This is the problem

[Spent2much]

Re: This is the problem

I think that all depends. There is an O/D cca letter which has certainly seen my O/D been sent back from the solicitors. It has now gone to another rather toothless DCA

I have one concern with the UE route , when we started a dmp eversheds went for and were granted a charge on house , we defended 1st credit when sent SD and at that time we had both accounts in dispute waiting for a SARS and CCA ,i have been corrected by my husband and need put this right on here that 1st credit took us to court twice not three times, both were for SD, but we do have 3 accounts with 1st credit so my apologies here .
Like i said my only concern is the fact that creditors have jumped on us quickly so its rather scary for me to think they may send more SD and go for more charges on the house .

[jon1965]

Re: This is the problem

I think that all depends. There is an O/D cca letter which has certainly seen my O/D been sent back from the solicitors. It has now gone to another rather toothless DCA

[Spent2much]

Re: This is the problem

Just reading through the UE threads and noticed that overdrafts can't be UE so i have to keep paying these along with the charge and the ccj, the others i can stop paying until niddy can tell if they are UE . Is this right ?

[Spent2much]

Re: This is the problem

There is just one possible issue which I haven't seen mentioned yet.

You say you are self-employed, which means you must receive money from clients or customers in some way or other, and presumably have a bank account dedicated to your business. Is this in your own name, joint names, or a business name? Is the account with any of the banks that these alleged debts are with, or a separate one?

I just want to make sure that whatever income you get is protected from Right of Set Off before you start sending off the ss.77-79 requests.

SH

No we have no business bank account and we accept cash only and we are very lucky that we have no business debts at all , our only bank account is the co-op which we opened when we started a dmp.

Just reading through the court papers of the charging order and it says that no repayment arrangement has been set but it says the ammount and says about interest . I wonder if we could lower the payment to make our lives easier , the way the business is going right now i don't think we could pay it at that amount anyway if we had to claim out of work benefits . The business is in my husbands name only .

[ScabHunter]

Re: This is the problem

There is just one possible issue which I haven't seen mentioned yet.

You say you are self-employed, which means you must receive money from clients or customers in some way or other, and presumably have a bank account dedicated to your business. Is this in your own name, joint names, or a business name? Is the account with any of the banks that these alleged debts are with, or a separate one?

I just want to make sure that whatever income you get is protected from Right of Set Off before you start sending off the ss.77-79 requests.

SH

[Spent2much]

Re: This is the problem

we pay quite a few a £1 a month

[jon1965]

Re: This is the problem

Just wan t to add my bit.
I stopped paying my creditors in Jan and although there has been some hassle, this bunch have kept my head above water. I have even got the FOS involved with one and the company backed down. Another firm I have reported to the OFT as they seem to be operating without a CCL . Another that was insisting on £5 per month have now accepted £1 after a stunning letter composed by someone on here. I have to make it clear though that I am being a little gung ho as I really don't care what they try and do.

But without the guys here I would have been totally screwed and know even less than I do now

[kilasuit]

Re: This is the problem

* just to clarify from an earlier comment that ive since removed

1. We're not experts nor do we offer advice
2. We most certainly aren't paid
3. We're not licenced to give advice
4. Our users share their own own life experiences and offer help & support based on their own experiences

Thanks

Yeah sorry niddy.

[Spent2much]

Re: This is the problem

is the mortgage just in his sole name?

If not i'm almost certain that charge should never have been placed it would have had to been in both names

mortgage is in joint names , we pointed this out to the judge but he still granted the charge

[kilasuit]

Re: This is the problem

is the mortgage just in his sole name?

If not i'm almost certain that charge should never have been placed it would have had to been in both names

[Spent2much]

Re: This is the problem

Told by whom? Prayplan? I'd sooner take advice from an inebriated jellyfish.



This question is highly relevant and would affect the possibilities greatly.

SH

loving it inebriated jellyfish

the virgin cc debt which is the charge on the house is in my husbands sole name

[Spent2much]

Re: This is the problem

They could, which is why it is important to get those ss.77-79 requests off as soon as you can.

Different lenders/DCAs have entirely different policies. Coward Hohen, for example, will issue court papers on absolutely everything and then think later. I've seen papers issued for a double figure debt, which were then withdrawn at the AQ stage. The idea is that so many people will just cop a judgment in default that there will be plenty of profit left after paying out on the discontinuances.

Other DCAs never go to court, they just make loud threats and harass continually by telephone in the hope of wearing the victim down. Most will litigate when a case fits certain “criteria”. What is certain is that ALL DCAs are less likely to litigate when you get in their face and point out certain facts to them. They will know then that they have an expensive fight on their hands, with absolutely no guarantee of success.

I see the lightning fast I2D has already answered your other question, although I suspect he copied and pasted that post from somewhere.

SH

thanks, for the past 4 years we have been paying all our creditors and the only creditors we have sent off CCA's to are 1st credit i will find the copy they sent us and show niddy maybe its UE already, if it is then how do we go about that as we have been paying them and agreed with the judge to pay them to keep them from taking further action as the reason we went to court was to defend a SD which the judge set aside , will this then be taken back to court by 1st credit ? The other debts we have been paying also so suddenly stopping paying and sending off for CCA's would this seem radom if you know what i mean , hope you do i'm confused

[ScabHunter]

Re: This is the problem

we were told that to apply for a redetermination on them would cost us and also would rattle the cages of fairfax and the threat of forced sale for their money.

Told by whom? Prayplan? I'd sooner take advice from an inebriated jellyfish.

Is the Virgin one in your sole name because if it is then that Virgin charging order may mean diddly squat because they can't force a sale on a sole debt secured on property which is jointly owned

This question is highly relevant and would affect the possibilities greatly.

SH

[Deepie]

Re: This is the problem

I see the lightning fast I2D has already answered your other question, although I suspect he copied and pasted that post from somewhere.

SH

Got it on file.....

[ScabHunter]

Re: This is the problem

what happens if we end our dmp with payplan and just keep paying the charge and ccj , will the others try court action

They could, which is why it is important to get those ss.77-79 requests off as soon as you can.

Different lenders/DCAs have entirely different policies. Coward Hohen, for example, will issue court papers on absolutely everything and then think later. I've seen papers issued for a double figure debt, which were then withdrawn at the AQ stage. The idea is that so many people will just cop a judgment in default that there will be plenty of profit left after paying out on the discontinuances.

Other DCAs never go to court, they just make loud threats and harass continually by telephone in the hope of wearing the victim down. Most will litigate when a case fits certain “criteria”. What is certain is that ALL DCAs are less likely to litigate when you get in their face and point out certain facts to them. They will know then that they have an expensive fight on their hands, with absolutely no guarantee of success.

I see the lightning fast I2D has already answered your other question, although I suspect he copied and pasted that post from somewhere.

SH