XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

[DarkAutumn]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

It makes complete sense but I am not employed.

I am self employed and rely on a firm to keep me regulated who are montitoring me very closely and have made it clear I am out on my ear if I stop making
repayments, at the present time my best chance of making money is in my current position as someone in my financial position will find it difficult to get another job
so I need to keep things the way they are.

Sorry - your contracting firm can't sack you if you're in legal dispute. Move from civil law to employment law. Who do they think they are!!!???

Theres NO breach of contract. Can you PM me who you work for - this doesn't add up.

It's not possible to establish whether there is a breach of contract or not without seeing the contract in question. Jobs in the financial sector can be subject to special clauses regarding financial probity. The companies and regulators are not concerned with the individual circumstances surrounding defaults or CCJs, just with their existence. Within the context of the financial sector, saying you are disputing a debt on the basis of technicalities such as CCA requests would be counter-productive. It could be different if you were able to argue this isn't your debt because your credit card has been cloned, you bought goods that were not fit for purpose, etc.

If you are self-employed you cannot be sacked as such but the firm could decide to dispense with your services at any time because self-employed people do not have any employment rights.

There are however situations where people who are seemingly self-employed can be considered as employees and have the same rights and protection as employees. This could be the case if you meet the criteria to be considered as an employee which hinges largely around mutuality of obligation. There have been cases where despite there being a contract of self-employment or a similar arrangement, an Employment Tribunal has ruled that the individual was actually an employee of the company.

[XX007]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

There can be no doubt as to my self employment.

The company who ensure I am regulated are free to no longer offer me their services which would mean I have to find another company. Which would be difficult under these circumstances.


Hence I have to go along with all this which includes making payments and avoiding judgements.


As coincidence would have it Shoosmiths have wrote to me saying a lump sum offer might be acceptable and for me to get in touch with them. No-one has really answered my question about repaying just one of my debts and if this would affect my other agreements (I presume it wont).


So I think I will just send them one of the template letters from the legal section offering a lump sum and see what happens.

[DarkAutumn]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

As coincidence would have it Shoosmiths have wrote to me saying a lump sum offer might be acceptable and for me to get in touch with them. No-one has really answered my question about repaying just one of my debts and if this would affect my other agreements (I presume it wont).

So I think I will just send them one of the template letters from the legal section offering a lump sum and see what happens.

It would only be a problem repaying one debt if you were in a DMP managed by a third party. If you are managing your own debts you are free to choose who you want to repay for whatever reason. The other creditors need not be informed of your decision. At the end of the day you need to do what's best for you, if making a lump sum offer to one creditor gets you out of harm's way, why not do it. Your main concern should be to ensure the remainder of the balance gets written off and they don't pursue you for it or sell it on. Best of luck.

[DarkAutumn]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

One other thing, if you are going to offer a lump sum make sure they indicate that debt as satisfied on your credit files.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

So I think I will just send them one of the template letters from the legal section offering a lump sum and see what happens.

Good luck with that. Head for settlements & offers. Use the guide to calculate a percentage and send the offer template with DN removal (it's one template). They may not entertain removal but as stated above by DA, they MUST mark it satisfied which in theory proves to your employer that it's been paid off at an agreed level - and importantly, the creditor is satisfied.

Don't hold your breath, if your offer is going to be less than 10% but it's always best to start low anyway so long as you have the realistic expectation they'll consider offers around 40-70% of the total debt / judgment. Have an open mind and be prepared to haggle a lot.

If you get stuck give us a shout

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

It's not possible to establish whether there is a breach of contract or not without seeing the contract in question. Jobs in the financial sector can be subject to special clauses regarding financial probity. The companies and regulators are not concerned with the individual circumstances surrounding defaults or CCJs, just with their existence. Within the context of the financial sector, saying you are disputing a debt on the basis of technicalities such as CCA requests would be counter-productive. It could be different if you were able to argue this isn't your debt because your credit card has been cloned, you bought goods that were not fit for purpose, etc.

Not necessarily. As I stated, a legal dispute that ended up with a default could be argued in a tribunal if you were dismissed.

A default cannot just be added at will by a creditor. There are still repercussions and as we seen with a couple cases recently, civil action against a creditor who reports a default on a queried debt (specifically Iredeemably UE) would be liable to pay damages because it is NOT a default, as per a "non payer".

I'm just playing devils advocate but I'm also saying how it is legally. I won a nice payout as a contractor myself only last year! Notwithstanding the accountants, politicians, solicitors, bankers, senior managers, insurance employees & company directors we have as members on AAD.

Honesty is best. Be up front and say you're disputing things. If you're told don't or you're gone then obviously don't but not all employers are bastards. They understand people have problems & rights for that matter. A contract (any) can be argued as unfair as well.

Yea, it could turn into a nasty and costly fight but still, if I had an Iredeemably UE account and my employer dismissed me based on a DN at a CRA I'd sue their arses and the firm who reported it. Consequential damages would be easily assessed with the paper trail you'd retain.

Refer to Grace v Blackhorse



Edit to add - I'm not suggesting anyone does get clever with their employers but if you ended up sacked then deffo seek legal advice!

[XX007]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

Good luck with that. Head for settlements & offers. Use the guide to calculate a percentage and send the offer template with DN removal (it's one template). They may not entertain removal but as stated above by DA, they MUST mark it satisfied which in theory proves to your employer that it's been paid off at an agreed level - and importantly, the creditor is satisfied.

Don't hold your breath, if your offer is going to be less than 10% but it's always best to start low anyway so long as you have the realistic expectation they'll consider offers around 40-70% of the total debt / judgment. Have an open mind and be prepared to haggle a lot.

If you get stuck give us a shout

Thanks I appreciate that.

[DarkAutumn]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

Not necessarily. As I stated, a legal dispute that ended up with a default could be argued in a tribunal if you were dismissed.

A default cannot just be added at will by a creditor. There are still repercussions and as we seen with a couple cases recently, civil action against a creditor who reports a default on a queried debt (specifically Iredeemably UE) would be liable to pay damages because it is NOT a default, as per a "non payer".

I'm just playing devils advocate but I'm also saying how it is legally. I won a nice payout as a contractor myself only last year! Notwithstanding the accountants, politicians, solicitors, bankers, senior managers, insurance employees & company directors we have as members on AAD.

XX007 has said they are self-employed, in that case the tribunal wouldn't have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. There are cases where contractors can be considered as employees and the tribunal will hold a preliminary to establish that fact but it is a long drawn out process and the burden of proof is firmly on the claimant, to show mutuality of obligation which is the main ingredient for an employer-employee relationship. The hearing would be six to eight months after dismissal, and it could take a few months to get a judgment, you still have the final hearing ahead of you. Even if you win it can be over a year before you see any money and you still have to keep paying your bills while this goes on.

If the tribunal finds you were not an employee then your claim will just be dismissed and you'd have nothing. If you work in the financial sector, an employer can sack you for a number of reasons that wouldn't be applicable in other industries and they'd have every right to do so and argue they are merely complying with their duties under FCA regulation.

[DarkAutumn]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

Honesty is best. Be up front and say you're disputing things. If you're told don't or you're gone then obviously don't but not all employers are bastards. They understand people have problems & rights for that matter. A contract (any) can be argued as unfair as well.

Yea, it could turn into a nasty and costly fight but still, if I had an Iredeemably UE account and my employer dismissed me based on a DN at a CRA I'd sue their arses and the firm who reported it. Consequential damages would be easily assessed with the paper trail you'd retain.

Refer to Grace v Blackhorse

I am familiar with Grace v Blackhorse but that only applies to agreements that were ruled unenforceable in court, not to those that a court would not be able to enforce if they went to court. There is a difference.

I know someone who had a job offer with a well known bank, rescinded after they ran a pre-employment credit check and found a single default for a debt that, in view of the type of credit product it was, a court could not enforce it. The matter has not been tried in court so the debtor cannot get the default removed using Grace v Blackhorse.

It is not a question of employers being bastards, it is a matter of company policy that must be followed and regulatory issues. Even if your line manager thinks they cannot live without you, you can still be dismissed because financial institutions are big companies and they have to follow policy and your line manager does not have the last word, nor does the person above.

Unenforceability may work in the civil courts but it isn't something you would even want to mention if you work in the financial sector. It's OK to dispute an account if you have been mistakenly charged for something but using technicalities to avoid paying debts is frowned upon within the financial sector. If you work in a bank, even browsing a site like this one can work against you, they monitor your internet usage and flag anything that could raise alarm bells; one of those things could be a site dedicated to dealing with debt.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

XX007 has said they are self-employed, in that case the tribunal wouldn't have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. There are cases where contractors can be considered as employees and the tribunal will hold a preliminary to establish that fact but it is a long drawn out process and the burden of proof is firmly on the claimant, to show mutuality of obligation which is the main ingredient for an employer-employee relationship. The hearing would be six to eight months after dismissal, and it could take a few months to get a judgment, you still have the final hearing ahead of you. Even if you win it can be over a year before you see any money and you still have to keep paying your bills while this goes on.

If the tribunal finds you were not an employee then your claim will just be dismissed and you'd have nothing. If you work in the financial sector, an employer can sack you for a number of reasons that wouldn't be applicable in other industries and they'd have every right to do so and argue they are merely complying with their duties under FCA regulation.

I reiterate. I won such a case last year and I also said im not promoting doing it but you're implying it's set in stone and I'm telling you for a fact it's not as black and white as that. There are members here in such professions with defaults!

Anyway it doesn't matter as the OP wants to try & settle so I'd rather use my energy helping him settle than argue a moot point

[XX007]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

Well as expected Shoosmiths have come back and said my offer of £600 is not acceptable but could be used as part payment and the account would be marked partially settled.

They then go on to ask me to complete an I & E and make a monthly offer.


They also say if they don't hear back from me by October 19th they will start Legal Action.


I have previously requested my CCA from Nationwide and they sent back my standing order with a letter saying they could not send it to me at this time.


I have read elsewhere that threatening legal action after non compliance with a statutory request is against FCA rules.

As it's a reasonably recent credit card I am presuming they wont have any trouble getting my CCA so I'm not sure if it's worth complaining to the FCA or wise to do so.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

Well as expected Shoosmiths have come back and said my offer of £600 is not acceptable but could be used as part payment and the account would be marked partially settled.

They then go on to ask me to complete an I & E and make a monthly offer.


They also say if they don't hear back from me by October 19th they will start Legal Action.


I have previously requested my CCA from Nationwide and they sent back my standing order with a letter saying they could not send it to me at this time.


I have read elsewhere that threatening legal action after non compliance with a statutory request is against FCA rules.

As it's a reasonably recent credit card I am presuming they wont have any trouble getting my CCA so I'm not sure if it's worth complaining to the FCA or wise to do so.

Write back and try again and stipulate that if they commence legal action, the fact it is small claims will mean they are throwing good money after bad and that common sense prevails - save costs and accept the offer previously made - because any action they take will result in them only being about £600 better off after their legal costs (in small claims each party is liable for their own costs). Also remind them that the Original Creditor is in default of your lawful s.78 request and because they simply refused to comply, should a claim be forthcoming you will defend the claim in full citing s.78(6) CCA1974.

Then reiterate that your offer of £600 payable in one lump sum as full and final settlement remains on the table.

That's all I'd be doing (or sort a monthly offer?)......

[XX007]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

I sent the letter off a couple of days ago and today a message was left on my mobile by Shoosmiths asking me to call them back.

[cymruambyth]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

Just ignore.

[nanna58]

Re: XX007 - UE Diary - Tomorrow never dies

I agree with Cym xx