Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If someone only receives a Govt benefit - ie working tax credit - and barely has enough money to pay for food, utilities, public transport and general essentials - what happens if their bank receives a 3rd party order to freeze the account because of an unpaid debt and a mistaken assumption that account holder has hidden funds/savings ?  Does the bank allow the account holder access to the bank to pay for life essentials?  Or does the bank literally freeze the account so nothing can be bought, no bills paid for ?   
    • Hi   As promised here is a response I have put together for you please fully amend as required   Dear XXXXXXXXXX   Complaint Reference: XXXXXXXXXXXXX   Further to your correspondence on XX/XX/2021 I find your response unacceptable for the following reasons:   You felt there was a data breach due to maladministration as we had the incorrect email address for you. As previously advised, the email was not sent to another individual but was undelivered due to having the incorrect email address. I   have requested a copy of the undeliverable message from our IT team. Once this has been received, I   will forward it to you. This has not been reported to our data protection officer as there was no breach. I  did also try to contact you by telephone to get the correct email address after it was returned to us, but there was no answer   I disagree with the above for the following reasons:   a) The Housing Association that sent it to the incorrect email address  b) The Housing Association were fully aware of my email address as you have been responding to myself at my email address even when I initially reported this and had a response from your online portal. c) This was a potential Data Protection Breach irrespective that it was undelivered and should therefore be reported to your data protection officer. d) You were responding to my emails at the correct email address and the as previously stated when I initially report this and got a response from your online portal to my email address, you incorrectly sent the response to an email address due to typo errors in that email address by the individual that sent.  e) If the individual that sent that email to the incorrect email address due to typo errors was yourself then you have a Conflict of Interest in dealing with this matter as it involves yourself and someone else should be responding to that matter therefore I require clarification if it was indeed yourself that sent the email to the incorrect email address.   You feel that this should be a stage 2 as your response was out of time due to having the incorrect email address. You received the response one week after it had been originally sent, once you provided the correct email address. This would not meet the criteria for escalating to stage 2. I  had already offered compensation of £25 for the delay in responding to your complaint. My colleague that reviewed this for stage 2 has advised that an additional £25 could also be offered to compensate for the delay caused by not having the correct email address.  Please note any compensation awarded would be offset against outstanding arrears in the first instance should there be any on your account.   I disagree with the above for the following reasons:   a) Your initial response was sent to an incorrect email address due to typo error irrespective that it was received one week later it was still out with the agreed stage 1 Time Limits therefore should be dealt with as a Stage 2 Complaint    Contents insurance is the responsibility of the resident to arrange. You are aware when you take on your tenancy that your personal belongings are your responsibility to repair and maintain, not A2Dominions. As such, any insurance to cover these items would have to be arranged by the tenant. There is no requirement for us to advise of this. Your tenancy agreement gives a comprehensive overview of what is A2Dominion responsibility. Should you have any queries about these. you can refer to the document   I disagree with the above for the following reasons:   a) As I was not aware of this by your staff when I took out this tenancy but you point out I was made aware therefore I would like to be provided with evidence from my housing file that I was informed of this when signing this tenancy agreement. If you cannot provide this then you cannot state that I was made aware at the time of taking up this tenancy. b) You point out their is no requirement for you to advise of this which I find astounding for any Housing Association to state this as they should be making any new tenant fully aware that Contents Insurance is required and the reason.   I  have been informed that the flood affected many members of the community that day. There were so many people affected that a local support group was also set up. This shows that the issue was widespread, not just limited to affecting your property and also proves that the issue stemmed from a wider mains issue. I do appreciate that there was a blockage in your drain which exacerbated the issue within your property, but as advised in my stage 1 response, this was attended within our urgent call out timeframe of 24 hrs. This was then passed back to Pyramid Plus as they were unable to dear the blockage, and follow on works were arranged. We are unable to attend to issues until we know about them, and we attended as soon as this was reported to us.   I disagree with the above for the following reasons:   a) In a previous response you blamed the mains water companies issue therefore not the Housings issue now you have changed it to a wider mains issue yet as I preciously asked to be provided with evidence again you have failed to provide that evidence. b) The blockage which you have previously been in denial about and suddenly admitted and openly blamed the main previously you have know admitted. As this blockage I within your property boundaries and is inside internal in my property the Housing is responsible for that issue and the further damage caused. In reference to your request for the previous reports by other residents, we would be unable to provide that information to you. We cannot discuss any reports by other residents under any circumstances   I disagree with the above for the following reason:   a) My request for how may tenants have complained about this you previously stated 'your system does not allow you to find this information' and now it is 'we cannot discuss reports made by other residents under any circumstances' I find this completely unacceptable as I did not ask this I only ask how many tenants had complaint about this issue whether it be one or ten as an example how difficult can it be as this does not breach any data protection laws and if you still insist on this approach then you can provide my with with full and I do mean full clarification as to your reason with which article and section of the data protection act you are using for your failure to comply with a reasonable request and your failure still to explain FOI.    
    • No!   Not because what you've written is wrong - it isn't - but because it's best to keep Simple Simon in the dark about how you are going to bat off his claim.   Look at   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-jun-2021/   and then scroll down to   Q2) How should I defend?   Adapt the defence there.   The more you read up on VCS "no stopping" airport threads here the more you'll educate yourself on what needs to be done.
    • Defence :   1. No keeper liability as this is not “relevant land” under the POFA 2012 and I the defendant puts it to strict proof that VCS show as to who was the driver at the time. 2. No contract was ever offered by VCS, land is subject to own byelaws and signage is prohibitive so there can be no monies due as a result of either a contractual charge or as a result of a breach of contract.   is that enough?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Bailiffs Forcing Entry and Using Restraint - Please Read, Important - Deadline


demon_x_slash
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5209 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

Excuse me! I was not - in any way- rude to a new member. I merely pointed out that there were other threads on this site which he would find more constructive if this one was genuinely causing him concern.

 

The manner in which I conduct myself? Excuse me again. You are not without blame on that one!

 

Anyway, clutching at straws again...... You havent found one single person who shares your views. Does this not suggest something to you?

 

Lastly, I see this as more of a heated/confict of view debate and have not taken any of your comments personally. You cant start a potentially explosive thread and then wonder why you are in the firing line!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well RossieCotton agreed on the selling of your unneeded valuable goods and SpongeBob agreed (I think) in part. It would only ever get to that extent though if people weren't willing to pay what they could - and in that instance why should the people who are owed the money go without? As pointed out in this thread its not always beig faceless dcas that are owed and even if it is they should still be paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now who isnt reading posts properly!? None of them agreed to forced entry by bailiffs.

 

AND no one has ever said that people shouldnt pay their debts. There are other ways of collecting debts which are more humane than this proposed bill. Other methods include attachment of earnings and deduction of benefits (at a reasonable amount that the debtor can genuinely afford) This would then give the debtor the option of selling their goods to pay off the debt early.

 

Force is just not the answer and the bailiffs will just abuse this power. They have had so much bad press of late, nobody trusts them any more and I cant say I blame them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Here. My sentiments exactly Stan.

 

Blacksheep, it appears that your owed money by some unscrupulous individual who will not pay you what is owed. Please dont tar everyone wirth the same brush, because you are disgruntled it looks like you have tunnel vision and willing to accept these new powers AS a means to an end to your problem. Rest assured, should these powers be brought in, a lot of people will be hurt and I DONT mean the bailiffs!

 

WAKE UP and smell the coffee, what you are advocating is legalised violence which WILL be abused by those given these powers!! As the powers they use at present are already abused!!

Friendship costs nothing but its rewards can be priceless. Do not judge, as you will not be judged but if you can, try and assist where possible.:smile:

everyone is entitled to MY opinion!:D

I offer my comments without prejudice or liability.

If you found my advice helpful, please click the scales at the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not making slurrs against those who CAN'T pay, just against those who WON'T pay - there is a drastic difference there. If people see fit to keep hold of expensive goods that aren't needed then they are unwilling to pay as they have something of value that could be used to pay off some of the debt. Where do you draw the line? At the £5k piece of jewelry that someone treated themselves to or their £5k in shares (that are an investment and in 3 years will be worth twice as much, honest) or someones lucky bundle of £20 notes? There is always an excuse - a plasma tv is not needed (even if marketing forces tell you differently) jewlerey is not needed (even if fashion mags tell you it is), a fast car is not needed (even if lifestyle mags/topgear tell you it is) and so on.

 

To Cornucopia - I do not see how either stan or JonCris could be regarded as proffesionals, they aren't being paid for their services and their manner and reaction both towards myself (just because I hold a differing view) and a new member are far from proffesional.

 

As to your situation - I did say that anything that is a 'luxary' item should be sold. I would not hold vans needed for work or any other work tools as a luxary, infact bailiffs at the moment aren't allowed to seize goods needed for work. These measures aren't to be used by dca until after the debt has gone to court, they have obtained a ccj and yet the person still doesn't pay - a far stretch from the debt being passed to a dca and a world away from anyone that tries to deal with the debt. A dca usually would rather the debt doesn't go to court as the court may decide to lower the repayment figure and even then if the person fails to pay and bailiffs are instructed they can apply for the amount to be further reduced. This is a long way from where you are at as you seem to be dealing with the dca and not letting it go to court.

 

Wouldn't you have rather you had got your money back and not put your family through so much stress, an environment which a child is no doubt going to be affected by? Even if this was to the extent that the woman in question had goods seized? You say you wouldn't have wanted to put her family through that, but the other way at looking at that matter is that by her not willingly giving up goods she hasn't even paid for, or goods she doesn't need SHE has inflicted that upon her family.

 

Having not read your thread (bit of a rush today) did you not think about contacting the police regarding fraud or similar charges?

 

You will not be aware of either Stan or JonCris's professional capacities, only that they are commentators on here. Suffice to say, they know what they are talking about.

 

I have an issue with your issue regarding goods that one "needs" or doesn't "need". You are right that nobody really "needs" a plasma TV, but are you suggesting that because we have debt, we ought to get rid of ours even though it was a gift from my Dad or that a DCA should be allowed to walk in and take it? I don't really "need" my Mum's jewellery either but her and my Dad worked very hard to be able to have those things and she left them to me in her will, are you suggesting that a DCA be allowed to come in and take that stuff too? Or maybe the beautiful Gucci watch my husband bought me on our first anniversary, when things were OK for us financially, and rarely gets an outing because I treasure it! How dare you! I would get rid of those things in an instant if it meant my child had food on the table or we could keep the roof over our head, but for a poxy credit card company who have already had about £40K out of us for a £15K debt? I don't think so!

 

With regard to my husband's client, she went bankrupt and there was nothing we could do about it other than join the long list of creditors. I guess we could have gone to the Police, but at the time I think it was the last thing on our minds. Her behaviour was nothing short of reprehensible, however, I do not condone, under any circumstances, forcible entry into somebody's home, no matter who they are or what they have done, in the name of debt collection.

 

I think you are on a lose lose with this one, whilst I understand your frustration, your feelings are at odds with the spirit of the CAG. I for one, as I said in an earlier post, would make mincemeat of anybody who tried to force their way across my threshold by whatever means.

 

I hope you find some peace in your life regarding this issue.

  • Haha 1

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Individuals would only be hurt if they had up to that point not paid on many levels and then tried to attack the collectors. As said before these collection proceedings should be supervised by the police to ensure that any acts of aggression from either bailiff or debtor could be minimised. I have never once advocated violence only that all means, including confiscation of non essential material goods, should be used to reclaim monies owed. This in effect is allowed at the moment, should a bailiff gain entry. The only difference with this new bill would be that people couldn't shut themselves away anymore - an act that has brought them to that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, debt collection agencies and bailiffs have been adding on hundreds and thousands of pounds of unlawful penalty fees for years and years and years. Many people dont even owe the debts they are hounded for as they are made up of ridiculous charges. This industry should have more of a duty of care but frankly, they couldnt care less. They are in this business for the profit and have no morals. Something has to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i had a situation arise whereby a customer (i ran a cycle shop for a while) came in and bought a bike with a rubber cheque then ducked me for months over it. i spoke to solicitors and DCA's about it. the solicitor said chalk it up to experience because he will duck you forever and by time it is resolved thru the courts it will have cost you more than the initial debt, which was dissapointing but sound advice i guess.THREE DCA's said there was nothing they could do legally but off the books they could go round and quote 'SORT IT OUT' for me for a personal fee of fifty pounds per person involved. i tried to press them gently on this and they as much as said go to his house, enter whether he liked it or not and either get the money from him via physical persuasion, or goods to the value of.

thats right, THREE DCA's..!!!

now i am no longer in business, largely due to this mans debt as it ate a large portion of my income as a small first time business, however there is no way i could have sent these gorrilas round to him.

so as for the 'right' of a DCA to legally burgle my property, regardless of any chnages to the law i would treat them as any other burglar. if they want to come into my house theyre going to have to bring the police with them and a court order or stay out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blacksheep, unfortunatley, you are coming accross as a bitter, selfish and callous individual with NO compassion.

 

I am wondering why you are even on this site. You are obviously not even remotely interested in the views of the majority. This site is about helping those in debt and despair reclaim their rights and dignity. Its about reclaiming the unlawful charges imposed on accounts which sends the customer into a downward spiral from which some never regain. One of the biggest culprits of imposing unlawful charges are the bailiffs. In the name of humanity, how could anyone endorse this bill, knowing the reputation of these thugs.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Letdown. Sorry to hear your story. Thankfully, you are not as bitter as Blacksheep and have retained your humanity.

 

I too have had a similar experience. I rented a property to someone who didnt pay the rent for six months. I was nearly financially ruined trying to pay two mortgages. I still wouldnt endorse this bill. The sad fact is that too many genuinely innocent people who genuinely couldnt pay their debts would suffer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive never met a DC who wasnt ex army, ex boxer, ex doorman or just plain muscle bound. possibly one of the few jobs they can discriminate against you for looking average. you never see a skinny one and theres a reason for that.

 

doesnt matter how big they are only superman can bounce bullets off his chest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blacksheep, unfortunatley, you are coming accross as a bitter, selfish and callous individual with NO compassion.

 

I am wondering why you are even on this site. You are obviously not even remotely interested in the views of the majority. This site is about helping those in debt and despair reclaim their rights and dignity. Its about reclaiming the unlawful charges imposed on accounts which sends the customer into a downward spiral from which some never regain. One of the biggest culprits of imposing unlawful charges are the bailiffs. In the name of humanity, how could anyone endorse this bill, knowing the reputation of these thugs.

 

All I have said is people who consistantly refuse to pay and can afford to should have any non essential item confiscated to pay off the debt - if that is wrong and laws allowed people not to pay we would soon end up in a society resembling Nigeria.

 

Yes DCAs may offer to sort things out 'off the books' but I could easily go down the pub and get people to do that for me. If someone works cash in hand and keeps their money in their house and not in a bank how are you meant to legally obtain what is due? If people refuse to pay to the extent that someone has to forcably take either money from their account, attach an order to their property or pay or enter their property to seize goods then they have made that choice themselves as there as so many options open to people to prevent it getting to that level.

 

The views of the majority here make up a small percentage of the population, should I log onto an white power or islamic fundamentalist chatroom/forum the views of the majority there would not match my own - but would theirs be correct and reflect the views of most of the uk?

 

If you read my posts I do try to help people, but only when they truely are stuck, it is not their fault (or at least admit it is) and they are not trying to blame everyone but themselves and or worm out of something that is their responsibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its frightening that someone can even think that this is acceptable. I dont sell drugs, i dont sell porn, i don't murder people, or cause wars.

 

I have just got into financial debit not something that was in my life plan, and i hope not something that will always be in my life.

 

Sadly I get labeled with the same brush at my bank, which is every ones debit dodging, so there will be no divide we will all be treated like cattle.:(

 

Will we be allowed a time scale to make good our positions and get back on track...no i don't think so... all you will need is a broken collar bone 2 months of work and your a sitting target.:(

 

This is not about who is dodging and who isn't this is about being told that "this is how we all are" "this is how we are labeled" and there will be no compromise no other resolve and no chances as it will work out more financially viable for there not to be.

 

Also what better way to kick person of low esteem, than by removing what little they have left.

 

This issue is only masked by the debit, but its all about the divide and how they can make it bigger.:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, debt collection agencies and bailiffs have been adding on hundreds and thousands of pounds of unlawful penalty fees for years and years and years. Many people dont even owe the debts they are hounded for as they are made up of ridiculous charges.

 

And some people realy are not who they are looking for and it will be a shoot now and ask questions later, after an innocent family and children have been terrorised.

 

It just can't be allowed to happen:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am completely stunned and appalled that anybody can support any more power being given to balliffs, the 'whistleblower' programme was a perfect example of what they are capable of without the legal power.

 

I am sorry Blacksheep but all you are demostrating is the attitude of somebody that does not live in the real world and has not experienced how cruel life can be. I can only speak from my own experience which led to a life of debt and despair. Not to go too much into it but my partner was killed in an accident, I was 24 and 7 months pregnant with our first child, shortly followed a full mental breakdown due to grief and debt.

 

I don't think I fit into either of your 'boxes' of 'can't' or 'won't' pay, it was more a case of I didn't care about anything apart from making it through each day for the sake of my new baby. The fact is that there is a reason for everything and I don't think anyone would choose to have constent letters, phonecalls and visits from balliffs. How can you say you are only supporting brutal treatment to those who won't pay rather than those that won't, short of making each debter declare their motives under a lie detector test who knows why the debts are not being paid!! No DCA are going to waste time deciding why either and lets be honest they couldn't care less.

 

I was particularly disgusted at your comment that this new law would stop people hiding themselves away. Everybody has the right to feel safe in their own homes, if somebody breaks into your house you call the police, to think somebody could legally break in with the police in tow sends a shiver down my spine. I don't know one person who would just sit there and allow it to happen especially with children in the house. There will be blood loss and lives lost if this goes ahead - its that simple.

 

I also want to say that without members like JonCris I would not be writing this, after building my life up again my mental illness returned and I have lost everything again and facing huge debt, he has helped me so much. Its the attitude of members like blacksheep that cause people to hide away from debt, is it right that these people are hunted down like a fox with no way of escape???

  • Haha 1

If you think I have helped hop on the scales. If I was useless best to keep quiet me thinks:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

once again blacksheep yo are presuming that all people that can't pay their debts are won't pays. as for dca's, they couldnt organise a **** up in a brewery. you constantly infer that people are given every opportunity to pay their debt and refuse to do this. if you haven't got the money then how can you pay. dca's make demands for money that people cant afford and constantly make threats of courts, baliffs etc if their demands are not met. its only websites like this that give people in debt assistance, not the creditor, dca, or baliffs. every one is treated the same as your view, a wont pay. if the system, as it is at present, wasnt working then baliff companys and dca companys wouldn't be making such huge profits, and lets not forget the profits being made by banks and credit card companys in the first place. not opening a door to a baliff is not a criminal affence, its just the debtor exercising his or her rights. its like when people claim unlawful charges back from banks. its only because people have become more aware of their rights, and what the law is, that the goal posts are being moved by lntroducing new ones and allowing forced entry.

your views are your own and you can express them but they are beginning to **** me off abit.

i tell you now if a baliff forced his way into my property, then he better pray im not in cus i would defend my property in any way i saw fit with whatever came to hand. in short i would break the [edited] legs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And some people realy are not who they are looking for and it will be a shoot now and ask questions later, after an innocent family and children have been terrorised.

 

It just can't be allowed to happen:mad:

 

As I said it should be a last resort - if it is someone elses debt there will be first contact by the dca (where the matter can be settled), a court appearance where I doubt that a judge would find against someone whose debt it wasn't and so on.

 

To nellie - I'm not saying that a dca should choose - but an impartial official ie a judge - if after presenting your incomings and outgoings there is an excess of cash and you are still not making payments it sort of points towards refusal rather than inability.

 

And I'm not supporting brutal treatment, I'm not saying that people should be sent to the poorhouse or some workfarm to pay off their debts. I'm saying that if they continually don't pay and are found to be able then they should have goods or money seized. Preferably this would be by non violent means and thats why I said police should be present both for the protection of the debtor and the baillif.

 

And yes Blue lagoon you may be removing something that someone has - but the flip side is you are reducing their debt which is obviously something that preys on your mind.

 

I'm not saying that people who get into debt are bad people or second class citizens - far from it 99.9999% of people in the uk have some form of debt, but people who refuse to pay their dues are, they are no worse than con men taking what is not theirs and as such should have nowhere to hide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a thread that was meant to be an active get to gather of strength for the under dogs, has turned into feelings of irritation rather than elevation of the thought of the result of the action being taken.

 

I entered this thread with great enthusiasm and its become distasteful and I feel sadness rather than strength.

 

I feel unsettled that someone is actually feeding the situation that places fear in person on this thread, and so i must leave as it really is no less than cruel.

 

Its an obvious wind up, as no one in their right mind would consider this to be acceptable.

 

Other than a sadist (as there is no dout that brutal treatment is on the agenda) and lets face it thats the type of person that will be coming through your front door.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no blacksheep, you are not reducing their debt you are increasing it because the item would probably need to be replaced at some stage.

 

as for debt preying on peoples minds im sure the prospect of a baliff forcing their way into their home may prey on their mind as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prisons are too full to lock up predatory paedophiles, so we are told... illegal drugs are freely dealt in virtually every street in the land, and the police don't even bother to investigate home break-ins these days... but I wonder how many prison places will be miraculously found for home-owners who are forced to physically defend their property from blair's newly legalised burglars?

 

The greed of the credit companies to make quick bucks is now coming back at them, and I for one think it quite amusing... they took a risk, a gamble, giving us all way too much credit, and so they should take some bad debt on the chin. The simple fact is if they hadn't dished out so much credit so freely, then bad debt would be virtually non-existent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no blacksheep, you are not reducing their debt you are increasing it because the item would probably need to be replaced at some stage.

 

as for debt preying on peoples minds im sure the prospect of a baliff forcing their way into their home may prey on their mind as well.

 

nope - debt is money owed, not future potential expenditure. Hey I may buy an aston martin one day. Doesn't make me any more in debt now does it?

 

And by giving up their goods the likelyhood of someone entering their property goes away - double bonus.

 

The greed of the credit companies to make quick bucks is now coming back at them, and I for one think it quite amusing... they took a risk, a gamble, giving us all way too much credit, and so they should take some bad debt on the chin. The simple fact is if they hadn't dished out so much credit so freely, then bad debt would be virtually non-existent.

 

Wow - just what I was talking about, didn't think anyone would actually say it though. So you don't think you should have to pay back money you borrowed and you think its someone elses fault? If you weren't able to foresee your inability to repay how would a lender who barely knows anything about you know any better? Its not their fault now is it?

 

If the companies hadn't dished out so much credit, it would only have gone to people with high paying jobs and excellent credit records and you'd still be on here moaning, but rather about how lenders regarded you as a second class citizen due to not being able to borrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...