Jacobs unfair charges
Comments
-
simon_the_poet wrote: »Attachments of earnings are considered to be something of a panacea for debt amongst some forums. I suspect because it represents a further opportunity to avoid addressing the debt.
They are not always the best option. They can represent a severe reduction in the debtors living standards, as he or she has to subsist on a reduced income for a substantial period.
If the debtor genuinely has no assets and cannot afford to repay, the bailiff will confirm this, and the debt will go back, any fees will die. Then the authority will have to find another remedy.
You cannot pick and chose which guidelines you would like the authority to follow on your behalf.
The authority has a legal right to enforce however they wish, and of course, we are not aware of all the circumstances which are relevant to the choice of enforcement power.
The OP has confirmed their takehome pay is around £200 per week. This would see an AOE of about £14 per week, much better than the £50 Jacobs are demanding, plus the fees will be removed.
How on earth would this be avoiding the debt? Perhaps you can explain such a false statement?0 -
The OP has confirmed their takehome pay is around £200 per week. This would see an AOE of about £14 per week, much better than the £50 Jacobs are demanding, plus the fees will be removed.
How on earth would this be avoiding the debt? Perhaps you can explain such a false statement?
A point wich various "advisers " often fail to take into consideration.
Perhaps the £14 is not an acceptable offer for the creditor.
There are two parties in this.
Also, I think I said avoiding confronting the debt.
Does it really need to be explained, how putting off the bailiff and getting the debt sent back for reconsideration puts off confronting the debt?
Of course, you do know that the bailiffs are following their employer's instructions?0 -
simon_the_poet wrote: »A point wich various "advisers " often fail to take into consideration.
Perhaps the £14 is not an acceptable offer for the creditor.
And entering into a punitive arrangement is not acceptable for the debtor, who you may remember we are supposed to be helping.Also, I think I said avoiding confronting the debt.
If you read your post you, and everyone else, can see what you put:
You are saying that by seeking an AOE a debtor is somehow avoiding the debt. Wonder if you'll ever explain this thinking?Attachments of earnings are considered to be something of a panacea for debt amongst some forums. I suspect because it represents a further opportunity to avoid addressing the debt.Does it really need to be explained, how putting off the bailiff and getting the debt sent back for reconsideration puts off confronting the debt?
How is it? It's trying to get the debt paid at a rate the OP can afford, plus getting the fees removed. Why are you so against that?0 -
I think you are becoming excited and the thread will end up ss one of your usual flame wars. I will leave you to your rant in peace.0
-
simon_the_poet wrote: »I think you are becoming excited and the thread will end up ss one of your usual flame wars. I will leave you to your rant in peace.
Thank God - we could do without your advice that benefits the council and the bailiff rather than the debtor. See ya.0 -
-
simon_the_poet wrote: »says it all, about your real motivations.
What that my advice is for the benefit of the debtor, trying to save them money. Indeed it is. Strange that you don't approve.0 -
The DCLG has many references about working positively with bill payers, ensuring they do not enter into punitive arrangements, and guidance on general interaction rather than simply giving it straight to to the bailiffs.
The OP needs to see whether the council considered an AOE order, and if not make a complaint. I don't know why the OP is being discouraged to take this route.
Not discouraging at all, merely pointing out that the Local Authority have done nothing wrong in respect of what has been posted. (Guidance does not equal legislation ).
The OP is free to ask the council whatever they wish, whenever they wish as equally as much as the council can say we've followed the relevant legislation so tough.
CraigI no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a specialist Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers with council tax disputes and valuation tribunals. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.0 -
Not discouraging at all, merely pointing out that the Local Authority have done nothing wrong in respect of what has been posted. (Guidance does not equal legislation ).
Yes Craig we know that, but it is a best practice guide from the Government and we should expect the council to abide by it. If they don't then it follows they are not acting in a way the Government expects.
We don't know if the authority has acted wrongly which is why the OP needs to establish whether the AOE option was disregarded. If the council have acted unreasonably then we should expect them to rectify it - we should never assume they have acted fairly.0 -
So in short the council may accept the debt back? I'm ok with paying £50pw I'm in a much better situation than last year, id rather the debt be paid sooner. It's just the charge Jacobs added they knew full well I had been paying. Yes it was a geunine mistake on my behalf not ringing to confirm but the letter just stated I needed to pay not ring to confirm. Is it just a case of accepting the charge?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards