Heading the Right Way!

[garlok]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

I've just noted a comment in a previous post DS about IVAs and DMPs etc. I have been derided for this and some stupid comments made about our sols in another place BUT in the very first discussion/conversation I had with them I was told NEVER get involved at all with Tomlin orders, IVAs DMPs etc. Most of these sort of arrangements at some stage will collapse and leave you further in debt than when you first started. In the light of recent happenings with these sorts of programmes and associated scandals, they were right.

That is proper professional advice bought and paid for from litigation specialists in this field. In the light of further progress we have made with them they will always wait , prepare to ambush the OC if they dare to go to court, if it does come worst to worst (unlikely if I put with a trashed CRF they have no legal substance)) I was told they would get a 10% F&F which they have proved on another matter.

regards
Garlok

[The Debt Star]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Cheers Garlok. It would be very interesting to know how many 10% F&Fs are accepted. I made a 50% F&F to CapQuest last year on a £7K debt, ex-CCCS DMP, which has been on-going since 2005, minimum payments, interest frozen and with a maturity date sometime in the 25th Century The DCA rejected it, saying it was insufficient. They were looking for 75%. So my experience of low F&Fs isn't very happy but it would be real interesting to know what others are experiencing.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Garlok, would be good to see ya blue man avatar thingy. you still got that? fly the flag dude!

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Seconded get it up man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards

[garlok]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Yes mate I do have and will get it up onsite Just with other things you know and getting active in the forums it has slipped the priority list a bit.

F & Fs are really not the simple things that people think they are. The crux is that the mechanism is DECEPTIVELY simple. It is Contract Law not Statute Law and that brings a lot of baggage with it. Never mind that CCA1974/2006 regulates the agreement that is irrelevant you are bartering an accounting asset at this point just as if it is being sold on by an OC. Does the DCA own the debt in Absolute? If not they are also irrelevant in the loop. Deal only with the OC and in fact as I found out cos I had sols do it you do not even have to get their agreement in the first place. Don't even mark the third party cheques with anything, peopl that tell to do it are wrong. cover it all in the letters acco,pnying therefore if they are paid into the correct accounts the creditor can then NEVER declare that he had not read the correspondence can he? HMRC v Fry cannot then be quoted against you i.e large organisations remove all cheques and cash them prior to reading the documents. Just a few practical tips.

It is not yours or my fault if the cretins get it wrong.

"it matters not what the creditor intends but what he has led the debtor to believe!" LLoyd LJ Court of Appeal (Stour Valley Builders) and that in a case which fell by the way for other reasons.
regards
Garlok

[The Debt Star]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Yes mate I do have and will get it up onsite Just with other things you know and getting active in the forums it has slipped the priority list a bit.

F & Fs are really not the simple things that people think they are. The crux is that the mechanism is DECEPTIVELY simple. It is Contract Law not Statute Law and that brings a lot of baggage with it. Never mind that CCA1974/2006 regulates the agreement that is irrelevant you are bartering an accounting asset at this point just as if it is being sold on by an OC. Does the DCA own the debt in Absolute? If not they are also irrelevant in the loop. Deal only with the OC and in fact as I found out cos I had sols do it you do not even have to get their agreement in the first place. Don't even mark the third party cheques with anything, peopl that tell to do it are wrong. cover it all in the letters acco,pnying therefore if they are paid into the correct accounts the creditor can then NEVER declare that he had not read the correspondence can he? HMRC v Fry cannot then be quoted against you i.e large organisations remove all cheques and cash them prior to reading the documents. Just a few practical tips.

It is not yours or my fault if the cretins get it wrong.

"it matters not what the creditor intends but what he has led the debtor to believe!" LLoyd LJ Court of Appeal (Stour Valley Builders) and that in a case which fell by the way for other reasons.
regards
Garlok

Know what? That is the BEST advice I've ever had on this subject. Thank you. I will follow that through and see what happens!

You recommend pulling a sly one and sending 10% what's to stop me sending them a fiver?

[The Debt Star]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Right, so just to get this right so i don't screw up and end up losing thoisands I don't have and still owe them money:

Don't even mark the third party cheques with anything, peopl that tell to do it are wrong.

Right, what do you mean? don't write the account number on the cheque? name and address, account number on back or 'owt?

cover it all in the letters acco,pnying therefore if they are paid into the correct accounts the creditor can then NEVER declare that he had not read the correspondence can he?

Covering letter - with paragrpah saying your encashment of enclosed cheque for £X is in F&F and your acceptance of this is in F&F etc?

HMRC v Fry cannot then be quoted against you i.e large organisations remove all cheques and cash them prior to reading the documents. Just a few practical tips.

Anymore on this Fry case please? How do we get round that again?

This needs to be got right by me otherwise disastrous.

Oh, do you have a precedent letter for this ploy?

[garlok]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Nothing really mate, but I think being sensible can win you a lot. Niddy did some real good stuff on this, well worth the read and I will PM you that thing I did while on LB which will enlighten you even more on the case law and how I studied it up.

regards
Garlok

[The Debt Star]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Nothing really mate, but I think being sensible can win you a lot. Niddy did some real good stuff on this, well worth the read and I will PM you that thing I did while on LB which will enlighten you even more on the case law and how I studied it up.

regards
Garlok

yeah, post up the links. here would be good so others can benefit too. Cheers bud.

[garlok]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Typing together. Don't rush this do some study of it first. preferably get a lawyer to do it cost for us was three letters. but it is wise to understand it first. Your average High street guy will probably just quote "Fry" at you because that is what he knows off the cuff there is much more important case law plus one I need to find again.

the essence of wining an F & F as you will see is that the agreement is NOT with you but is with your third party benefactor which becomes legally binding.

I will PM you shortly with the text as OH needs her cuppa.

regards
Garlok

[The Debt Star]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

the essence of wining an F & F as you will see is that the agreement is NOT with you but is with your third party benefactor which becomes legally binding.

I see.

Heck Caspar, I guess you woz right after all

[The Debt Star]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

I can't find the Fry case on Google

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Hmmm

This talks about it too: http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view...parent_id=1508

Day v McLea seems important

[garlok]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

I'll start looking it up mate

Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Heading the Right Way!

Bracken v Billinghurst also seems relevant!