Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello.  Do you mean the first notice to keeper? That was the 12th July.  Notice to driver via ticket 5th April.  The driver didn't have a permit. The car park was entered thinking the sign directly in front of the car belonging to local council was for that space (the photos are in post 6).  There was a sign on the wall but wasn't clear when driving in to the car park. It is in post 6 and on the wall. The "entrance" is just a gap in the walkway from the road.    I have sent the original ticket across. 
    • p'haps not the best thing to do just use the N244.and the ex160 let them sort it out don't complicate things..   don't worry about the bailiffs there isn't really anything they can do there is no right of forced entry upon consumer debt CCJ enforcement.    
    • again you appear not to be understanding things.....   a default does not go statute barred - as carefully explained in post 4....once it reaches its 6th birthday it along with the associated account will be removed from your file. that happening has no effect on the debt itself. it does not mean it is no owed.    your debt is NOT statute barred it has a CCJ . should the claimant fail to enforce the CCJ by it's 6th birthday, when, as with a default, it falls off your credit file, then they would need to return to court to do so. and again that happening has no effect upon the debt itself.   they both operate under the same ICO rule, quoted as in post 4..   All references to a defaulted debt must be removed from your credit files after 6 years  has passed from date of default, whether paid off, paying now or not.  . This is so that someone who continues paying something  - even after 6 years from default  - should not be at a disadvantage to someone who pays nothing after default  and ends up with a clean file after 6 years. 
    • Pleased to say that the default has gone from my credit report due to being SB. My Experian credit score is now 978 out of 999 and excellent. Experian doesn’t show my 2 x CCJ’s. Equifax’s shows just 1.    my question is this.... clearly the debt is still owed for the SB debt, the CCJ is still live until June next year.   Can I make an offer of 10% to settle the debt now that it’s SB? If so is there a letter template that I can send to them to make such an offer?   thanks in advance 
    • Your position is not untenable in any way. You have already mitigated partially any impending disaster by opening another non Paypal linked bank account so they cannot arbitrarily seize what they want.   First thing to remember you are in control here. Whatever you offer to pay them must be something you can reasonably afford even if its only a pound a week and you must pay it to Paypal. If like me they freeze your account then there is no way you can reasonably pay them. They are not going to give you another account to pay it into.   The reason I got into difficulties with them was because I had recurring large payments being made to a supplier of mine which continued after I was rushed into hospital for series of emergency operations. When I came out of hospital Paypal had simply frozen the account which I discovered when I tried to pay money into it to alleviate the huge deficit that had accrued. So I paid nothing of what I owed. I received about 4 or 5 threatening missives which I ignored as well as any phone calls. I tried for several months to make payments into the account and in the end I gave up. Despite all the threats nothing actually happened.   If you read all the answers to your posting as well as all the other Paypal posts I doubt you will find any evidence of Paypal doing very much to enforce outstanding balances and funnily enough they do not make it easy for those that wish to repay them as I discovered.   So stop getting yourself into a flap over something that is very unlikely to be nothing more than a storm in a tea cup.   Make or start you offer to re-pay them at a figure you can easily afford then forget all about them except to make your regular payment if you can still do so.   DO NOT under any circumstances get yourself deeper into debt over this.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 232 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

Just now, Dodgeball said:

As for the other silly remark, again BA is talking about continuing the enforcement you are talking about fee avoidance?

 

No, just repeating that BA advised that the OP should inform the EA that they will pay the arrears to the council unless a new NOE is sent. BA is very clear in that. Of course as we know previously BA has maintained that once an account is with the EA then a debtor cannot pay directly to the council.

 

Has something changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

What are you talking about the words liability order are mentioned in the quote? That complaint has to be made via the authority, I think you will find and the criteria above still apply. IE not for just saying the bill is wrong, the authority has to agree and send the complaint. Wandering about again, typical.

 

Just to clarify - a LO can be set aside in a magistrate's court. I think Judge Burnton referenced it 4 times in the quote from the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the current position is that Dodgeball says you cannot set aside a liability order, and several judges and barristers, plus common law confirm that you can.

 

The choice is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it cannot, at least not in any way which would assist a anyone on here. Not in the way you initially thought


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
Just now, otterlyendo said:

So the current position is that Dodgeball says you cannot set aside a liability order, and several judges and barristers, plus common law confirm that you can.

 

The choice is yours.

The judges of course were discussing a different scenario completely as you well know.

The point is that no one can get a liability order set aside just because they dispute it. your judges agree there also.


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
6 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

No it cannot, at least not in any way which would assist a anyone on here. Not in the way you initially thought

 

All I did was correct you by saying that a LO can be set aside. I made no mention of how - that was just your assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

The judges of course were discussing a different scenario completely as you well know.

The point is that no one can get a liability order set aside just because they dispute it. your judges agree there also.

 

Well to be fair, no-one can get any judgement set aside just because they dispute it. There needs to be evidence as to why it's disputed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/01/2019 at 15:56, ericsbrother said:

you need to know when it went to court to give the council the liability order.

 

being at an old address they probably did this but that also means they may still be chasing the debt at the old address rather than asking the court to change the paperwork.

 

This menas that you are likely to get a set aside if you apply for one and then you can pay what you owe rather than the fees as well.

 

Also a poke in the eye for the councl if they knew they were chasing you at the wrong address

Just to try and get back to earth, this is the sett aside I was referring to.


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
16 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

No, just repeating that BA advised that the OP should inform the EA that they will pay the arrears to the council unless a new NOE is sent. BA is very clear in that. Of course as we know previously BA has maintained that once an account is with the EA then a debtor cannot pay directly to the council.

 

Has something changed?

My position on paying the council direct once an account has been passed to an enforcement agent has always remained the same. It does not work. However, in this particular case...and this case ONLY, the enforcement company appear to be unwilling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement in line with the regulations.

 

Accordingly, I would argue that the ONLY amount that the OP is liable to pay is the council tax arrears. The problem is, if the OP paid this sum to the enforcement agent, then common sense would dictate that the 'Compliance fee' of £75 would be deducted etc, etc. In order to avoid this happening, then in this case ONLY, I have suggested that consideration could be given to paying the arrears direct to the council. 

 

I hope that I have clarified the position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bailiff Advice said:

My position on paying the council direct once an account has been passed to an enforcement agent has always remained the same. It does not work. However, in this particular case...and this case ONLY, the enforcement company appear to be unwilling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement in line with the regulations.

 

So what's different about this particular case from the tens of dozens of other similar cases? In all those other cases you advise to not pay the council direct? Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

Just to try and get back to earth, this is the sett aside I was referring to.

 

You stated:

 

Quote

You cannot set aside a liability order, it is made at a Magistrates court.

 

That has been shown to be incorrect. Perhaps you need to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Well to be fair, no-one can get any judgement set aside just because they dispute it. There needs to be evidence as to why it's disputed.

 

I think you would probably have to think the judgement was wrong, ie dispute it, wouldn't you?

Not just arguing for the sake of it by any chance little troll.

However the procedure you have fallen over speaks of other factors, like fraud or actionable incompetence.


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
1 minute ago, Dodgeball said:

 

I think you would probably have to think the judgement was wrong, ie dispute it, wouldn't you?

Not just arguing for the sake of it by any chance little troll.

However the procedure you have fallen over speaks of other factors, like fraud or actionable incompetence.

 

Why must you start insulting people. I merely mentioned that someone disputing a judgement, ie they thinks it's wrong, doesn't automatically mean it's set aside or quashed. You would need to present evidence as to why it should be set aside or quashed or overturned or whatever term you decide to use. Whether it be a CCJ, criminal conviction or a LO, this would be a basic requirement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

You said the above, which as shown is incorrect, an LO which has just been mistakenly imposed cannot just be set aside

 

Care to clarify?


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
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why must you start insulting people. I merely mentioned that someone disputing a judgement, ie Nthey thinks it's wrong, doesn't automatically mean it's set aside or quashed. You would need to present evidence as to why it should be set aside or quashed or overturned or whatever term you decide to use. Whether it be a CCJ, criminal conviction or a LO, this would be a basic requirement.

 

I Not meaning to insult, but the requirement for evidence to support your case is not a new concept, not to me at least.

 

Night all

Edited by Dodgeball

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

I think one or two EGOs need deflating.People come on this forum for help and not be part of the arguments between two supposedly knowledgeable people. The original OP must be well and truly pi..issed off and has switched off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

You said the above, which as shown is incorrect, an LO which has just been mistakenly imposed cannot just be set aside

 

Care to clarify?

 

How is it incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have made the mistake that thier were two supposed expert and will amend that to thier being no experts as far as I can see its just one big EGO trip for both of you and suggest that the  Site team close the post

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, basildonbond1946 said:

I may have made the mistake that thier were two supposed expert and will amend that to thier being no experts as far as I can see its just one big EGO trip for both of you and suggest that the  Site team close the post

 

Not agreeing with this though, not on my part anyway, :)


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

As BA points out, as Busted & Stupid seem not to reissue the NOE to the correct address, in this case I concur with BA that OP pays council direct and puts in a Formal Complaint as Council are liable for act, omissions, and any wrongdoing by their agent Bristols & Stupor.


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

Yes indeed.


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

Thread now locked and will remain so until advised by the OP to reopen.

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 232 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...