Very large debt help

Hariba

They already know my situation with not working though so they must be confident that they can force a house sale or get my partner to pay it. Or else surely they would have given me an offer by now to pay a reduced sum. 

fatbelly

You're thinking more logically that they are.

There's a feeling in the debt collection industry that, if you put enough pressure on people, they'll pay up.

Just go with the process for now.

Hariba

fatbelly said:

I'm not clear whether National Debtline were suggesting an informal break, which I don't think would be accepted, or formal Breathing Space, which they would have to apply for.

As the court process grinds so slowly anyway I'm not sure what would be achieved by the latter, except for a lot more paperwork. It's just the one issue.

I think the law Centre is your best bet. Hope they reply soon.

What you need to bear in mind is that they can't get blood out of a stone.

She said it was to ask them to put a hold on the account whilst I look into options for dealing with this. 

Hariba

so national debt line have now said the best way would be to offer to pay a full and final settlement as a lump sum. She said to start off lower so I can increase if they reject it and to send a budget sheet along with this. As there is no reply form she has directed me to a justice.gov website to edit one from there. But obviously they won’t accept what I can offer. I’m really worried about all the fees being added on with going to court. 

sourcrates

Hariba said:

They already know my situation with not working though so they must be confident that they can force a house sale or get my partner to pay it. Or else surely they would have given me an offer by now to pay a reduced sum. 

No, neither option actually, these things are 90% bluff, 10% luck.

They won`t be able to force a house sale as you are a joint owner, and no one else can be made liable for your debts but you.
Orders for sale, are so rare now, that they are no longer officially recorded, that`s how few there are granted each year.


They are aware you have no income, so are trying to scare you by intimating the house could be at risk.

Fatbelly has already covered this previously, most companies that go to court fly by the seat of their pants and hope the other side caves in first, seriously, that is the truth, you would not believe the cases that go to court with little or no evidence whatsoever. 

By the way, I would not make an offer of payment if you have no income, you should not volunteer to pay this from your partners income, I doubt the judge would allow that to be fair.

Also the fee`s won`t add up to much at this stage.

Hariba

sourcrates said:

By the way, I would not make an offer of payment if you have no income, you should not volunteer to pay this from your partners income, I doubt the judge would allow that to be fair.

Also the fee`s won`t add up to much at this stage.

Thank you. It’s part 8 proceedings that they are quoting for costs. I’ve googled this but don’t really understand the implications of it. 

They say in order to keep costs down, it would help if I made an early admission regarding legal liability (does that mean own up to it?),
and commit now to take part in ADR (either on an open or without prejudice basis - what does that mean?)

I’m finding this so stressful, it’s very hard to keep a clear head.

sourcrates

Basically they want you say "its a fair cop guv" and admit liability.

Now I'm not too sure what this debt is for exactly, so I don`t know how you intend to plead, this will be your decision based on legal advice, and the facts of the case.

As you don`t have any real income, or recoverable assets, I'm unsure what the claimant is trying to do here.

Even with a judgement and c/o restriction in their favour, it doesn't bring them any closer to a pay out.

As fatbelly commented in an earlier post, they can`t get blood out of a stone, they can have all the judgements and enforcement action in the world, if there is no money, its all a bit pointless.

Hariba

One other thing I don’t understand and I’m not sure if this is common practice…but the letter says if I intend to dispute any of the claim, I am required to disclose any documents or evidence. But of course I’ve already disclosed everything when dealing with this through the ombudsman so I’m not sure why I would need to do this again as they’ve already had everything. It’s not like they don’t already know my arguments and have seen all the evidence to back up my points. I thought I would only have to disclose evidence again if I am sent court papers?