New DFW - Learn from my pain!

dadooronronrondadooronron

Thanks for that - I will keep chipping away! Ron

saltnvinegar

dadooronronrondadooronron wrote: »

Thanks for that - I will keep chipping away! Ron

Hi Ron

Thats all you can do. Ironically, just last week I get in the post letters from Wonga that were dated 6th, 7th and 9th September respectively!

Make yourself really keen to show you want to sort this out. Daily contact via email and letter in my experience is almost essential.

Good luck

SnV

saltnvinegar

Hi All

Just a quick update on my DMP. As some of you who have read the whole thread (!) may know the only creditor I have left who is not co-operating are AMEX/AIC.

Today I get a letter from them with a big WARNING

To summarise they state that I obviously have no intention of paying back my debt and advise that they may take further action resulting in Charging Order, Attachment of Earnings, Bailliffs taking my goods among other things.

Obviously the letters I have sent regards my DMP (with proof of income and I/E sheet and prorata offers to all my other creditors) doesn't demonstrate that I'm serious about paying back my debt!

Ho hum

Good old threat-o-grams, will keep plugging away!

SnV

saltnvinegar

Hi All

Today I have received an email from a company called 'Keyes Whitlock & Company' who tell me that my payday loan with Payday UK has been transferred to them.

Now I have already found out that this company is a trading name for MEM Capital of which Payday UK are also a trading name!

Hmmmmm!

So considering PDUK had accepted my DMP looks like they have decided to change their mind on this one, though will be interesting to see how this in house company of theirs will approach things.

Will keep you posted!

SnV

Consumerist

It seems to me that this is bordering on harassment.

If they want to play silly sods with you then why not play them at their own game; insist that they too provide proof of the debt.

saltnvinegar

Consumerist wrote: »

It seems to me that this is bordering on harassment.

If they want to play silly sods with you then why not play them at their own game; insist that they too provide proof of the debt.

Hi Consumerist

I guess you could think of it that way. To be honest its gone 'straight to file' (though not deleted).

Sending me an email is not really going to stand up in court as contact as I would argue:

a) Although its easy to prove its been sent its VERY difficult to prove its been received

b) They would have a hard job explaining why they are sending emails of a personal nature when they can have absolutely no verification that I hold the email account, nor that the emails cannot be read by someone else!

Regardless unless they can be bothered to write to me I won't be contacting them.

3 months into DMP now with 2 payments gone out and things are so much easier without the constant stress of robbing Peter to pay Paul just to meet minimum repayments.

My only regret is I should have done this a long time ago

Best

SnV

Consumerist

If this is their first attempt to contact you then it might be unwise to ignore it. They may want to convince a court that you have ignored attempts to contact you and, on that basis, send in the baliffs.

It might be sensible to reply to their email and advise them that you insist they contact you by letter and then send them a letter saying the same.

Although you may have right on your side, the bailiffs can cause a great deal of distress.

saltnvinegar

Consumerist wrote: »

If this is their first attempt to contact you then it might be unwise to ignore it. They may want to convince a court that you have ignored attempts to contact you and, on that basis, send in the baliffs.

It might be sensible to reply to their email and advise them that you insist they contact you by letter and then send them a letter saying the same.

Although you may have right on your side, the bailiffs can cause a great deal of distress.

Thanks C

I understand your concern thanks

However they would have a job with this because:

1) I have had no formal letter of a notice of assignment that the debt has been transferred to a DCA (because its not as its MEM's own company! This on its own is a breach of OFT guidelines as they are misrepresenting themselves).

2) I have plenty of letters sent to them recorded delivery as proof I have tried to contact MEM to come to an arrangement and their responses.

3) They cannot send in bailliffs without first taking me to court (unlikely as I have made offers of payment, and have been making payments), and then for me to default on that court order, when they would have to apply to the court again to appoint bailliffs

4) The best they can send without a court order would be a doorstep collector who would have less rights to access my property than the milkman and would get told politely to take a hike!

If they send me a letter, and a notice of assignment, then I'll respond

Best

SnV

Consumerist

saltnvinegar wrote: »

. . . They cannot send in bailliffs without first taking me to court (unlikely as I have made offers of payment, and have been making payments), and then for me to default on that court order, when they would have to apply to the court again to appoint bailliffs

Hi SnV,

My concern would be that they do not take YOU to court but they try to convince the court, in your absence, that they have received no response from you.

You seem fairly confident of your position, however, and perhaps I am being overly concerned about how devious they may be. Please keep us posted.

saltnvinegar

Consumerist wrote: »

Hi SnV,
My concern would be that they do not take YOU to court but they try to convince the court, in your absence, that they have received no response from you.

Thanks C, I totally understand where you're coming from.:)

In order for this to happen they would somehow have to serve papers to somewhere other than my home address. This would mean the payday loan company giving them an incorrect address.

As I have lived nowhere else before I took out the loan it would be mighty suspicious indeed if papers 'disappered'!

If this happened and they got a judgement in my absence I should still receive the judgement (or notice it on my credit file as I check it monthly) and would still have 28 days to pay it. This would then be contested and asked to be set aside as I hadn't received the papers to defend.

Consumerist wrote: »

perhaps I am being overly concerned about how devious they may be.

Unfortunately you're not! These tactics are not uncommon.

Best

SnV