Perfect homes

veyper1

No, only thing she received was a phone call to remind her she had missed a payment. This was about a 2 month ago, she asked them to take the arrears and the normal £15. That weekend, they took nothing. She explained that she would like them to do the same thing the next week. they took normal payment and not the debt. (acknowledged by the store as a problem with system)

She missed another 2 or so payments after that which is when i phoned up trying to broker a deal with them. She owed (according to them) £45 and the normal weeks payment. I stated her case she would pay £30 and normal payment and clear the debt up only 5 days later. This was swiftly refused as they needed full payment otherwise they were coming to get the goods on a hold until paid type of deal.

Tiddlywinks

How many more payments are left?

There is no point in swimming against the tide - if your GF is already struggling then it would be mad to keep on living like that just to keep a telly.

Send it back and put an end to the misery - and learn from it.

RobertoMoir

Apples2 wrote: »

Dragging it through the Courts doesn't bring a polite friendly bailiff, they are all knuckle dragging thugs, court appointed or not.

I know I'm a former bailiff, but still... *ahem*

Do agree with the general idea of avoiding most bailiffs being a good one though.

National_Debtline

veyper1 wrote: »

This was swiftly refused as they needed full payment otherwise they were coming to get the goods on a hold until paid type of deal.

They should not be trying to repossess any items unless the account has been defaulted and terminated. To do that you would first need to breach the contract as per the terms and conditions. They would then need to send you a default notice which gives you 14 days to bring the account up-to-date. It's only if you do not do this that the account actually default. It is is only at this point that they can repossess your items. Bear in mind, though, that this does NOT allow them in to your home.

Hope this helps!

David.

bigadaj

RobertoMoir wrote: »

I know I'm a former bailiff, but still... *ahem*

Do agree with the general idea of avoiding most bailiffs being a good one though.

So now an upstanding citizen then, knuckles well above the ground.

Free_Spirit_31

I used to work for this company and I can believe the tactics of the 'bailiff' I was sent out with one who threatened a customer by saying he will take items out of their house to the value of the arrears... not necessarily the item on hire purchase with this company! All he was thinking about his high commission and he would sulk like a child if a customer tells him that they will pay by a certain time, then he goes back to the customer for them not to answer the phone or the door!

There were times where he put me in sticky situations where there could have been an altercation! Within the week, I handed in my notice. They sent me to people's houses even though I had no ID card! I kept telling them I needed one but because the figures were down for the store, they needed as much manpower as possible!

I do not agree with the ethics of such a company. They target people on low incomes or on benefits, anyone walking off the street and the sales people would pounce on them, then it was my job (as well as two others) to collect the money... knowing full well they should not have been given the credit in the first place. There is no credit checks.

In regards to the continuous payments, there is a form/condition where your girlfiend allowed them to keep trying for the money from the provided debit card.

Clive_Woody

shaddisi23 wrote: »

The doorstep beneficiary sounds a bulge who brand to pretend that he has admiral that he doesn't. He has no appropriate to access the acreage and shouldn't accept been discussing your girlfriend's business with you. I'd accomplish a complaint to the ICE about the abstracts aegis affair and to the OFT for the collectors behavior.



As to the money they accept taken from her annual - unfortunately, she will accept accustomed them permission to do that if she took out the accounts and the coffer will not about-face the transaction as it was authorized. What she should accept done is annulled the Continuous Payment Authority with her bank, to stop the aggregation elimination her account.

Either Google Translate is having a melt down or this is :spam:

Apples2

Clive_Woody wrote: »

Either Google Translate is having a melt down or this is :spam:

Vote I the above both.