Default removed, but then...

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Debt evasion?

The facts to dispel that notion;

1. The OC are in default of s.78
2. They've terminated incorrectly
3. Default notice is bad
4. Amount of default is wrong
5. Lots of unlawful charges
6. The OP physically can't pay

So that discounts your claim of debt avoidance.

It's not "my" anything. It's a user discussion board that welcomes views so long as those views are within the ethos of AAD. We're not like other forums. We don't do chance, we prefer to base help based on past experience and not once on the forum here or on my past at MSE would I ever suggest paying if you can't afford to and/or any payment made would be less than monthly charges applied to the account.

As its his only debt I asked about keeping it live but the OP cannot pay. So in this instance surely going for SB is the way forward. If they get heavy he can make a deal with any dca right upto the point of the day of any court action.

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

And yours of course.

Sounds like debt evasion to me.

The function of these forums should be to protect people from creditors who are being unreasonable, accepting £1 a month on a £6.5 k debt and suspending interests seems pretty damned reasonable to me.

I have read some of your hundreds of cases, they do not bear out what you say I am afraid.

However it is your forum, and you seem intent on keeping any alternative views silent.

So I will bid you A fond adieu

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Not at all only my opinion as I said, and I don't have all the facts, I am sure Nidd does not mind a bit of friendly disagreement.

It is for you to decide which path to take, we all wish you luck whatever you do, and will support you in your efforts.

I love healthy discussion and varying viewpoints but saying to someone to pay 25p is nuts. As cardiac spotted, he could pay that for 50 years then at that point the OC could try and enforce. Technically interest will keep the debt increasing so your £5k debt will be £25k at retirement.

Best to draw their hand long before that. If they take action so be it. It happens and in some cases it's for the best as the OC can't make silly threats like they do prior to court.

Others blag out 6yrs and get SB.

In this case the OP doesn't have his back to the wall so UE is deffo the way to go!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

We will have to agree to differ here i think, in my view payment of 25p per week is better than the possibility of a charging order or even just a CCJ, unless the agreement was definitely unenforceable, and in my experience there is no such thing.

Ahh but I have facts, proof and hundreds of cases to back my point of view.

Sadly your opinion is like that MSE & CAG come up with. Ill never agree with this nonsense. Why on earth would anyone keep a debt alive unnecessarily like paying 25p? That point of view really isn't welcome here cos its against all we stand for, and incorrect in every sense.

[alangee]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I must admit to not reading all the above posts, but I too have had issues with Sainsbury's Default Notices and them buying back the account from a DCA.

In January 2009 Sainsbury's sold my OH's account to a DCA. Prior to the sale a defective Default Notice was issued by Sainsbury's. In June 2009, we reclaimed the charges, and although they initially wanted to pass them over to the DCA, they finally sent us a cheque.

In 2010, we complained to Sainsbury's that the Default Notice was defective, so they should not have entered a default marker on my OH's credit record. I now know that a default marker and a DN are two separate issues, but at the time believed them to be one and the same. However, my argument must have been persuasive, because eventually, after some toing and froing, Sainsury's wrote back to say that they had recalled the account, removed the default, and offered £200 as compensation.

They also gave us two options on the account. Pay the full balance, or smaller monthly payments, and, provided we kept to the arrangement, would not issue a fresh default.

We refused the compensation, because the account had been terminated prior to sale. We told them that acceptance by us would enable them to reinstate the account, which they terminated, and we do not give our permission for that to happen.

My belief is that if an account is terminated, then your permission, or the courts, is needed for it to be reopened, perhaps Paul can comment on this.

We last heard from them in April 2011 in response to our rejection of their offer.

This post may not be of any great help, and many of ther points may have been covered, but we went through the same experiences. The only difference is that we were paid our charges prior to Sainsbury's recall of the account.


Alan

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Not at all only my opinion as I said, and I don't have all the facts, I am sure Nidd does not mind a bit of friendly disagreement.

It is for you to decide which path to take, we all wish you luck whatever you do, and will support you in your efforts.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I am relived to hear it , I would not want anyone following my advice, without being able to evaluate it for themselves.

All view points are worth receiving,and the debates they provoke are definately worthwhile in enhancing an understanding of things. Like I said, it's not a criticism in any way, and I hope, well I know, you understand that...for mere mortals, and given how many of us there are...I guess when we are drowning it is very tempting to grasp at straws..

Please don't stop chipping in will you...

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I am relieved to hear it , I would not want anyone following my advice, without being able to evaluate it for themselves.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I don't know enough about the law and it's application, or case history ...hence i rely on the advice I'm given. however much I read up (and I've done loads believe me) I will never know what the court 'mood' is. things change from judge to judge, appeal to appeal, so having someone like Niddy, in whome i have 100% trust because of his inside knowledge, is my lifeline.

other advice I read is variable and often contradictory, so while I ask, and listen...it's Niddy I put my trust in...this isn't a criticism, but many people I've contacted have opinions and ideas...advice and stategies...but this , for the layman, is fraught with danger, as i have found. one person advised to force a new default, the issue of a new DN...then argue remedy by virtue of the refund and demand total reinstatement within 14 days...otherwise claim repudiation...and nothing to pay.

For the ordinary Joe like me, seperating speculation for sound advice is very difficult, so when you come across someone like Niddy...well you hang on to them.

I take the criticism for my actions...sure, 25p a week for ever...until i get my OAP, then they will no doubt take most of that off me...so I will never be any better off and a future of continual struggle. SB or UE whatever, but I hang my hat on that because it provides me, personally, with some hope that the future will one day be a bit brighter...

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

So you wouldn't try for UE ?

I think that if your back is against the wall and it is an issue of letting them stuff you, or making it as difficult as you can for them then it is a no brainier, however once court proceedings became a definite possibility, I would be examining my options and my arguments very careful.

[Spent2much]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Because at the end of the day it is all down to the man in the big chair, I don,t mean to worry anyone, but I thought that this was understood, you can present the best argument in the world and it still goes tits up, even with the pros. unfortunately.
That is why it is best to avoid court action if possible.

So you wouldn't try for UE ?

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Because at the end of the day it is all down to the man in the big chair, I don,t mean to worry anyone, but I thought that this was understood, you can present the best argument in the world and it still goes tits up, even with the pros. unfortunately.
That is why it is best to avoid court action if possible.

[Spent2much]

Re: Default removed, but then...

We will have to agree to differ here i think, in my view payment of 25p oer week is better than the possibility of a charging order or even just a CCJ, unless the agreement was definitely unenforceable, and in my experience there is no such thing.

so why do you think an agreement cannot definatley be unenforceable ?
you will have a lot of members worried now saying that

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

If you continue paying it never becomes statute barred.

Cessation of payments is up to the user. Definitely no mistake here, however if its their only debt I would agree - is that "really" worth trashing a credit file over? If you can't pay and that's that then not much more you can do cos the bank will default you anyway so why pay?

We will have to agree to differ here i think, in my view payment of 25p per week is better than the possibility of a charging order or even just a CCJ, unless the agreement was definitely unenforceable, and in my experience there is no such thing.

[Spent2much]

Re: Default removed, but then...

If you continue paying it never becomes statute barred.

Cessation of payments is up to the user. Definitely no mistake here, however if its their only debt I would agree - is that "really" worth trashing a credit file over? If you can't pay and that's that then not much more you can do cos the bank will default you anyway so why pay?

Hi Niddy, i edited my reply because i answered before reading the whole thread cos i am too lazy