Managed to get 2 defaults removed from my credit, just one CCJ to go... need some advice on strategy

TurningANewLeaf

xlnc99 wrote: »

Do you think its fair that a company or various companies give you a default, ccj etc etc when you have been made redundant out the blue and have to struggle to keep your life going

Or if you have personal circumstances around the time, medical conditions etc

these companies dont care. They only care bout money and ruining your credit file

i have no sympathy for them and applaud anyone fighting back to get their credit file amended

Thanks!


I'm willing to bet most people seeking advice will concede they've made mistakes, sometimes BIG mistakes, but they come on here EXACTLY because they acknowledge they've made mistakes and now want to turn things around. So they don't need this sea of judgmental, sanctimonious clowns, who seem to derive pleasure from other people's misery. And what's more, half these jokers don't even know what they're talking about! If ITV ever need a replacement for Jeremy Kyle, they could do worse than picking out one of these sneering fools.



I bet if I'd come on here BEFORE I'd got my defaults removed, the advice would have been "you didn't pay your water bills, so they were totally in their rights to issue those defaults, so pay up, you were in the wrong and forget about getting those defaults removed. You haven't got a prayer". If I'd got enough of those kind of negative comments, who knows, maybe I wouldn't have even tried.



There are better forums to get advice, where you don't have to put up with this sanctimonious BS. They might not have as much traffic, but at least you can get expert legal advice without this level of sneeriness!

macman

OP, sorry to rain on your parade, but court papers being sent to the wrong address is not in itself a reason for a set-aside. The papers simply have to be served to the debtor's last known address. If you moved and failed to update them with your new address, then the responsibility is yours.
I'm not clear if this applies in this instance or not.

boo_star

TurningANewLeaf wrote: »

Thanks!


I'm willing to bet most people seeking advice will concede they've made mistakes, sometimes BIG mistakes, but they come on here EXACTLY because they acknowledge they've made mistakes and now want to turn things around.

I'd respectfully disagree that most people in this specific subforum want to "turn things around." You do that by paying off your debts and keeping to your current contractual obligations. What most people are looking to do is rewrite history, asking or in some cases effectively blackmailing companies into reporting incorrect data about them to make their credit files look better. I understand the motivation, absolutely, but I strongly disagree that many people are really trying to turn things around in the way you suggest.

I bet if I'd come on here BEFORE I'd got my defaults removed, the advice would have been "you didn't pay your water bills, so they were totally in their rights to issue those defaults, so pay up, you were in the wrong and forget about getting those defaults removed. You haven't got a prayer". If I'd got enough of those kind of negative comments, who knows, maybe I wouldn't have even tried.

Absolutely, because that is the correct advice to give. Harass the company until they give up because you're wasting their time and money is not. It might work from time to time but it's not the "right" advice.

sassy_one

OP, instead of trying to wriggle out of your liabilities and debts, how about pulling your finger out and paying them.

You sound like a complete tool, getting two defaults removed on technicalities, and it's people like YOU who make costs rise for the rest of us.

I hope your set aside is rejected, you deserve to have that CCJ and it's a pity the utility companies didn't go for one too.

You never updated your address because you knew they'd find you, and I hope the judge sees that for what it is too. Invasion.


Stop screwing people over and pay what you owe troll.

Willing2Learn

sassy-one wrote: »

OP, instead of trying to wriggle out of your liabilities and debts, how about pulling your finger out and paying them.

You sound like a complete tool, getting two defaults removed on technicalities, and it's people like YOU who make costs rise for the rest of us.

I hope your set aside is rejected, you deserve to have that CCJ and it's a pity the utility companies didn't go for one too.

You never updated your address because you knew they'd find you, and I hope the judge sees that for what it is too. Invasion.


Stop screwing people over and pay what you owe troll.

Why do you think you have the right to pass judgement on the OP? You are the only one who is behaving like a troll!

[Deleted User]

Willing2Learn wrote: »

Why do you think you have the right to pass judgement on the OP? You are the only one who is behaving like a troll!

Because it’s most likely true.
And indeed it is.

OP knows the overdraft balance is owed yet chooses to not pay it willingly.

Willing2Learn

!!! wrote: »

OP knows the overdraft balance owed yet chooses to not pay it willingly.

I do not disagree with you. I was just annoyed with the way sassy-one passed judgement. If there is evidence that the bank acted unfairly and not in accordance with guidance, then the OP has the right to test whether the charges should be allowed to stand.

When the Ombudsman takes a look at the bank charges, I trust they will view the case objectively. With regard to the overdraft, the only important rules and guidance that the OP needs to be guided on, are whether:

• they were in genuine financial hardship
• the charges were disproportionate
• the account was stuck in a cycle of fees/charges from which they could not escape

[Deleted User]

Oh the bank have acted unfairly?

Nothing to do with OP willingly not paying off the O/D all these years or making contact with the bank to arrange a payment plan or explain their situation?

But that’s OK, because it was the bank that’s being unfair.

xlnc99

Willing2Learn wrote: »

"Is it fair?" you ask, if you are made redundant or have medical conditions? It is not the creditors fault if stuff happens 'out of the blue' to the debtor. A contract is a contract and the terms are usually pretty clear. When I was unable to pay, it was my fault. My health was irrelevant.

When I handed in my notice (of employment) back in 2008, due to deteriorating health, then the fact that I could not meet my contractual payments was not the fault of the creditors. I could have prepared for the unknown better. I am far better protected now as I have a 12-month financial buffer integrated into my monthly budget....

Thats my point, its not the creditors fault someone is made redundant or suffers some personal circumstances not allowing someone to pay their debt. So the creditors should show some sort of empathy if it happens.... but more often then not they dont. They just want their money. You are entering a contract but no-one can see the future, no-one knwos what happens.

IF you have the means to pay then yes 100% pay and if u dont then u deserve what you get. Thats not the point im trying to make

xlnc99

!!! wrote: »

Is it fair to the lender that you owe them money and think it can just be struck off?

It their fault you don't have savings or an emergency fund?

Nothing to do with being struck off, its about these companies showing sympathy or empathy. I dont buy the whole nonsense about they have to make money, They will still be making tons of money if they helped those in difficult circumstances. All nonsense.

As for an emergency fund, no-one can see the future. You may have a fund or you may not, not everyone can afford to have one. Even if you did, how long will that last.