later) > Not available in UK yet.   Want to stay on payment holiday Mister B? I asked if there was any way interest could be stopped as this is making the balance increase and increase. No. Do you want to stay on Payment Holiday? Ok. (Bear in mind, if i came off Payment holiday. Minimum Payment was around £570 per month.  So, stayed on payment holiday... Didnt hear anything from Amex again. Called back up in September 2020. Please call back in October after 10th and we can assist.   Called back after October 10, went through loads of stuff, different options etc, was warned that Payment Holiday might not be extended much longer, but now have a program. Worked out with Amex woman that i could pay around £200 per month. But please stop interest - no we cant but we can reduce this down to 9.9APR instead of 23%... . Amex woman said she needed to submit details to 'Seniors' at Amex, please call back next week for update.   Called back week after, advised that first Amex woman was wrong and had made mistakes, shouldn't have told me what she had told me, £200 is too low, minimum would be £389 per month for 12 months or account will default. Told Amex woman 2 that couldn't afford it, went through this last time, etc etc. Amex woman 2 went off, came back, £329.74 is minimum they can possibly accept, 12 months at that amount per month and interest would be lowered, but not stopped. If you dont take out this 'Program' then account will default and will be passed to NCO or Arrow (I hate them both).  Went off, tried to get loans etc, all refused. Rang Amex back, reluctantly agreed so i can keep credit rating at 'good'.  So, been paying since Nov 2021 @ £329.74.    Letter arrived in December - due to out mess up with moving accounts around whilst on payment holiday, we are going to give you £3074 back. Logged into account, only £30.74 refunded, not £3074. Phoned Amex cos thought it was a joke/mistake - Spoke to some bloke - Oh dont worry, the rest will be applied to account automatically in 7 days. he advised was genuine but then got cut off during call. Called back, spoke to some other bloke, yes, looks genuine but please hold... Came back 10 minutes later. Oh, its a mis-print, you are not the only customer to receive one of these. Each should have been £30.74 not £3074. Me = Gutted.    Wrote a letter to Amex saying how dissatisfied i was with general customer service and felt they were incompetent, blah blah etc. Final response received, Complaint partially upheld, heres £150 credit because we were a bit silly, but thats it. IF your still not happy, go to FOS. Opened a case with FOS... Have sent them the complaint letter to them and have had a call from them about this... FOS are backlogged though and will take another 3 months for complaint to be looked at by them.   Let me make this 100% clear, fully admit to owning the debt, yep, ive spent this money (wish I knew what on, cos having got much to show from it - just general stuff and holidays)... Not trying to shirk out of it, trying my best to keep up with re-payments but im really struggling. After I got paid on 1st April, after paying all outgoings i had £9.83 left in current account so am having to go into overdraft each month which is just a vicious circle.  I would really like to NOT have to down the default route and trash my credit rating and then have to deal with the morons at NCO / Arrow etc.    Meanwhile, this is where I need the advice of the CAG experts... - Credit Limit increases... These were coming every few months and it was just being upped and upped and upped. Credit limit eventually was stopped at £15,400. Some of the increases I never even received letter for, just noticed when I logged into account. >>>> Would this be a case for irresponsible lending?   - Stopping interest - I've read something on FCA site that they recommend (not policy) that if a customer is put onto a payment holiday then they recommend freezing interest for customer so the debt doesn't continue to build. I've asked time and time again, Amex just refuse.  >>>> Any tips on how to get Amex to play ball?    - Full & Final/Short settlement I've rung Amex today, told them I might be able to pay it off. Initially they said full balance, i then pushed, they then said they would accept 80% of balance, pushed them a bit more, got it down to 70%. >>> Surprised, and then very surprised they would accept 70%, anyone else think this is a bit odd? Normally they wont budge, or they wont budge from their first offer... Could their be something wrong on account (missing CCA etc?), or do they want rid of me and account as much as I do with them?   - Cant really keep going at these £329.74 repayments. Something is going to have to give somewhere. I believe they wont go any lower and they will just default it i send £100 instead of £329 and send it out to NCO/Arrow. This might not be a too bad thing though because this would stop the interest right? Anyone thoughts on this?    Anyone think of anything else I could try with them? Again, its still with Amex, not defaulted or anything yet, yep, its all my own fault, i've spent the money, dont deny that, just feel Amex have took advantage etc.   Many thanks for reading. Any advice is greatly appreciated.   Kr, Mista B.     
    • Ok so we have complained to HMRC but were still no further forward with getting the P45/P60. We need this as DVLA has said they need more proof of who he is before giving him a provisional license.  What more can l do. 
    • Hi All   just looking for some advice. I bought a used Porsche Boxster from one of Marshall motor group’s Audi dealers (can I name them?) recently and was assured that it received a major service in October 2020 in line with the manufacturers requirements. The service book confirms this. The dealer also told me on the phone that they have a 6 month rule with any mot or service being done if due within this period which assured me when making an offer over the phone on the car that it wouldn’t need anything doing for a while as I recall saying that.   However, digging through the receipts post delivery I saw that the service was in fact minor and after calling the specialist who serviced it in Oct both they (Sheepishly) and the invoice confirmed that the car did not receive new spark plugs, an air filter, brake fluid replacement or a new fan belt which have now all fallen due and hence the major service due warning light. Had I not investigated this then the car would have potentially gone another 4 years, so 8 in total without some of these items being done.   i emailed the salesman to ask what they would propose to do. The matter is complicated by my living 450 miles away in Scotland, and 200 from their nearest branch, a Mercedes dealer in the Lake District, so I suggested getting my cheapest local specialist to do the works that have fallen due, however I have received no response.   Whilst I am still within my 30 days i don’t want to reject the car, which is otherwise perfect, but the fact remains that the Audi 150 point check only asks for upcoming mot’s to be checked and not services and surely you wouldn’t buy an approved used car and expect to have the service light come on 2 weeks later and have to spend almost £500 putting it right.   i would really appreciate some advice on next steps and perhaps who to escalate this to. Meantime the car is booked in for 2 weeks time to get the work done at the cheapest reputable place I could find.   Many, many thanks in advance
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Consultation on Default County Court Judgments (and where claims had been sent to an old address)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1113 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

Major crackdown on abuse of 'debt' judgement by rogue parking and utility firms is announced

 

Ministers will pledge action on abuse of county court judgments by rogue firms

Anyone who has had a CCJ without their knowledge will have it removed

 

The Govt plans to immediately set aside all backdoor CCJs for those who can prove to a judge that they did not know about it when it was passed.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5214075/Action-debt-judgement-rogue-firms-abuse-announced.html

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

thank god. Its about damn time. I wonder what caused them to finally do this after it happening for YEARS.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news, but remember Parking Eye are included in as contributors, and as part of Capita might have more clout than others, this Consultation is not very good for Capita.

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

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/government-mulls-county-court-judgment-shakeup/5064115.article

 

Another article regarding this. Presumably this will involve some sort of change to CPR 6.18.

 

The Daily Mail article is a little sensationalist and there are a few odd things about the Hancocks' story. Notwithstanding that, they didn't end up homeless because of a £170 CCJ.

 

I've done several years of debt collection work and issuing for various organisations. It is extremely hard when people move around. A lot of that boils down to the 6 year limitation period. Maybe the limitation period should be reduced to say 2 years for the smallest simple contract claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In September 2016, the Daily Mail carried reports about individuals and families who faced financial ruin because they had not been aware that a county court judgment had been obtained against them in their absence and the record of that judgment with Registry Trust had led to them being refused a mortgage, loan or car on finance or even a mobile phone contract.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784421/Stranger-s-40-parking-ticket-cost-family-new-home.html

 

The press reports that followed raised concerns that some rogue companies were deliberately sending court claims to consumers using incorrect addresses.

 

Most worrying was the astonishing increase in county court judgments (in particular from private parking companies) with more than eight out of ten claims being uncontested and many claims being sent to an old address.

 

In December 2016, the government announced that it would be seeking views on improving the process. It also noted that there were concerns that some creditors were deliberately using addresses for debtors that they know to be old and that this deprives debtors the chance to defend the claim and having to suffer the consequences of possible enforcement as creditors use this as leverage for future debt recovery.

 

During the past year, the government have consulted with various stakeholder groups and on 27th December 2017 issued a public consultation which closes on 21st February 2018.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Overview from the Consultation states the following:

 

We are interested in your views as to the effectiveness and appropriateness of the current processes for money claims issued in the County Court. Of particular interest, will be views from respondents on limiting the circumstances in which an individual may have a judgment made in default against them without their knowledge.

 

In the light of responses to this consultation, the Government will consider whether any changes are needed to the current arrangements and ask the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which govern processes in the civil courts, to consider any changes.

 

Any changes to current procedures, following consultation, would inevitably apply to all money claims, whether they arise from, say, a claim for lack of payment for a new fridge or television or are brought by a parking company seeking to enforce a parking infringement on private land. Both use the same process. Respondents sharing their experiences with us are therefore requested to make clear the type of claim they are referring to.

 

The paper is aimed in particular at those who have had experience of County Court judgments, whether as defendants or claimants, and bodies representing the interests of claimants or defendants, but responses will be welcome from anyone interested in the subject matter.

 

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/default-county-court-judgments-2/supporting_documents/defaultcountycourtjudgmentsconsultation.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

merged with our existing thread

 

dx

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

 

Anyone who has had a CCJ without their knowledge will have it removed

 

The Govt plans to immediately set aside all backdoor CCJs for those who can prove to a judge that they did not know about it when it was passed.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5214075/Action-debt-judgement-rogue-firms-abuse-announced.html

 

DX,

 

The thread title is not altogether accurate and neither is the Daily Mail commentary.

 

It is important to point out that the Government is not planning to immediately set aside a judgment obtained without the debtors knowledge.

 

The current position outlined in the Consultation is as follows:

 

Currently, not receiving the claim is not a defence and the judgment would not be set aside on that basis alone.

 

If, however, the defendant has a defence (for example, that the money was not owed at all) and can establish that the documents were served at an address where the defendant could not have been aware of the claim, the court will consider the application to set the judgment aside.

 

The Consultation propose that a judgment may be removed from Registry Trust on the following grounds:

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant was unaware of the claim/judgment when originally issued/entered

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant has only just become aware of the claim and judgment

 

The defendant immediately pays in full

 

Thus, the defendant would be placed in the same position as a defendant who received the judgment and paid within 28 days of receiving it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

your great explanation is why we started it

to pick it apart

 

dx

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

On various F/B groups there have been questions asked about the Government's plans in this Consultation and many of the queries centred on the effect that this Consultation may have on debts enforced by bailiffs.

 

To clarify the position, this Consultation will not affect the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines (for example; speeding, non payment of TV Licence etc) and where a summons had been sent to a previous address. The reason why these debts will be excluded from the Consultation is because a remedy already exists to 'rewind' the procedure by way of a Section 14 Statutory Declaration in the Magistrate Court.

 

Secondly, this Consultation will not affect the enforcement of local authority issued road traffic debts (including Congestion Charges and Dart Charges). Once again, the reason is because a remedy already exists to 'rewind' the procedure by way of an Out of Time witness statement (or statutory declaration) to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

The Consultation only concerns debts that result in judgments being recorded with Registry Trust. Accordingly, County Court bailiffs and High Court Enforcement companies could be affected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consultation proposes that a judgment may be removed from Registry Trust on the following grounds:

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant was unaware of the claim/judgment when originally issued/entered

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant has only just become aware of the claim and judgment

 

The defendant immediately pays in full

 

Thus, the defendant would be placed in the same position as a defendant who received the judgment and paid within 28 days of receiving it.

 

So if for instance a judgement had been obtained by a debt purchasing company against a statute barred debt, the debtor making an application to court to remove the judgment would only succeed in his application......if he immediately pays the judgment in full.

 

This could be good news for debt purchasing companies????

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no change at all in the circumstance you highlight unless you assume that the reasons given in the bullet points are mutually exclusive.

 

So, if a debt purchasing co gets a CCJ at an old address then the defendant still has recourse to points 1 and 2.

 

Now if we are considering someone who buried their head in the sand over a SB debt and then got a CCJ by default

then they have the third option,

which currently isnt a matter that will be considered for a set-aside.

 

The injustice of the claim in the first place cant really be considered by the courts service or every one of the 85% of claims that go unchallenged would have to be flagged up and the system would just grind to a halt.

 

What is clear from debt purchasing and parking threads is that there is a problem of the supposed creditor taking advantage of the "gone away" letter to make a spurious or at best doubtful claims in the full knowledge that the defendant cant defend due to ignorance of the claim.

 

This is apparent by the demands for payment after the judgement being sent to the correct( new) address immediately afterwards.

 

Some companies DO deliberately send stuff to old addresses when they have been informed of a change of address or even after a new address for service of documents is given to them via the courts.

 

I have personal experience of this and as it has happened twice I do not think it a coincidence or just bad luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a debt was statute barred at the time of claim issuance

Then it is STILL statute barred

 

A set aside should be free via mutual consent

Or you sue the claimant at the hearing for your £255 plus costs

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

Sounds like a plan DX, these people need more than a mild tolchock for their shenanigans.

  • Haha 1

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

too right

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

Thing is some like Lowell, or Arrows, in the face of their potentially fraudulent claim will try to say their default CCJ on SB debt trumps the SB as they now have a CCJ so the CCJ should stand Needs a judge to slap them down severely in that event.

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

Thread moved to Financial Legal Issues Forum

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
The Consultation proposes that a judgment may be removed from Registry Trust on the following grounds:

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant was unaware of the claim/judgment when originally issued/entered

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant has only just become aware of the claim and judgment

 

• The defendant immediately pays in full

 

Thus, the defendant would be placed in the same position as a defendant who received the judgment and paid within 28 days of receiving it.

 

 

 

So if for instance a judgement had been obtained by a debt purchasing company against a statute barred debt, the debtor making an application to court to remove the judgment would only succeed in his application......if he immediately pays the judgment in full.

 

This could be good news for debt purchasing companies????

 

It would seem that my above analysis is indeed correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not unless they are going to re write the statute barred laws its not

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
It would seem that my above analysis is indeed correct.

 

Correct with regards to what ?

 

Why would anyone pay a statue barred debt once it was set a side ?

 

 

Andy

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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...