67 views but not one answer

OH has a CCJ. OH offered to make payments but heard nothing. Last week someone from High Court Enforcement Ltd (I'll call them HCE) appeared at the house, OH was out at work. I refused to let him in. He left a letter making various threats and saying he'd be back "I will GAIN attend between 5 working days [italics written in by hand] and may remove goods even in your absence" and a yellow piece of paper with the registration number of my car written on it. OH contacted the claimant and as discussed and agreed wtih the creditor sent a fax to HCE offering to make monthly payments and asking for confirmation that there would be no further unsolicited visits from them. Today OH received a letter from HCE saying the offer of monthly payments has been forwarded to the claimants and that HCE will inform us of their decision shortly. It goes on to say that OH will incur a one off Payment Arrangement fee of £50. Is this correct? It then says "In the meantime, we require you to make the first payment immediately and continue to do so as per your offer unless we inform you otherwise..." Is it correct to start making payments BEFORE they have been agreed? Finally, and in my view most importantly the letter says "Should you offer be accepted, our Officer will be required to re-attend your premises to list assets to secure the debt on behalf of our Client. We will notify you in due course". Are we right in believing that they cannot make us let them in? I have downloaded a letter from the Bailiff advice site but they site also says (with regard to High Court Enforcement Officers) "Nearly always they will first insist that a Walking Possession order is signed". They may like to/try to "insist" but do they have any legal grounds to do so? OH actually wants to contest this CCJ but first wants to make sure that our possessions are safe (they are mostly mine, some left to me by my father and grandparents and I have few receipts because of the length of time I have owned them and how I came to own them).

Does anyone know of "High Court Enforcement Ltd"? I've looked them up on the link and there's nothing. I've looked up their "representative" and there's nothing. In the paperwork it says he is a "High Court Enforcement Officer" - what is that?

I hate to say this, and Clemma I'm very glad you're better, but it doesn't sound as if you've had swine flu to me as it normally lasts between 4 - 6 days. Sorry, but I think your doctor's made a PIG'S EAR of the diagnosis!

Ebay sending out emails asking people to sign a petition to: "Demand an end to unfair trade practices. eBay was built on a simple idea - that we could empower people by building a global trading platform where practically anyone could buy or sell practically anything. But that idea is now under threat from certain brand owners and manufacturers who are trying to turn back the clock and block the sale of their products on online marketplaces and other websites across the EU. Ultimately, what is at stake is the right of sellers to compete fairly in the wider online marketplace, and the right of buyers to be able to access the best possible deals from the widest possible selection of goods. Some of these brand owners argue that their objective is to prevent the sale of counterfeits on eBay. But thanks to our work with 31,000 other rights owners, only 0.15% of listings last year were detected or reported as potentially counterfeit. The real aim of these brands is to block the sale of all their products on our site - regardless of whether such items are new or second-hand, genuine or fake. It's not just luxury items that are affected, but also everyday items like children's toys, electronic equipment, lawnmowers and pushchairs. And if we want to prevent other brand owners from following suit, we need to act now." I might think about signing it if eBay puts its own house in order. They claim only 0.15% of listings were detected as potentially counterfeit - we've bought 21 things on eBay in the last 12 months - of which 4 or 5 have been fakes / copies / pirate (whatever name they chose to use). That's a lot higher percentage-wise than 0.15% and judging from conversations I've had with others we've had less problems than many!

OK, so I ask them to prove it was sent. What if the judge says "they don't have to do that. If they say they sent it then it must have arrived"? I've been looking at the Consumer Direct website and it goes on about how you need proof of posting if you want to make a claim for compensation. As does the Royal Mail website - is this sufficient evidence that some things do go missing and that the currently accepted guidelines regarding service of documents is wrong?

How can you prove something didn't arrive in the post? We think they've made the whole thing up and drawn up a "copy" for use in court. We don't think it was ever sent. I know the court always believes that if someone says it's been sent then it must have arrived but that is, as we all know, far from the truth. Our local council recently sent out tens of thousands of letters; about half never arrived. I recently sent a recorded delivery letter - according to the tracking service it never even left the post office I sent it from - it certainly never arrived. This "if it's been sent then it must have arrived" attitude is manifestly unfair - we all know that Royal Mail loses millions of letters every year. Any ideas anyone? Just adding an extract from Royal Mail's Terms & Conditions:- 7 Our responsibility to you and your responsibility to us Loss or damage If any item you have posted under this agreement is lost or damaged while it is with us, and you provide satisfactory proof that you posted it and we received it, we will pay you compensation for the item and its contents based on the actual loss you suffer.

I thought Julian Smith was brilliant - I think he'll go far... he's a very talented chap!

Yes, I'm sure I would - but I'm one of those who won't shop on the internet because they want to see/feel the product want to suport the High Street don't trust internet security for card details whatever or can't shop on the internet don't know how don't have internet access don't have credit/debit card etc I'm not trying to be difficult I just want a physical shop and not a virtual one.

Does anybody know where the heck I can get Typhoo's fruit tea? BTW it's called "fruit tea" but is really more of an "infusion" (as the French rightly call it) - I don't mean brown tea which still seems to be stocked just about everywhere. I used to get it from Tesco - but it's been replaced with Tesco's own-brand which IMHO is (a) utterly revolting and (b) doesn't have the particular flavour (blackcurrant) that we like. They don't stock it in Waitrose, Aldi or Lidl or my local grocer. I'm gasping for a cuppa - but can't find a stockist anywhere! Any ideas?

I'm really sorry to hear this Sod'em. My best wishes to you all and for Mrs Sod'em's speedy and full recovery. I've heard (but haven't tried it) that Bio Oil is very good at reducing the appearance of scars - hopefully Mrs Sod'em won't need it - it's available at most chemists, online etc. Regarding the police. They are useless. Make sure the pub keeps a copy of the cctv footage and get a copy for yourself - otherwise the police might lose it and you'd have no photographic evidence... Yes, I know it's an awful thing to say but believe me it happens, it's what happened to my OH... Once you've got copies of the cctv if the police still haven't got their thumbs out of their bottoms and their minds out of neutral I think you should get in touch with the local media - press, tv, radio whatever - and kick up one hell of a stink that they haven't even started making enquiries

Talk about jumping on the bandwagon - Gordon Brown says he's telephoned Simon Cowell and Piers Morgan to check that Susan Boyle's OK. Nice to know that he's sooooooo concerned about some game show contestant (yes she was good etc) but hasn't he got some rather more pressing problems to concentrate on at the moment? Personally I'd have thought that the banking frauds, expenses frauds, credit crisis, Euro and local elections on Thursday, calls for a general election, state of schools and NHS, huge budgetary deficit etc were a little more important than announcing to The Nation on breakfast tv that he'd had lengthy telephone conversations with Cowell and Morgan. Does he think this means he'll gain in popularity? My head is in my hands in despair.

Mashmallow, Here's the link to the Gurkha Justice page Gurkha Justice Campaign And here's what it says "At midday on 21st May, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made the announcement to the House of Commons that the Gurkha Justice Campaign have been fighting for for years. All ex-Gurkhas who have served more than 4 years in the British Army will have the right to settle in the UK if they wish. After such a long fight, with huge ups and downs, this is a superb announcement. We simply would not have won this fight without the massive, overwhelming support of all those who have supported our campaign. To the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed Gurkha Justice petitions, lobbied their MP, campaigned, attended rallies and marches - thank you so much to you all. This is your victory. It would not have happened without you. The Government has now responded to that campaign after court cases, votes in Parliament, a huge media campaign and, most importantly, massive public support. I am delighted, and humbled, at what has been achieved by our remarkable team. The whole campaign has been based on the belief that those who have fought and been prepared to die for our country should have the the right to live in our country. We owe them a debt of honour - a debt that will now be paid. " BB

Isn't it brilliant news? Thank you so much to all the Caggers who signed the Petition. I'm off to celebrate! bb

Make payments towards penalty charges? Why? The thing is - is this an LBA or what is it. OH says ignore it, it's just a frightener. I did ask some questions but they seem to have slipped through the net:- PARA 1: This is not true. No "reminders" have been received, only statements and letters saying "we've paid the cheque and are charging an exhorbitant amount for the privilege". PARA 2: Payment? £1 or the whole amount? Will a Lloyds TSB cheque do (ONLY JOKING!) PARA 3: What is a "satisfactory response"? And if it's LLoyds TSB's policy to lodge information about their customers what does this paragraph actually say? Don't they have to send out a default letter first? PARA 4: Hardly any incentive to pay is it is they're going to put a default notice on the file regardless of whether they're paid or not. Is that legal? This all seems like a very strange letter to me and extremely unclear. I thought these people were bound to send out straight-forward, easy to understand letters not garbled stuff like this.

Thank you citizenB. In answer to your questions:- It reads like an LBA to me too but I have not received a default notice or termination notice. Nothing of the sort. In fact when I went over my limit they sent me a new cheque book... I have had telephone calls but I refuse to give them any personal information over the telephone. I haven't started claiming back the charges yet but plan to do so next week. I have an authorised o/d with an unplanned bit on top. There were no charges during the planned (authorised) part of the o/d. I haven't worked it out yet but I don't think the majority of the unplanned o/d is made up of charges. The letter was dated this week and received the following day.

OK, finally got my head around that! On to the questions... PARA 1: This is not true. No "reminders" have been received, only statements and letters saying "we've paid the cheque and are charging an exhorbitant amount for the privilege". PARA 2: Payment? £1 or the whole amount? Will a Lloyds TSB cheque do (ONLY JOKING!) PARA 3: What is a "satisfactory response"? And if it's LLoyds TSB's policy to lodge information about their customers what does this paragraph actually say? Don't they have to send out a default letter first? PARA 4: Hardly any incentive to pay is it is they're going to put a default notice on the file regardless of whether they're paid or not. Is that legal? This all seems like a very strange letter to me and extremely unclear. I thought these people were bound to send out straight-forward, easy to understand letters not garbled stuff like this.

I did everything but, rather alarmingly, it only showed up as a file attachment and all the properties included personal information on the location of the file on my computer. How do I get the actual scanned document to show rather than a file attchment that other prople have to open to read?

You can't rep in Bear Garden.

Sounds like you should contact social services and environmental health. Have you seen the baby? Is this private or council accommodation - if council then surely you should report them to housing dept?

Many thanks for your help GuidoT BB:)

I've done "Go advanced" but there's nothing about "manage attachments" and at the very bottom of the page it says You may post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may edit your posts

Letter arrived recently from Sechari, Clark & Mitchell which, basically, makes some incorrect statements, contains some hard to follow statements, makes some apparently misleading statements etc. It seems to say that a default has been entered (even though no notice of default has been received) nor have any letters about overdraft - just the "we've just paid cheque no 123 so will be charging you an exorbitant amount for the privilege" letters and statements. Can someone please advise how to post it on here as I'd like to ask some question. Many thanks.

Sorted