Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi.   What reason/s have they given you for declining please?   HB
    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

LLoyds 10 year old CCj now being chased by Cabot


Recommended Posts

I have an old CCJ against me for £10k original creditor LLoyds

I never heard anything off them after the forthwith CCj was issued in 2009,

 

Late last year I got a letter to my home address from Cabot I knew what it was about, but thought they might not know about the CCJ so I sent statute barred letters and eventually got a reply with all of the CCJ info on it

 

I know it will be difficult for them to take it back to court,

The CCJ was raised  at my old home address and I still rent the property out and so have always received mail from it and it is also linked to my new address both of which have been on the CRA sites and electoral roll as lniked adresses so I have always been available.

 

Should I simply ignore the reply to the statute barred letter (there are no threats about going back to court on it) if not ignore I am unsure of how to reply 

Any assistance very much appreciated

 

Onlymeagain

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that the statute barred rule doesn't apply to CCJs that have already been issued but if the creditor has taken no steps to enforce the CCJ for a long time they need the permission of the court to take enforcement action.

 

So it is more than 10 years since the creditor last made contact with you about the CCJ/debt?

 

Hopefully one of the experts who knows more about it than me will be along soon.

Edited by Ethel Street
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite right that statute barred does not apply And it will be difficult for them to go back to court I jsut dont know whether to ignore or if not how to reply

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statute Barred does not apply with a CCJ. You will always owe it. However, after 6 years the debtor has to go back to court in order to chase it. Which almost never happens. Therefore ignore! 

  • Like 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

CrabPot would have to justify why they hadn't enforced against it and that becomes more difficult after 6 years, after 10 the iourt would have a very jaundiced view of the attempt.

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

It came off my credit file nearly 4 years ago so I've no worries there,I will ignore and take it as it comes these things dont stress me out any more. 

Just a thought doesnt the original creditor on the CCJ  have t be the one to try to enforce and Crapbots are not the original creditor

 

Thanks again peeps

onlymeagain

Link to post
Share on other sites

just cabot trying to see if you are a mug.

 

you've sent then a letter for you new address so they can't do anything without you knowing about it anyway

 

dx

 

  • Like 1

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

I bet it works in a lot of cases. They probably send a 1000 letters per week. £200 on stamps and envelopes! if only 5 people pay up it makes it all worthwhile. Fortunately you found CAG and are now informed.

  • Like 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

:yo:

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
  • 5 months later...

Just a thought, I am now 65 and diagnosed with prostrate cancer -(no need to worry  very early very treatable).

thinking of my mortality and dying I wonder if it might crop up after my death (hopefully in many years to come)

Can they make a claim on my estate (mainly substantial insurenace poilicies), my wife and 10 YO daughter wouldnt be able to sort it out like me

Should I offer them £10 as full and final and to stop writing letters to me or tell them I am not going to pay fullstop.

 

At this time I am ignoring as there is no threat that  they are trying to come after me and with it now being 11years since ccj issued very unlikley they can come at me in any meaningful way

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ohitsonlyme said:

Can they make a claim on my estate

 

not sure why you are thinking any consumer debt is payable from an estate... CCJ or not upon debt...99% die with you.

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
2 hours ago, ohitsonlyme said:

 

Can they make a claim on my estate...

 

 

I hope the situation isn't going to arise any time soon!

 

When someone dies, their debts become a liability on their estate. The executor of the estate, or the administrator if no Will has been left, is responsible for paying any outstanding debts from the estate. If you owe a debt when you die your death does not extinguish the debt. It is still a debt of your estate. (The reverse is also true, if someone owes you money when you die they are still required to pay it to your Estate).

 

But Cabot/Lloyds have no more right to enforce the CCJ against your Estate after your death than they did before you died. They would still have to go to court and get permission to enforce it and all the advice given so far on this thread is that they would find that very hard to do. So they could not easily get the money from your Estate.

 

What I don't know though is where this would leave the Executors. In principle Executors are required to pay all debts of the estate before distributing what remains to beneficiaries. If they don't a creditor could proceed against the Executors personally. But are they required to pay a debt that they believe is unenforceable? I don't know, I've never seen any legal discussion of that situation.

 

As £10k is quite a large sum of money it might be worth you spending a bit of it to get a legal opinion from a specialist Probate solicitor on what your Executors should do if this situation arose (from the solicitor who drew up your Will?).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the judgment been secured against a property ?

 

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 thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

@dx100uk

It is the 1% that I am thinking about and my wife's ability to sort things out.

I realise it is likely to be difficult to enforce but I don't want to leave any problems behind and so i was thinking of trying to get them to back off even though my current tactic is to ignore as I can handle the issues as they come along whilst I am alive!

 

@Andyorchno It is not secured in any way and all I am getting is please pay us letters  no threats CCJ is now 11 years old

 

 

@Ethel Street

I hope the situation isn't going to arise any time soon!  Me too!!

 

When someone dies, their debts become a liability on their estate. The executor of the estate, or the administrator if no Will has been left, is responsible for paying any outstanding debts from the estate. If you owe a debt when you die your death does not extinguish the debt. It is still a debt of your estate. (The reverse is also true, if someone owes you money when you die they are still required to pay it to your Estate).

 

But Cabot/Lloyds have no more right to enforce the CCJ against your Estate after your death than they did before you died. They would still have to go to court and get permission to enforce it and all the advice given so far on this thread is that they would find that very hard to do. So they could not easily get the money from your Estate.

 

What I don't know though is where this would leave the Executors. In principle Executors are required to pay all debts of the estate before distributing what remains to beneficiaries. If they don't a creditor could proceed against the Executors personally. But are they required to pay a debt that they believe is unenforceable? I don't know, I've never seen any legal discussion of that situation.  This is the bit that is interesting  and possibly problematical for my recently deceased family and something I want to avoid now rather than risc it when I am gone

 

As £10k is quite a large sum of money it might be worth you spending a bit of it to get a legal opinion from a specialist Probate solicitor on what your Executors should do if this situation arose (from the solicitor who drew up your Will?).

  Good Idea but most solicitors will tell me the same that you have highlighted that the execuotrs have a duty to reapy all debts before Beneficiaries This could have potential problems for many on this site Would this same situation apply to old non ccj unenforcable debts that we have ll "Won or believe to be SB" Our legal experts on here will have a better insight to  the situation and what our goals and pitfalls are possibly even experience of a similar situation where a member of this site has died

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its 11yrs old

 

No one can enforce it

Its not secured.. Its dead in the water.

 

 

 

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
Quote

no It is not secured in any way and all I am getting is please pay us letters  no threats CCJ is now 11 years old

 

And you have checked with the Land Registry ?

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 thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The property is owned by me and my ex wife and would have to be a restriction and no there isn't anything registered at the LR 

I think they would be a bit more forceful if they had any hold on me

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Andyorch said:

:thumb:

Hi Andy should  try to sttle for A minimum f&F ??

Also what happens to older credit card debts in probate that we have all discarded??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that its 11 years old and the judgment claimant has failed to do anything......no I wouldn't. With regards to other debts...not sure what you mean by " in probate " but if there is no estate then there is no pay...

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 thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any offer of F & F given the 11 years would be looked on as Christmas and they might try to "persuade" you to offer a bit more.

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
4 hours ago, ohitsonlyme said:

 

Also what happens to older credit card debts in probate that we have all discarded??

 

 

Can you clarify this please. Is this about what happens to credit card debts after you die? What sort of debts are we talking about that "we have all discarded" ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Given that its 11 years old and the judgment claimant has failed to do anything......no I wouldn't. With regards to other debts...not sure what you mean by " in probate " but if there is no estate then there is no pay...

I am likely to have a substantial estate .

Since the last recession and I lost everythiing to the banks I have built myself up again I aslo have several large insurance policies that will come into my estate.

The point I was trying to make is that if an old ccj could be clawed back by a credit cardot DCA then surely old SB debts would fall into the same category and executors would need to satisfy those too as technically they are still owed by many of us that have unenforcable CC Debts

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...