caledfwlch
-
Posts
1,922 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by caledfwlch
-
I have been here since 2006 too! First found the site when looking for help to deal with an old debt Capquest had bought. Then a few months later, I had all the fun with Welcome Finance, phoning relations and threatening to break their windows over partners debt, stuff like that.
-
It is a ludicrous offence and should be challenged in the Supreme Court, and if necessary the EU Human Rights one, it is a ridiculous thing to exist, to legally punish an innocent person for protecting their property which an EA has no right to take.
-
Amen to that Brother! Common Purpose is a nasty little Trojan Virus infesting all sorts of places.
-
AFAIK they only use it at the DWP, with a note to state client is homeless, so dont post email unless for example a social worker's office is available as a "care of"address for letters. It would not be used for anything else, such as ordering from Amazon!
-
Joint Enterprise might be a good one, since Conviction carries a Sentence as high as if not higher than what the person who actually comitted the offence gets! That Woman in London, possibly a Social Worker or similar Professional - the Met are desperately trying to get her convicted of Joint Enterprise, because she attended an iirc housing related protest, and a couple of protesters put stickers on windows - Plod have no idea who did this, so instead are going after people like this woman under JE, even though she likely does not even know who they are.
-
In the Derby article, the LA involved appear as usual to have fought the Landlord's claim due to reasons he was not claiming. Nowhere does the Landlord appear to say he doesn't believe the EA should have visited, his claim was based on the fact the EA threatened to remove 3rd party goods. It's disgraceful that LA's are wasting tax payers money fighting when they are clearly in the wrong.
-
AFAIK it's not an offence to "hide" assets from an EA, unless he has levied upon them, and the debtor then removes and hides those assets. All the TCOGA has done is remove the situation where an EA can be at the front door and a friend or family member at the back door, selling any levyable assets to someone else. The Court Warrant now means that Assets cannot be sold or transferred as soon as the Warrant is live, but it does not oblige a debtor to inform an EA as to the location of their assets. Some Government Organisations such as the DWP use non residential addresses, including sometimes iirc Park Benches as a "residential address" for clients, such as homeless people. If a person subject to a CCJ was using a Mailbox, and that is how the LBA etc was issued by the Plaintiff, the Debtor is again not committing any offence, it would be up to the Plaintiff and his Agents, whether EA's, HCEO's or debt collectors to try and get a "real" address. One problem I have noticed is that people who are the subject of EA action, but are now homeless, have used a Care Of address, using a family members, and of course the EA's then assume they live at that property and are keen to get in and levy, so a Mailbox seems a much more sensible arrangement since it does not put your relations or friends at risk.
-
I would say that Email address, like phone number/home address comes under "fair usage" as the LA can give out the others for debt collection. I wouldn't have thought though that a message sent by Email which triggers the beginning of legal proceedings, such as X days to pay or we begin enforcement would be legal though for precisely the reasons BN mentions. I don't see that an emailed Letter before Action, or emailed letter from a Court stating legal action was beginning for example would be valid, unless at the very least the Email had a trigger which if the user allows it, will automatically message the sender to state the email has been read. Use and access of Email is simply not widespread enough - equally a legal notice sent via Whatsapp or Blackberry Messenger for example should not be valid, since many people are not signed up to either service, or use old non smart phones. I wouldn't have thought SMS Texts could be considered valid either - all the sender can get is proof of sending, not proof of the debtor/defendant receiving.
-
It's a bit of a random thing to have come up with though. I can see "attempted to force their way in" but "we will get the police and they will arrest you" is a bit less random, and not easy to mistake, whilst one persons attempt to force way in, is another persons tried to stop door being closed. Police coming to arrest you and let us in is highly specific, esp coming from a company known to do this, and thus her mother discovering this page when googling if its true..... I am sure the CEO is on record. They always cover themselves, but thats a very different thing to what staff might be trained to say behind closed doors. Hence why undercover journalists get so much dirt, the CEO has always covered his base, its often the training shown to be where the rot begins, with or without CEO's knowledge, though he isn't very good if he doesnt sneak people in to do quality control.
-
It looks like main Email for them is customer.services@bayv.co.uk might be worth trying info@bayv.co.uk complaints@@bayv.co.uk There are 2 email addresses for their 2 "press officers" available, but they are outsourced from a PR company called GKStrategy, not internal But if you wanted to, you or any reader have a choice of Ned ned@gkstrategy.com or John john@gkstrategy.com This is the board, including their CEO: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=11072122 its always possible that Graham.Clarke@bayv.co.uk might work, that being the CEO. I can't tell if its valid, as their server blocks email verification, but you can cc it in, if it is wrong you will just get an email back saying "invalid or wrong address" I would also point out that the Last "Repo Man" to be exposed to the Press, is no longer a Repo Man, and his firm is gone. Though it was mainly due to him being such an idiot, he allowed a C4 team to follow him around breaking the law, or "being firm but fair" as he called the various assaults, threats of assaults and thefts seen on screen. It especially, I imagine alarmed the companies he was working for, even the less reputable ones, to discover he is a convicted criminal with a violent reputation, who's wife was in prison on multiple joint offences, having taken the blame, presumably as repo work was a higher earner, whilst defrauding using car clamping not so much, who travelled around with violent convicted criminals under their name. And the ultimate irony is when Bailiff's visited his "frail elderly" mother's home just like some of the frail elderly people he would attack and take cars from, he didn't see the funny side, even though unlike him, they had court warrants. He had the stupidity to put it on youtube, given the threats of violence, from a man known to be a violent criminal, I cant remember if he actually uses violence on film, I would hapilly tell the EA's involved the link, so they can press charges.
-
Do you really think Head Office care? it's likely in their training! too widespread to be anything but. Best bet is to go to the Press, or send an email to Head Office, stating whats occured, listing the email contact details of the many newspapers your going to be sending the story too, complete with photo's of terrified single mum and adorable, but terrified child, unless they have a solution in the next 3 days. Like forgetting the debt, and sending a 42" tv as compensation for distress, as the distress to their reputation and business likely to be caused is going to be far more expensive, especially when people began saying hang on, this happened to me and begin reporting it to Police, and people who have HAD the police believe the rubbish and force entry contact professional standards, and report their force, and the police in turn, who will have the incidents in their notebooks, unless they knew they were behaving illegally, easily proven, as a page may be missing from their notebook at the time, but their equipment and vehicles has GPS Tracking showing where they were ..... so the Police start arresting the companies staff for misleading police officers, misrepresenting themselves as Bailiffs (I bet thats what coppers will claim they did, whatever notebook says" If they have any sense, your daughter will have a new tv, if not, they wont be able to pass it off as a 1 off incident as all the victims will begin contacting the press, ask the press to ask for them to do so..... I imagine the reason forces have began introducing GPS tracking is less for safety of officers and more about catching them up to no good, they can't pull the "no guv, we didnt attend X address and beat up Mr Jones" and when car GPS is checked, it "malfunctioned" at the appropriate time. And of course, skiving off etc.
-
Forcing someone who is clearly ill and not currently in the right mind to give information, possibly to have even taken it from her handbag, taking advantage of her condition, rather than calling an ambulance, and prioritising shoplifting or alledged shoplifting over her immediate health - if she was suffering from a massive blood sugar level drop, and it passed a certain level she would have collapsed, and the wait for an ambulance, being called from that point, rather than when staff realised she was unwell, could make a massive difference to the outcome of the crash. If this is what happened, at the very least an investigation by the shop HQ into what happened, and potentially a written apology. You say no staff would fit her up? I have seen plenty of threads on here where innocent people have been accused of shoplifting, forced to give their details, then received an RLP letter, so it's not like it doesn't happen.
-
It is a tool that is being misused, and often very unfairly. The only checks that should be done, or need to be done, are issues involving Child Abuse and Fraud/Theft. A School or any organisation that works with children absolutely needs to know if a potential candidate has been convicted of some sort of Child Abuse, whether it was neglect of their own kids, sexual abuse, a conviction for viewing child pornography etc A bank, or any business that handles cash would need to know if a candidate has a history of Fraud/Theft of money. But neither employers need to know if the candidate stole a bike when they were 11, kids do stupid things, and Checks should only go back to the age of 16 or 18. Equally, Mcdonalds or the above don't need to know that in your early 20's you had a problem with drug or alcohol addiction, which led to several convictions, for stuff like drunk and disorderly, Possession of Drugs etc, if you are now well free of them and have sorted your life out.
-
Is that a newer addition? As I am sure when the CRB checks came out originally, there was no way to challenge them?
-
I thought the checks would come back as "safe to work with children" or "not safe" and so on. The "Chief Constable Notes" are an absolutely horrific component of the CRB Checks, unless it has been removed. Basically, a Chief Constable can put a note on, which will cause you to fail every level of check iirc, as a CC Note has the effect of one is at the highest level, equivalent to Child Abuse, Murder and major Drug Dealing for example. Even better, the CC Is able to put these notes in even when the claims in his notes have absolutely no evidence, and it is impossible to challenge a CC Note, as no process was created to do so. So, the CC might put a note in saying "I believe that Charles Windsor is involved at a very high level in the distribution of drugs and weapons" just because he or a constable suspects thats the case, but cannot find any evidence. I seem to recall that one CC a few years ago put a fraudulent note on his Neighbours file, as they were having a boundary dispute or they had fallen out in some way.
-
Ahh thanks! I think it did vanish for a while, as the link to its hosting location changed, but I uploaded it earlier, rather than linking. Saying that, I cannot see it on any of my posts, I must have accidently changed a personal setting on how the forum is viewed somewhere.
-
Incidently, have Signature's been turned off by the Forum? My signature is showing on my profile, but not on my Posts?
-
Maybe we should all put a complaint in!!
-
Aren't Welcome "ok" to deal with these days anyway? I and an ex had loans with them, thankfully both statute barred now (serious problems and shenanigans with them at time of default, including their local staff masquerading as Orange Mobile Theft Unit (due to their behaviour ex would not answer her phone, I would for her) West Yorkshire Police Fraud Unit (I kid you not!!!) Bailiffs, they telephoned both of our parents threatening to smash parents windows unless we paid, they contacted the employer I was being made redundant from who refused to confirm I was being made redundant due to data protection, as they should have, so they pretended to be calling from the County court, attempting to trick HR into pay them either my monthly wage of my redundancy payment, claiming to have attachments of earnings, 3rd party debt orders, you name it, the HR Manager at that company was an absolute star though, and she really enjoyed playing their games - the only regret was that HR's phonelines werent recorded, we would have had Welcome in serious, and I mean SERIOUS trouble, criminal and civil. So me and my ex decided to screw them, we werent going to pay a penny, after all that once we got reemployed. But I did get letters, one of the Ombudsmen had pretty much taken over the running of Welcome after that mass fraud by managers misreporting the true state of finances to the shareholders etc - and I noticed, within weeks of that happening my outstanding debt on my credit file had reduced massively - I owed £2000 but Welcome added literally £12000 in fees!!! Yep, twelve thousand pounds, fees! And that all vanished.
-
Housemate moved to Australia and left debt
caledfwlch replied to alexmccabe's topic in General Debt Issues
No they don't in many ways US Citizens have more protections from Debt Collectors than in the UK - an unusual thing, Debt Collectors do not visit, for a very specific reason! "Hi, mr Jones, I am from Lowell Fin BANG BANG" "Sorry officer, thought he was a burglar, and just happened to have my assault rifle out" "fair enough Mr Jones, have a nice day" What you have seen are Repo Men, something quite different, and have you noticed that they always do it as quickly as possible, and hope to god the Debtor does not see them? Again, because they have little defence from being shot, US citizens have much stronger property rights - the law does not ban Repo Men from existing, but afaik it doesn't give them any special protections at all, its tresspass, and its generally ok to gun down tresspassers over there if you "feared for your life" and let's be honest, looking at the people doing the Repo work, you wouldn't assume they are Mormons, you would assume they are burglarls, or criminals of some sort, something backed up by the fact they generally do have long criminal records, its not the employment choice of normal, law abiding people for obvious reasons. It is why home evictions are carried out by specially employed members of Police and Sheriff's Departments, as gunning down a uniformed Law Officer IS an offence. -
I was under the impression that if you reclaim PPI, its up to you whether the money goes towards outstanding debt or to your bank account, ie, it's your choice, not theirs.
-
The possibility that staff members have taken advantage of someone who was clearly ill, and until proof is provided, may not have even committed an offence is worth investigating! For example, they may have seen she was unwell and decided to "fit her up" with shoplifting, get her details, send RLP etc on the case and hit targets, hope to make some cash.
-
Just be very careful then, no problem with them trying her at her workplace, within reason - but if they start threatening to remove business goods etc, and she is on the ball with her rights, or has CCTV, you could be opening yourself up for an expensive learning curve, especially if they actually did go and remove goods, and you get hit with a claim for stuff like loss of business. I would make it clear on all contact with the enforcement firm that the debt is personal, not business, and that her business goods have nothing to do with is, so if something does go wrong, you have a cause of action against the Bailiffs, rather than being left out of pocket by their actions, as obviously, you will be the last person to figure in their minds, their priority from the moment it is given to them, will to be to get their fees. It might be worth putting a thread in the Bailiff section. There are worst case scenarios should a less reputable firm do the visit at a workplace, and obviously that is not what you need. If for example there is a car parked there, owned by someone else, but they take it, you are opening yourself to all sorts of potential problems. As this is not a home address, but a workplace, I honestly think there are a lot of dangers in the approach for you. I doubt for example if a work address, the bailiffs letter could be classed as properly served. Is it County Court Bailiff's you used? They often work just 9-5, so may have missed her, a better option might be to upgrade it to HCEO and have them visit in the evening or early morning. One of your queries is can a warrant of control be issued at her workplace - the answer is no, this is a personal debt, so nothing in the workplace would be controllable, the goods belong to someone/thing else, not the Debtor. Some of your earlier advice is based on the mistaken belief, before you clarified, that this was a Debt against the company, or the director as director of the company.
-
Maybe, they were armed with the weapon the Freemen fear most of all!! A correct interpretation of the Law!
-
I don't know if this was mentioned elsewhere, but Tom Crawford was found not guilty of assaulting a police officer when it finally got to Court. The judge actually lambasted Police for being too aggressive and or violent towards HIM"" Nice to see one that doesn't automatically assume that whatever the Police say is correct, regardless of lack of, or other evidence.
