"Beat the Bailiffs" FB Group

chasingsolvency

I just feel like it's a cop out but I honestly can't see any other option, if I set up payment plans I'd never be debt free I've always worked so hard and for it to come to this is so upsetting. There's been so many reasons behind accumulating this debt but ultimately it's my own stupid fault and it's a bitter pill to swallow.

fatbelly

I think you need to go back to that soa and re-do it with bankruptcy in mind. Your income from your business is your profit after tax, divided by 12. If you haven't got an accountant helping you with your figures, you need one.

There is potentially more income, and expenditure, not yet showing there.

It seems clear that you can survive, but not afford much to your debts. Anything you can afford would not clear them in a reasonable period.

You have effectively no assets to protect. The car should be exempt.

All your debts are qualifying debts, provided HMRC have made a decision to recover the tax credit debt. (Realised today that it's a qualifying debt regardless in bankruptcy following a 2013 supreme court case)

Bankruptcy clears the decks and gives a fresh start.

National_Debtline

Hello chasingsolvency


I just wanted to add that you may find it useful to speak to Business Debtline www.businessdebtline.org if only to discuss the viability of your current business, both now and during/beyond any bankruptcy.


Dennis
@natdebtline

Browntoa

and again in reply

sourcrates wrote: »

Oh not again......holds head in hands..............


Hi,


No, there is no truth in it, its complete and utter rubbish and every case that has gone to court relying on such a defense has been thrown out, it all relies on freeman of the land type rubbish from a bygone age.

The sale of debts while morally reprehensible in most cases, is, perfectly legal, are you not aware of the consumer credit act ?

All regulated consumer borrowing in the UK is covered by it, on the sale of a debt the new owner acquires all rights and privileges of the original creditor.

Debt collectors must provide proof of liability when asked to do so, is no proof exists, usually in the form of a valid credit agreement, the debt cannot usually be enforced.

You do not need to send 3 letters and get laughed at, you normally send one, provit letter to anyone asking you to pay a debt you are not familiar with.


Creditors are not always as careful with their paperwork as they should be.

fatbelly

It's difficult to know where to start on that post. Every paragraph has errors in it and we haven't even seen the three letters yet. You might as well tell the creditor that you're from the planet Zog and Earth laws do not apply.

Stevespy

It is interesting that the only alternative advice on this thread is for someone to just go bankrupt. Costing £680, it seems you have to have money to declare you don't have money!

By simply rubbishing the alternative which is to challenge debt buyers with a "put up or shut" up series of letters asking them to prove they have legally purchased the debt.

It simply works on debt buyers who are trying it on. They BULK purchase debt to do not bother to get the CONTRACT and more importantly the DEED OF ASSIGNMENT. They simply believe nobody will ask them for these documents. When you do in the form of the THREE LETTERS, it has them stumped. They cannot forge a DEED and didn't bother to get one in the first place. The of course are obliged to adhere to the LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925. which did not past into law on the planet ZOG, it was passed in the UK and is relied on in many Court cases.

The simple fact is that the THREE LETTERS WORKS against debt buyers and should not be discounted because it is not understood. It gives a structured response to the demands of a debt buyer.

I can't post the link for the whole process here but here is what is asked for in Letter 1:

I wish to confirm that your claim against me is lawful. I therefore request that you provide evidence of my liability. I am happy to effect payment upon receipt of the following documents:

1) The original instrument of indebtedness, or proof that said instrument still exists.

2) Either of the following;

a) If this is a demand for payment under the Bill of Exchange Act 1882, copies of any bi-lateral or tri-lateral contracts which create obligations on each party to perform, including any delegated Instrument of Novation, signed and sealed in a tripartite contract and a signed invoice in accordance with said act OR

b) If this is an assignment of a legal thing in action under the Law of Property Act 1925, a Deed of Assignment (not a notice of assignment). This should be executed as a Deed, granted by the grantor or original creditor and endorsed by instrumentary witnesses in solemn form.

I have many examples of the success of the process on the BEAT THE BAILIFFS facebook group.

I also have examples of successes in COURT by using this process of challenging DEBT BUYERS. It is not suitable for use on all debt, but when a debt has been sold on, it is worth asking them HAVE YOU GOT THE PAPERWORK? In the majority of cases the simple answer is NO!

What the 3 letter does that is different from a single letter, is give the claimant chance to respond in substance by providing the documents. When they cannot or will not, the THREE LETTERS can be provided as evidence that the documents were requested on NUMEROUS occasions and not provided by the Claimant. A single letter would only show a single request. So after MULTIPLE requests for them to provide documents they should have, if they ever start court proceedings, a request under CPR can be made and the claimants failure to provide the documents highlighted to the court.

Sometimes asking the right questions is the solution

KeepOnKnitting

Fairly sure that bolding the odd word doesn't make what you are saying anything other than nonsense, but all the same...

sourcrates wrote: »

Oh not again......holds head in hands..............


Hi,


No, there is no truth in it, its complete and utter rubbish and every case that has gone to court relying on such a defense has been thrown out, it all relies on freeman of the land type rubbish from a bygone age.

The sale of debts while morally reprehensible in most cases, is, perfectly legal, are you not aware of the consumer credit act ?

All regulated consumer borrowing in the UK is covered by it, on the sale of a debt the new owner acquires all rights and privileges of the original creditor.

Debt collectors must provide proof of liability when asked to do so, is no proof exists, usually in the form of a valid credit agreement, the debt cannot usually be enforced.

You do not need to send 3 letters and get laughed at, you normally send one, provit letter to anyone asking you to pay a debt you are not familiar with.


Creditors are not always as careful with their paperwork as they should be.

Stevespy

It is pretty worrying when all you can do it say "no it doesn't work" when there are lots of people engaged in having these debts written off.

The simple fact is that if you DISPUTE the debt and ask for PROOF that it is owed, they are obliged to provide this PROOF.

When a debt has been purchased this involves having a DEED of ASSIGNMENT to show the debt has been transferred legally under the Law of Property Act 1925.

So rather than just advising BANKRUPTCY, the FIRST thing to do is dispute the debts and established if they are in fact owed or not.

With debt buyers this can be done with the THREE LETTER PROCESS. Whether you think it works or not, it puts the onus on them to PROVE the debt is owed.

Pretty basic stuff. You could of course do it in any number of letters, but the more the merrier. The more times you can demonstrate that you asked and were not given the proof, the more chance you have of winning if it ever comes to court.

So keep posting your "it doesn't work" nonsense. ANY CHALLENGE is better than rolling over and accepting a debt when there is no legal basis to back up the claim!

The cost of going bankrupt = £680
The cost of posting 3 letters = Well figure it out for yourself

You could of course write the 3 letters and see if they have got the documents to back up their claim before taking the spurious advice to go bankrupt for money that you don't even owe!

sourcrates

You are not entitled to see a deed of assignment, as it is a court document that contains personal details of other individuals, as well as the named debtor.

Cutting to the chase, it all boils down to been able the prove the debt, or not.

I am all for making debt collectors work for their money, and to a certain extent this process may confuse a creditor and buy the debtor some time, but as a permanent debt solution it falls short in so many ways.

A regulated debt solution gives the debtor much more piece of mind.

antrobus

The Three Letter process is a well known piece of FMOTL pseudo-legal gibberish.

It's best to take notice.