I have recently been in the same situation as yourself, send them an email with a suggested repayment plan that you can afford, also ask them to not put any extra fees on the amount owed and to freeze all interest, as this just makes your situation worse. I have just done this and they instantly agreed my to my payment plan and have stopped all charges and any more interest being applied, I was shocked at this as I have heard bad things about them, but they were fine and understanding, the opposite to what i had heard. I would advise you to pay the plan by standing order.

Hello there. Welcome to the forums, I have a couple of questions for you.. Did you challenge the original CCJ at all? Have you sent any objections to the court or the creditor?

Thanks maroonDevo

Since I got rid of the Stockport Circus my circumstances improved drastically and in a very short time. With what I have learned here and from the web in general I was able to challenge most of my debts as a result of the mis-sold PPI. Not everyone will benefit that much from PPI but it is by far the best to challenge your debtors yourself with the information you can gather from here and it is not that difficult, you will be surprised! The Stockport Circus, aka First Crap Finance (FCF) has one AND ONLY one goal, to make money out of your situation! Should you benefit in the process (very doubtful!!), then good, if not, they could not care less!! The advice in this thread is clear, stay clear form these clowns! I could not agree more!

WESTACRE INVESTMENTS INC (A company incorporated under the laws of Panama) v THE STATE-OWNED COMPANY YUGOIMPORT SDPR (AKA JUGOIMPORT-SDPR) (2008 ) At the date on which registration of an English judgment was initially permitted in Singapore, the English court would unhesitatingly have permitted enforcement by way of a third party debt order against a presumed debt situated in England. The claimant judgment creditor (W), in the context of enforcement proceedings in Singapore, sought a declaration that on certain assumed facts the English court would have made a third party debt order. W had obtained an award in Switzerland against Y and the English court had entered judgment in terms of the award in March 1998. W took steps to enforce the judgment. In July 2004, it discovered that Y had a shareholding in a Singapore company (D) which had a Singapore bank account containing funds held by D for Y. Y disputed that it had a beneficial interest in those funds. In October 2004, W applied ex parte to the Singapore court for registration of the English judgment with a view thereafter to obtaining a garnishee order in respect of the funds held at D's bank, and garnishee orders to show cause were made against D and the bank. The Singapore court then set aside the registration of the judgment on the ground that it was not just and convenient that the judgment should be enforced in Singapore. W appealed and the Singapore Court of Appeal directed W to apply to the English court to determine whether it would have made a third party debt order in respect of an assumed debt in England at the date on which registration of the English judgment was initially permitted in Singapore. Y argued that the body of authority to the effect that the lapse of six years after judgment would ordinarily justify refusing a judgment creditor permission to issue a writ of execution should apply by analogy to the regime for third party debt orders under CPR Pt 72. HELD: (1) Conceptually a judgment, although interest bearing for only six years, remained enforceable without limit of time, A v Hoare (2008) UKHL 6, (2008) 1 AC 844 considered. Different procedural rules applied to the different methods of enforcement. The power to make both an interim third party debt order, and the final order, was discretionary. The rule made no reference to the time elapsed since the date of the judgment. The difference in the provisions governing garnishee orders and writs of execution had existed for well over 100 years. There was no warrant or support in authority for applying the law applicable to writs of execution to third party debt orders by analogy. That would run counter to the scheme established in CPR Pt 72, which expressly placed upon the judgment debtor the onus of making good any objection to the making of a final order. There had never been any practice of declining to grant the interim order on the ex parte application on the ground alone that the lapse of six years since the judgment cast upon the judgment creditor the onus of showing why the order should be made. The lapse of six years since judgment enjoyed no special significance and was simply one factor to be taken into account in the overall exercise of discretion, Fellows v Thornton (1884-85) LR 14 QBD 335 QBD considered. (2) The court would have made a third party debt order in the instant case, on the assumption that there was a debt within the jurisdiction. Neither CPR r.72.3 nor CPR PD 72 required the judgment creditor to explain when precisely it had learned of the existence of the third party debt or to justify any lapse of time between the judgment and the application to enforce. Had the judgment debtor objected to the making of an order on the ground that six years and seven months had elapsed since the judgment that would of itself have been a factor of very little weight. The court would have been most unlikely to regard as of any great significance arguments directed to showing that the judgment creditor might, with the exercise of greater diligence, or had it prioritised its efforts differently, have been able to discover the existence of the debt sooner. In the absence of some compelling evidence of prejudice to the judgment debtor accruing from the delay in enforcement, the court would regard the grant of garnishee relief as virtually axiomatic. Even if the court had concluded that it should adopt by analogy the approach in the writ of execution cases, still in the circumstances of the instant case the court would have permitted enforcement by way of a third party debt order. W had made active efforts to enforce the judgment, Society of Lloyd's v Longtin (2005) EWHC 2491 (Comm), (2005) 2 CLC 774 and Patel v Singh (2002) EWCA Civ 1938, (2003) CPLR 149 considered. Y did not suggest that it had been led to believe that W was not intent on enforcing its rights, Good Challenger Navegante SA v Metalexportimport SA (2003) EWCA Civ 1668, (2004) 1 Lloyd's Rep 67 considered. Declaration granted in favour of claimant

Ok first off all, these buggers simply refuse to accept repayment offers and will continue to add charges to your accounts. So best thing to do is for the time being stop all payments to all the payday loan companies that you can not afford to repay. Then for each one that you cannot afford to pay back you need to send each a CCA (consumer credit agreement) request with £1 postal order, once you get those agreements back, we need you to post them up here minus your idenitfiable info and account numbers, but leave the dates and amounts on them. Once i see them i can tell you if they are enforceable or not, as i descirbed in the thread you originally posted this in, which no doubt you read through. Chances are if they are not enforceable they will as a result of what i tell you to send back to them, will write of the debts, which is their own fault for not agreeing to repayment plan offers, which no doubt you have made to them. You can find the CCA request letter here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?414-CCA-request-letter. copy and edit it to suit each Payday loan provider. As for the Debt mangment company, don't use them they charge you for it, where we can get this sorted for you for free, and the fact they want you to default on bank loan that you have no issue with is irresponisble advice from them that they give knowing full well it would mean you being with them for a much longer period of time, where they will be taking charges off you each month. So their advice is misleading and would course you deteriment (i.e default on your credit file which will lower your credit worthiness), so report them to the OFT for misleading irresponsible advice. Once you have sent the payday loan companies the CCA request they have 12 + 2 (days postage) days to send the agreements to you. if they don't then they are in default of the debt and can not enforce or add charges or interest until they do send you one. Also you need to work out all the charges each payday lender has charged you so we can look at claiming them charges back too in the event the agreement is enforceable, as those ones we will need a repayment plan for. Though i very much doubt any of the agreements are enforceable as per in my experience when helping my friend out with his pay day loan problems. As for the phone calls etc, inform them you will only communicate in writing and send the telephone harassment letter to those that are phoning you. Telephone harassment letter here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?493-Harassment-by-telephone-response-letter Once you have sent the CCA and the telephone harassment letters sit back and relax. As this is going to be easy to sort out.

Hi PriorityOne Just back in the office this morning and seen your post. Glad you managed to get this sorted out. This will happen if you, or a meter reader, accidently update an incorrect meter reading and you are actually billed to this reading. If you then try to log onto your online account to update a meter reading that is lower than what you were previously billed to the system will reject the meter reading thinking that it is incorrect. To correct this we will simply remove the incorrect charges on the account, remove the incorrect meter reading and then rebill the account up to an accurate meter reading for you. This will then stop your account being billed to incorrect estimated meter readings. If this happens again, look back at the statements that have been created for you and see if an incorrect meter reading has been updated at any time. If so, give us a call or send an email and we will fix this for you straight away. Kind Regards Colin @ ScottishPower

I don't think they can get back something after breaking a contract like that. Is the cost of the materials you bought come to exactly or under £250 or is it more? if it's more, then send them a bill for the remaining materials. You can, of course, inform them that if you can find a job that will use the materials, then you will deduct and return an amount equvalent to what is sold minus an hourly rate for measureing and calculating their job.

Hi nystagmite In the circumstances you have given, this would aid you in finding and keeping employment. As long as you show some evidence of the expenditure there should be no problem with it. Deprivation is normally only ever considered if someone has got rid of or given away money in order to get or get more benefit. If you have a large expenditure and it is a "reasonable" one then there is little reason to go down that route. As I said, as long as you declare the reduction in your capital, provide the reciept that should be the end of it.

This all sounds very 'dicey' to me. I am afraid it just goes to prove the reasons why we suggest never to contact DCAS etc. by 'phone as unless you record the call, it can never be proved what is said. Personally, I would request their complaints' procedure, complain to Trading Standards via Consumer Direct: http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/contact Also, send another Recorded Delivery letter informing them that due to their behaviour, you will now only be dealing with them in writing via Royal Mail. Hopefully, others will have more help.

Hi there 1) NO INTEREST can be added from the date of the charging order for ANY debt subject to the various Consumer Credit Acts -- 99.99% of debts on this forum. (The Court fee appears to be allowed - although even here I'm not sure on this one either). 2) If a debt subject to a CCJ is SOLD then until you receive valid Court papers saying that you have to pay XXX instead of YYY who got the original CCJ then you can just tell them to Foxtrot Oscar. There seems to be a lot of these CCJ / Charging Order debts being sold on now -- probably because as I've posted elsewhere the people who rushed to get CO's for credit card debts have finaly realized that they will probably have to wait a LONG LONG time to get any money back if they get any at all. For smallish debts (certainly under around 10,000 GBP) No court will force you to sell a house for credit card debt, When the property market was going bonkers with rising prices and people moving fairly frequently DCA's thougt getting a CO was a good "Get Rich Quick" strategy. They've realized in the current political climate (Courts don't really like things like unsecured credit card debts being used to threaten home owwners with re-possession etc.) and with a relatively depressed property market the whole CO process is flawed - especially if you don't move for years. After this current round of DCA's trying to unload "Non performing debts" such as long standing CO's not being paid I'd expect to see some NASTIER tactics from these scumbags such as a more agressive use of SD's -- defendable but more work. Cheers jimbo

Notices of correction are to be used in this scenario. They are not enough, on their own, to be used. You might have a case in removing the Orange default so long as you pay what you owe on the account.