This firm is a nightmare. I had paid in full but suggest you contact your bank for assistence got my money back in full thanks to advice on here. My bank wasn't helpful to begin with but after I was persistent they were very helpful. Don't want to reveal too much on this site but I would suggest you call them today, explain the situation re taking the D/D wrong date etc. Just hope your bank is my bank. Believe they are monitoring this company. Contact the Insurance Ombudsman (financial services ombudsman) they told me to ring the insurance company, name will be on your cover note, they were very helpful. :-xOh and the latest last week was that One Call rang me agreeing to remove the £49.50 but the balance of approx £30+ had to be paid because the insurers insisted! The insurance company were the ones that had contacted One Call on my behalf to tell them to refund me in full. They were not impressed by One Call and the lady had said that after an hours debate with them she now had a headache. One Call if you are reading this "I have my money all of it and the bank are monitoring any attempt to take money from my account!":thumb: Please let me know how you get on. They are sure to wind you up so let off steam on here. TAG

:-DThanks so much for your help crem. It was useful and acted upon immediately. Bank a little difficult but eventually convinced them to request a charge back which was a really good thing because the next day the "cancellation form arrived (by 2nd class post)Required a signature to the amount refunded being now nearly £80 less than paid. (policy £201) Made the call to "One Call", who should definately not use that name, more hair loss. Why did I bother! One Call- "The charge is being made because your car has been on cover since 5 January". Me- "No, you know that is untrue". One Call- "You havn't cancelled the policy". Me- "I most definately have". One Call "No you have not attempted to cancel your policy". Me- (Sorry folks completely lost control) "You stupid, stupid girl. Why am I reading from a cancellation form that I obtained from One Call by informing them that I wanted to cancel. I have been in touch with the Ombudsman who noted my desire to cancel days ago". rant One Call "i will hang up if you continue to be abusive". Me- "Don't care, but be warned I am not paying you any money for being negligent and telling me to sign a form that was inaccurate and a down right lie". One Call "Your car has been on cover since the 5 January". Me- "That is a bare faced lie because the insurers rang you and informed you that the car had never been on cover. The insurers advised you to refund in full". One Call "The records show that your car is still on cover with us". Me- "Enough! I'm contacting the Ombudsman". I got back to my Bank who immediately put me through to the fraud department. Thank God for a logical lady who understood and said that a full refund was in my account and advised me how to respond if there is an attempt to recover all or part of the payment within the next 60 days". The lady was so kind and said that I had probably helped stop thsi firm from continue to act in this manner with other customers. This was all down to crem who gave me the advice. If any One Call employees out there read this please note that I will go to Court if this nonsense continues and I will request costs for my time in trying to sort this out. Advice to all Caggers think twice before using this firm you'll definately be making more than ONE CALL. TAG

Have looked for anything posted on this company couldn't find it so posted here. I recently took out a car insurance with this company using a comparitive site. Nightmare! Purchased a car with arranged seven day insurance cover. 30th Dec-5th Jan. Looking for cover from 6th I received my proposal form from One Call Insurance which stated that although it was noted that I had another vehicle that I didn't have another insurance. Called them, informed of the inaccuracy "that's fine, no problem just sign". I said, "Don't sign anything that's not correct". They said, "so you want it altered". You'll have to phone another department, can't put you through". Not happy. Next day full payment taken from my account. I havn't signed the proposal form or produced any required documentation. Phone again, this was a repetition of earlier conversation so said, "Cancel please". Ignored. NIGHTMARE, NIGHTMARE, NIGHTMARE!!!! Check the website for cancellation procedure. 14 day cooling off but will lose £49.00 for the paperwork. Have to telephone for form to cancel. Call first request Form, madness. One Call closed until Monday. Try sending an email. I was covered to drive the car as had a temporary 7 day cover note. Arranged insurance via RAC to continue from this date. Monday-phone One Call. Repeat of previous conversations. Form please, so you want to cancel, yes please. There willl be a £49.00 cancellation fee - I hold, phone goes dead. Phone Ombudsman noted complaint passing on to One Call suggest calling the insurer. Very helpful lady in fact wonderful lady. "I'll try and sort it out for you, ring you back". One hour later, "sorry, you were right, I've got a head ache. No sense at all. Tried explaining that they have never had you on cover. Now they want a copy of RAC from 5th. Told them temporary cover until 6th. Wouldn't listen. All you said was written on their computer but simply would not budge one inch". Well it looks like there is going to be a fight to get a full refund and I will of course now be claiming expenses. Any one else had this expeience, any tips welcomed. TAG

Sorry didn't realise that there were two different companies involved. So you have a first and second charge? Is this right? The ist mortgagee can sell under power of sale but this involves repossession proceedings. I'm not sure that what you plan is that easy to do. If there is a shortfall from this as you won't have control of the sale, the 1sr mortgagee will come after you for that, and any new property you owned would be at risk. The 2nd chargee will also be looking for their money. all not good for your credit and ever owning your own house again. Surely letting a better prospect. Depends on so much. could you rearrange your repayments? TAG

Could renting out the flat be an alternative? Seems you'll have an awful lot of debt to sort out and no home. Perhaps you are thinking housing benefit for the rent on your new home. could you extend your mortgage? TAG

I was so sorry to hear of your sad loss. Losing your Mum is such a great loss. Please accept my condolences and pass them on to your Dad and family. Take care of yourself you have been a wonderful son. Big hug TAG x

Thank you all for your replies They have defended and counterclaimed on the basis that there is still money outstanding and that if any money is proven to be owed they require a judgement that the money be used to pay the shortfall which is of course secured by the Charging Order for the whole amount. Is obtaining two judgements for the same debt an abuse of process? If it is proved that the undervalue was a considerable amount how does that effect the fact that a charging order for the wrong amount has been against property B?

Sorry you are a little confused which is understandable. The property repossessed was a business premises and was sold by the mortgagee at an undervalue. Claim now going through court for the sale at undervalue. The mortgagee is counterclaiming stating that any money that would be owed due to the proven undervalue sale would be used against the mortgage debt. However in order to do this the mortgagee will have to obtain a new order for the same debt. Is this an abuse of process?

This was business property and the other property the family home. But would you know if the mortgagee can defend an action for the sale at undervalue of the business having already obtained a money judgement for the whole amount by seeking another order to claim the undervalue balance.

Apologies for long title to this thread and if there are any other threads I can reference please send me in the right direction. Mortgagee obtained possession of property A and money judgement. Mortgagee obtained a charging order on property B before sale of property A. Shortfall not available until sale of property A but charging order for whole of indebtedness remains on property B. Is this normal? i.e. putting a charging order for the full amount of indebtedness prior to sale of repossessed property and what happens to the money obtained from the sale of the repossessed property? Can the mortgagee counterclaim and defend an action for sale at undervalue by claiming that if there was an undervalue that there should be an order that the balance owed to the mortgagor would be applied to the shortfall?

Hi all, need an update, now understand the abuse of process above. So money judgement obtained at time of repossession of property A, charging order for full amount, including costs, interest etc put against property B by mortgagee. Property A sold at undervalue two years later, claim brought against the mortgagee for the sale at undervalue. Can anyone confirm that it is an abuse of process to rely on any difference between the value obtained and the value that should have been obtained to be used against the indebtedness which remains secured against property B and if so point me to the reference at law. Don't ask for much do I? Apologies but there is no sense/logic to the current situation. TAG Also how long after a judgement can the costs be claimed. Also time limits on production of bill for the costs the mortgagee.

I thought that bailiffs were not supposed to attend the homes of persons in the vulnerable group.

Can't find a thread on this, if there is please indicate. Does anyone know what the situation is for a mortgagee when repossessing the home of a mortgagor who has mental health issues. Is the mortgagor considered to be in the vulnerable group?

Lovely to hear from you with such great news Tilly. Your family's efforts have been rewarded. Just hope that the pharmacist will now understand the trauma your family were put through. Hope that your grandson is well and your family too will find closure. The system takes so long and only too often people just give up or can'y be bothered. My very best wishes to you and your family. TAG X

Now that's a very interesting point. I accept that the fines are not written off but what about costs? I know of a case where the situation was considered and the result was permission would have to be sought for the costs, thought it was the fine too, but not sure of that. I was in the main referring to unpaid bills, rather than fines. Having had a little experience in that area any debt once your made bankrupt is added to the bankruptcy and the OR or trustee deals with it. so should the bankrupt be added to the list? TAG

I am so sorry to hear of your problems. I am very suprised that we are having so few responses to tomtubby's hard work. Does the legislation actually state that bankrupt persons are amongst the vulnerable? I accept that legislation allows for this but bailiffs are very slippery individuals and there can be no margin for error or "grey areas" for them to rely upon. I have already posted the fact that where there is no money what point is there in increasing cost by employing bailiffs? I'm beginning to be more convinced that bailiffs should only come from the court. But expect others to disagree. As for creditors responsibilities usually far from observing these reponsibilities they ignore them, the consequence of this should be that they are penalised and legally pursued for harrassment. Unfortunately past experience of bailiffs for complex legal issues has left me with nothing but disgust for these individuals. It is difficult to understand the mentality of a person who wants to collect debt. I read an article a few years ago about the day in the life of a bailiff will try and locate it and post link. I had had dealings with the bailiff mentioned. not a nice character!

I'd go with that, but do the vulnerable know they are on the vulnerable list? Still believe that the effect on children needs to be addressed. Does anyone have any figures for bailiffs attendance on employed compared with unemployed? Not that a bailiff should be attending the latter! What happens with repossessions if the home owner is in the vulnerable group?

Further to my earlier post. if we have to keep this archaic system I think the public should be notified by a leaflet which lists the vulnerable groups prior to any visit by a bailiff. That way maybe the vulnerable will know they are vulnerable! Are bailiffs trained in dealing with the public or do they simply enjoy throwing their weight around? Again if we have to put up with this archaic system more training in understanding human rights before a licence is issued. The whole concept of bailiffs seems to fly in the face of the Human Rights Act. Peaceful enjoyment and all that! P.S. THE WORD POTENTIAL MUST BE REMOVED. It's a bit like the use of "reasonable".

The mortgagee was warned not to cross the private land on several occasions in writing. A year after the repossession whilst executing a warrant for costs the bailiff brought the police who threatened the tenat of house B warning him to keep away. The bailiff then proceeded with the help of three removal vans to load the contents of the property, including a child's toys etc. When a solicitor was called to intervene they all jumped into their various vehicles and drove out again crossing property B. Having done all this the Mortgagee is now stating lots of things including no access has affected the price. this after often driving across property B and making notes that the tenant in B was aggressive towards them!

Arn't there loads of cases where wives have signed without legal advice. I thought that financial institutions had to send you for seperate legal advice when obtaining your signature. This all seems a bit odd really with your husband asking you to sign at home. Who witnessed your signature?

I think that comment was uncalled for and not particularly helpful.

Think you need to read the thread again. The owner of the two properties lived in the property behind the access point. however there were other accesses available further down the road. The bailiffs cut a lock and walked across property B to gain access to property A. The gated access used was not the repossessed property. The owner of the two properties used several accesses to property A but did not grant a right of way to the Mortgagee or was it included in the title deeds as there being a right of way. The owner also did not use the access for twelve years. It was a simple question to begin with relating to a bailiff gaining access over a seperate property from that being repossessed and bye the bye no one is attempting to acheive anything because this is history.

So your suggestion is that it is fine to trespass in order to gain possession. Property B always said that there was no access and I really don't think that you are taking on board the issues. So you are suggesting that a bailiff may cross some one's garden to get into the house next door?

Sorry I had some wierd idea that a tenant or any home owner who was not involved in a repossession would be entitled to "peaceful" enjoyment and would not be subjected to about 5 individuals tramping around aided by the police.

Think you've lost the plot here;- The owner of the house to be repossessed (A)is also the owner of the house mortgaged to a DIFFERENT Buiding Society (B). B is tenanted by a seperate individual. There is an access to B which is in front of A, however there are accesses to A, so A is not land locked. If the Mortgagee of A takes possession what right would it have to cross B which is tenanted? I have found some reference which states that a mortgagee may cross once but never again. Mortgagee of A is now stating that there is no access to A, having repossessed it, so the property is devalued. The Mortgagee had agreed to the division several years before but there is no right or easement granted to anyone. Surely there is a reference someone of this problem.