marmaris30
-
Posts
341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by marmaris30
-
There is no requirement for representation in any UK Court. However, the higher the Court or the more the complex the case, the more difficult it naturally becomes for an unqualified litigant-in-person. A Judge could privately recommend that a litigant-in-person seek representation beyond a certain point, maybe even warning them that lack of representation will bring no sympathy, but could never force it upon them.
-
Thanks DX for taking the time to research this in detail and clarify the answer to the question once and for all.
-
Clearly the proposal they have made to you is not appropriate, as there is no longer any debt to offset and it is therefore not a valid thing to do. As you know, I don't think there is any point in pursuing a refund to you personally, so I cannot advise you on how to proceed. However they would clearly rather keep all of the money rather than give it up to the Official Receiver (and hence your other former creditors) or, if I am wrong about all this, you in person. Nevertheless, if you like writing letters, there's probably no harm in writing back to them stating that there is no debt remaining because it was discharged by the bankruptcy order of whatever date, but equally they are not entitled to keep money that was illegitimately accumulated by them when the account was still active, and therefore their proposal is not in accordance with the law. They should therefore make a new proposal that doesn't involve offset. If you end up with a cheque then what you do with it would be on your own conscience!
-
Also your CRA file should now be completely empty, except for anything that has happened since, because all records older than 6 years are removed (although they might still be visible to you personally). All the pre-bankruptcy defaults should be gone, as should the bankruptcy itself, which gets recorded on the day it is declared, and hence over 6 years ago.
-
Maybe I've misunderstood your situation or the bankruptcy rules, but this is how I see it. Imagine that you hadn't paid £1000 in PPI premiums, but had saved that money in a savings account instead and then genuinely forgotten about it. You then went bankrupt, at which point all of your assets become the property of the Official Receiver. They sell/liquidate those assets and distribute the proceeds proportionately to your creditors. When discharged your previous debts disappeared. Not just unenforceable, but fully discharged by order of the court, so there is no longer anything to offset. The £1000 you had put in a savings account then turns up. It is not yours, because it should have been part of the bankruptcy estate. The bank holding the money would have no right to offset any pre-bankruptcy debts at the same bank, because those debts no longer exist. There is therefore only one option, which is to report the asset to the OR and facilitate their access to it, so it can be fairly distributed. So the PPI refund is not yours, but neither is it the creditor's. They have to redress the money to its rightful owner and suffer that loss, but that rightfull owner is all of your previous creditors, via the OR. There is therefore not much point in you doing anything, unless you just want to tidy up a loose end for the OR. I would welcome the views of a bankruptcy expert on my interpretation of the rules, but I just don't see how a pre-bankruptcy 'asset' can be returned to you post-discharge.
-
The bankruptcy debts are discharged by the BR process and therefore no longer legally exist. However, if the PPI you want refunded relates to accounts you included in the BR estate, then the refund would be an unrealised asset in that estate, and not yours. The original creditor and you would be obliged to inform the Official Receiver / Trustee, and it is unlikely that you would receive any benefit for your time and trouble spent reclaiming it. If the PPI to be refunded arose after you were discharged from BR, then you are fully entitled to have that back. Your previous creditors have no claim over it.
-
Does it mention any harbour byelaws (these are usually displayed somewhere on their own sign)?
-
What damages are you alleging? If loss of business then that would be hard to prove at the best of times, and certainly against a bailiff collecting taxes, which might not put you in the judge's favour from the outset.
-
Unfortunately, despite the assurance you say you were given by the conductor, the fact is that you travelled in a penalty fare zone without a ticket, and hence received a penalty fare in accordance with the rules. The ticket office man is off the hook because he warned you that it would be at the conductor's discretion, and he obviously used his discretion to sit in the cab, avoiding passengers. The best you could do would probably be to pay the penalty fare under protest (send by recorded delivery) and complain at the same time to the train company in question.
-
Student card Confiscated on bus service.
marmaris30 replied to Bruce__'s topic in Public transport (Trains, tubes and buses)
With no address and no actual fare evasion having taken place, probably nothing will happen, and you won't be able to do it again! -
If you lose your job then your IPA/IPO payments will reduce, possibly to zero, until you get another one. Even if you are expected to hand over some of your redundancy settlement, honesty is probably still the best policy.
-
@asknationwide Reclaiming CC charges / Debt Relief Order
marmaris30 replied to cynopterus's topic in Nationwide
Any refund would belong to the bankruptcy estate and not you, so not worth the bother. -
Reallymadwoman is absolutely right - you need a solicitor rather than considering taking this on yourself. There are quite a few firms with specialists in clinical negligence and they will generally offer you a free hour to discuss the basics.
-
Quite right - it is not your responsibility to call the police, because you're not the victim, they are. As PGH says, check your CRA files for any negative reporting, tell them to report their own problem to the police and that if they continue to harass you for something that is none of your business, you will report them to the OFT with a view to having their Consumer Credit Licence revoked. If they cannot produce evidence that you actually did receive the loan, they have no case in law and no business harassing you for money.
-
Personally I'd be pretty unimpressed at the scant information they have sent. If they cannot prove there was actually a contract in place then I don't see how they could get this past a judge. However, did you SAR the DCA or T-Mobile themselves? Also, has the DCA purchased this debt or are they still just T-Mobile's agent?
-
Good point - obviously if the IVA has not yet been agreed then the OP can just walk away and negotiate directly with each creditor. I'm not sure where you'd stand if you had started an IVA and terminated it without consent - I wouldn't be surprised if the IVA company tried to chase for costs if they hadn't yet been covered by the agreed payments, although I expect they recoup this first!
-
As long as the sale pays off the mortgage, you can set the price at whatever you like. However if you did subsequently go bankrupt then yes, the OR would ask about any property and other significant assets you had previously owned. If they found that they had been sold off to a family member for less than the fair market value then they would be able to have the transaction reversed. However, the fair market value for a quick cash sale is going to be a lot less than a standard sale with several months in the estate agent's window. A professional valuation would provide sufficient evidence to protect you against future problems.
-
I was under the impression that an IVA is a court-supervised and legally-binding agreement with your creditors, collectively managed by your trustee (the IVA company). Therefore you are not at liberty to approach them individually without effectively breaking the IVA, and that could cause bigger problems for you because you'd be back to square one, minus whatever you'd paid them via the IVA after fees. However if you have come into a lump sum then it is possible that this could be used to bring forward the end of the IVA, which would give you a clean sheet sooner. Check your IVA contract for anything about lump sums. I'd suggest discussing the idea indepenently before approaching your own trustee though.
-
Vehicle purchased from bankrupt individual.
marmaris30 replied to Stu1974's topic in Financial Legal Issues
Personally I think it is in your interest to cooperate with the investigators. They'd probably work out in the end that he had an expensive car he hadn't told them about. Since you've bought the car in good faith and have done nothing wrong, BIS should simply be concerned with extracting the money paid out of the seller, and you owe him no favours, nor them any money. He should have realised at the time that lying to the Official Receiver could be a serious offence. -
Rail Prosecution Letter
marmaris30 replied to dc11111's topic in Public transport (Trains, tubes and buses)
If you have proof that you could not physically have travelled on the date they are alleging, this is certainly worth telling them. I suppose they might accuse you of having obtained the ticket from someone else but without evidence, that is just speculation as far as a court would be concerned, and certainly outweighed by your documentary evidence of an alibi. -
I'm a regular train traveller, including on VT, sometimes in 1st when there is a good deal, and when I've seen passengers without valid tickets (such as off-peak on a peak train, wrong train for Advance, no railcard, class upgrade etc), those who have paid up have never been treated like criminals. Even the most officious conductor knows that treating customers like filth is not good business. For those who can't or won't pay the supplement, even for what the passenger might consider a technical breach (such as no credit card with online booking), it almost always spells trouble, and rightly so. Failure to pay demonstrates intent. So I don't think the story as reported doesn't accord with what I've seen in my own experience. Remember that journalists and politicians rank more or less equally badly in the public's opinion - they both have an axe to grind! I would add that Osborne ranks pretty low in my own opinion. But he should be and has been treated like any other passenger, as he paid his bill for an upgrade. If I was a government minister then I'd want to travel in 1st for the peace and quiet, and not having to climb over the obstacle course of luggage in corridors in Standard. Anyway I'll leave it at that because you are right to point out to forum visitors that people should ideally get on trains with the correct tickets - good advice for everyone!
-
Sorry but this isn't news, whether you like the man or not. Man gets on train not subject to penalty fares, buys upgrade from conductor, minds his own business. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
-
Yes you have to declare all offences within the last five years, or whatever period they ask about. If you don't and subsequently need to make a claim, they might ask to see the driver's licence. You wouldn't get much sympathy from them or the courts if you'd voided your policy by failing to answer their questions honestly, and that would be an expensive mistake.
-
I remember reading a couple of years ago that £2000 was considered the limit of 'reasonable' for people who need to keep a car to be able to continue working. They might have increased this but the values will be available somewhere. If you've had it a long time (i.e. you haven't deprived a creditor to pay for the car) and you genuinely need it for work then the worst outcome is that you'll be expected to buy it back for the difference. You might be able to argue that a battered old car isn't appropriate for your work.
-
Realistically, as long as you don't ever get into arrears, the mortgage lender is unlikely to find out because they'll probably never have any reason check. Obviously you'll need to have your statements sent to the property, if they have to post them at all. However, you run the small risk of your tenancies being deemed illegal if you end up in a dispute with your tenant, because you haven't obtained the permission of your lender to grant tenancies. I should think your tenants would have to call this into question though and even then, it would not be in the interests of justice for it to be declared void just for that reason. A particularly clued-up new tenant might ask to see the permission you don't have, and so would a proper agent. If they lender did find out then, in theory, they could claim damages based on your original mortgage contract. This might be based on any fees they would otherwise have charged, and any difference in interest rate. Whether they'd actually take you to court and win is anybody's guess (has anyone heard of this?).
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS