Maybe so, but not for the reasons you think

Glad your amused Wintry, but not as amused as me,i shall leave it there;)

With all due respect (and as we seem to have a mutual acquaintance, I do mean that) no you missed where I was coming from entirely. The only line in my post that was important was the last one. I can post anything I like, and it can not be verified, the same can be said of anyone posting on any forum. So whether your question is valid, or not, is academic, as the answer is irrelevant without any form of confirmation. I trust you see the logic in that statement? But that said, I do agree with you concerns to a point, but I have the luxury of seeing this from a desperate stressed out debtor, and to be honest, the 'no contact' part of all this is the bit I am interested in, that bit James HAS got right, whether you, or any other debt advice company or organisation likes it, is irrelevant, it does not change the fact that is the biggest problem when a debtor is seeking advice. I doubt you will agree, but you will just have to take my word for it, because it IS correct, that is the bit all those that offer help, free or not, don’t understand, because most have not been there. The one exception is CCCS who are the only one that ‘seem’ to have identified the problem and addressed it, with the online debt remedy, the result from which, I have been reliably informed, is enough to reply honestly and truly, ‘yes’ when presenting a BR petition in court, when you are asked ‘have you sought professional advice?’ without speaking to anyone. So legaly, it must be good enough. But as I said in a previous post, I am not sure it’s a barrier that can be got round safely myself, I can also rip the CCCS calc apart if I wanted too, its far from perfect, but it’s the closest I have seen to a solution for the problem to date. I also disagree the answers to your questions are not in that ‘blog’, the specific answers to your questions regarding figures are not, but may I ask would you post how much you charged for a service on an open forum if asked? And if you did, would the answer be true, or answer what you thought they wanted to hear? The answers to his intentions are there, its a question if you belive them or not that is an issue which brings me to the point, even if you or james did answer truthfully, there would always be a poster, like me or you that questioned the truthfulness of that reply. Such is the beast that we are posting on.

Dam, I know I should leave this be, but can not break the (bad:p) habit of a lifetime. I won’t use the obvious puns. From your posts you seem very knowledgeable of matters regarding the intermediaries ‘handbook’, not conclusive, but could indicate you are in the debt advice sector. But I can not ignore the possibility you are an authorised intermediary, or connected too a company that is an authorised competent authoritie, this causes me a slight problem, as that sector has both free and profit making firms in it. There is also something else i can not ignore. As you know I know there is also another piece of software that costs the likes of CAB to use http://www.pgcomputing.co.uk/ I can not ignore the similarities, even if James is no where near that stage yet, it could be seen as a threat. So there are several avenues for a conflict of interest here, my concern is some of them are financial and nothing to to with the app or concern for debtors welfare So while our concerns are the same Wintry, are our motives the same? I hope you understand it’s a question i have to ask, even though the answer can in no way be verified, so is some what academic.

............ but in some IVA agreemants if you cannot free up the equity expected, the IVA may last longer. Depends if the IP needs to make the 'if' 'or' offer to get the creditors agreemant. If you have no equity, after all secured debts, then the property in nearly all cases, or to be more accurate any future equity in the property, can be bought back from the official reciever for £1 plus legal fees (£250-460). So Bankruptcy may be an option, without loseing your home, but they may take into consideration the cost of the mortgage against cost of local rentals, so it is not just equity to worry about, but it is rare that comes into play. As Wintry says, more info needed to give you any meaningfull help, but hope that helps a little

and if they did, the debtors would be asking why they have, whats the catch? Fun this game;) Just a shame thats what it has ended up as, a sick game

Ok, after swapping a few PM's with James, and as a sign of good faith, I will retract part of the above post. The app is not ready to do what it claims, I still maintain that fact, but I see the potential, and I can see this ‘idea’ filling a ‘void’, but to present it as it is now still makes it dangerous. I Suggest it is, for now, presented as a ‘work in progress’ which to be fair is what James has hinted at from the start, but it is not a solution yet, it still has a long way to go. I am sorry this post is a bit vague, but what has been discussed is not for me to disclose, I hope you all respect my view here, what is said by PM needs both parties consent before it can be repeated on the open forum, but in the interest of openness and transparency, I have been working on a similar project, which is why I see this apps potential, but I also share the reservations of some of the other posts in this thread, which is one reason mine is still a project, and may stay that way. There are still a lot of unanswered questions besides the usefulness of the app, I just hope they can be addressed too.

Have you included some measures to make sure the user does not exceed the CFS? if not, your wasting your time, it will never be recognised by creditors, but more to the point, you wasting the time, and creating more stress for those that use it. But also, have you built in some safeguards to protect the user from under estimating there realistic financial needs? I already know the answer, and you know I do James This app IS dangerous, and pointless, as it does not contain the safeguards needed to give it credibility nor protect the user. Bank fodder, if this is of no benefit to the site financially, pull it now, even if it is, I would strongly urge you to pull it anyway, before it undermines the sites reputation. I expect this post to disappear, but don’t say you where not warned.

Sort of loses its menace the second time round, not that it had any the first time

Oh, and yes, i know where this is going, after the ruling at the end of last year, already figured that one out ;-)

Finaly got a reason to dust this of and update, and trust me, this is the iceing on the cake:rolleyes: Well, Brian must not have fancied it, but it looks like Moorcroft have lost the plot, after sending this in March last year I got another one of these yesterday. Just when you thought they could not make themselves look any dafter, they do

Or in HTML on my site, a link has been posted on another thread on CAG somewhere;) Have sent you a PM, im up to my neck in it too, so was a bit rushed, hope it makes some sense

first question - Why does it link to third parties, and who do you link too? To prepare an offer to creditors, you must first prepare a budget that allows for your reasonable domestic needs, then deivide whats left between your creditors fairly, the question is, as it is a fact people in debt lose focus on the true cost of living, how does your software make sure the user is being realistic? And what are those figures based on?

The Common financial statement (CFS) trigger figures are a totally different set of figures, and are used for the preparation of offers of reduced payment or DMP’s by the likes of CAB, CCCS etc. The figures are agreed to be the amount required to live on by most major banks and creditors, and should be accepted without question when a SOA or I&E is prepared using them. The trigger figures are not available to the general public, and are somewhat of a guarded secret, three guesses why that is. In reality, they mean very little, and don’t get accepted, nor stop the harassment as much as they should from what I have heard.

Must admit the thought crossed my mind more than once babybear while converting that spread sheet to html, but you can not realy look at it like that. The trouble with those figures are they are just a national average of what people spend for a given household unit, and include the use of credit, so are not that good a guide. Every OR's office will adjust them, up or down, for regional variations, but most importantly, what your allowed is not set in stone. Just a shame some OR examiners and potential BR's don’t realise that and treat that chart as the Holy Grail. The bottom line is the OR must allow a BR whatever his or her REASONABLE living expenses ARE for there given situation, if the BR can prove it costs more, then the OR must allow more, but equally if the OR can show the BR can live reasonably for less, they can allow less. It’s all how you, or they, define ‘Reasonable’ Of course, if the BR and OR can not agree on that point, it is referred back to the court for a judge to decide, and as we all know, that is a lottery to the personal view of the judge you get.

Strangly, the point my judge realised that, or should i say i pointd it out, is the point he decided to throw the case out, but then there where other factors, like them not showing up for the hearing, so he was already a bit miffed at them:p

Have you taken any steps to verify the claims of HC that a new or resurrection of the old order has been filed at court, and checked with the court that it has? By the way, is there any profit (equity) in the sale for you and the ex, in other words, is there any profit for HC to try a second time for a CO now. You have to ask is the timing fate, or have they been watching for your property going up for sale? May seem a bit of a stretch, but i do wonder in this modern age of information technology just what they can subscribe too to raise a flag, if you see what i mean Edit- crossed with your reply, but see we are now on the same wavelength

You say the application was discharged, yet it appears that HC now seem to be claiming otherwise, yet you have no clarification from any source. Does that not classify as odd? Sorry if my posts came across the wrong way, maybe i should have been more specific, I do not doubt you, more the claims of HC, but there is nothing concrete…..yet

While i do not wish to imply they are doing so in this case, as i have no basis to say they are, i do have personal experience of HC fabricating documents, and basically lying to suite there goals, in the form of a fabricated witness statement, a point noticed by the judge in my case, and was the deciding factor to him throwing the case out. While i am not sure if that may be the case here, your posts on events do seem odd. All i would say, until you or your ex get notification from the land registry a CO of any form has been lodged, or official paperwork from the court implying it has been, i would treat any communications from HC with caution

Trust me, it is better i keep my thoughts to myself, if i am wrong i would be doing you a disservice, and if so you have my apologies, but if i am right you will already know my thoughts. A charging order can not be past too the new owners, if the sale goes thru without objection, even if a charging order was in place, that is the fault of the holder of the charge

Sorry to jump in at the end f the thread, but see my case here re forged DN, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/152198-can-anyone-tell-me.html Not sure if yous was from CL or GE, but they are definatly forgeing docs under the name of GE, they can not even get the postcode of GE's registered office correct. Not only that they supplied a totaly differant set of T&C's, claiming they where a 'reconstruction' of the origanals, shame the paragraph numbers did not match the allledged front page;)

That is a strange, very carefully worded post, from a new poster, i would be intrested to hear the legal argumant to how a CO could be filed against the new owners of the property, while i am the first to admit, property is not my strong point, i know enough people that would argue that point;) If the CO is not final, and the sale goes thrue, CL/HC have yet again screwed up, i dont see how that is possible to hold the new owners liable:???: I will keep further comments to myself, for now:cool:

michris from MSE i presume? have i got the right thread? In short they are taking a gamble you have equity in the property and you are entitled to a beneficial interest of said equity. That basically means if your house is worth 200k, and the outstanding mortgage and any debt secured on the property is less, you can be seen to have money in the property, for arguments sake, lets say after the mortgage and any secured debt is settled, that amount is 50k, you will be perceived to have a beneficial interest of 25k, unless the situation donates otherwise and it can be argued your ‘share’ is higher or lower, but that gets complicated, so lets assume 50-50. If they follow through, that 25k will become an asset of your bankrupt estate, and will be realised by the Official receiver, firstly by offering your partner or a family member the chance to buy them out as it where, or forcing the property to be sold, the fact it is in joint names matters not, but your partner will get there share of the proceeds of the sale, after costs. If you have no equity in the property, then if they do follow through, any future beneficial interest can be bought back for the token sum of £1 plus legal fees, £250-500, if you have no other assets of value, or surplus income to warrant an income payment agreement/order, they get nothing out of making you bankrupt, and lose the £1000-1500 court and legal fees it costs to make someone bankrupt. So the risk here depends if you have equity in the property. I have to be honest, using a stat demand and then following through with a BR petition, is very heavy handed for such a small (relatively) debt. As has already been highlighted, you need to ascertain if the balance is valid, if after unlawful charges are deducted the outstanding sum is less than £750, they cannot petition for your bankruptcy, so contest the stat demand on the fact you believe the balance includes unlawful charges, if you can, issue an SAR to find out for sure. .

So pleased for you Skegleg, one less thing to worry about. Strange though, my OH got the same 'not in dispute as far as we a concerned' letter from cabot. Cabot a lowells are not connected are they, they seem to be useing the same wording and timing? I have bigger fish to play with, so not that bothered, but so glad your sorted

OK now we may have something to fight back with i think, need some confirmation here, i am a bit rusty at this, but you can not recieve a DN on an account that has already been terminated if i remember rightly, and a creditor can not demand the full sum unless a valid DN has been issued, and doing so is deemed as termination of the contract Bingo, GE demanded the full sum, which they can only do ,lawfully, after issueing a DN, if they did not issue a DN, by demanding the full ammount they terminated there own agreemant. Whichever it is, what exactly has CL issued a DN against, either way the agreemant has already been terminated, you cant issue a DN against it again, or after Am I right? wish_i_had_a_time_machine, i suggest you use the red triangle to bring this to the attention of the site team, it has a differant use on here to MSE;)