Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

[maverick67]

Reading more and more on the forum it throws up different questions for me, I received a letter the other day that mention attachment to earnings and thought that would be interesting to see how that works as I am self employed.

So are there different rules for the self employed when it comes to debt collection?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

Reading more and more on the forum it throws up different questions for me, I received a letter the other day that mention attachment to earnings and thought that would be interesting to see how that works as I am self employed.

So are there different rules for the self employed when it comes to debt collection?

What sort of letter was this? Did it come from a DCA, threatening all sorts of things?

An attachment of earnings is one way of enforcing a CCJ, not a method of debt collection. :nono: Without a CCJ, there can be no attachment of earnings. Even with a CCJ, you'd have the opportunity to make an affordable repayment offer which would preclude the need to take things that far. If the debtor is not making payments towards an existing CCJ, the creditor can go back to the court to apply for an attachment of earnings, but this is only possible AFTER obtaining a CCJ.

Note that a creditor can't obtain an attachment of earnings if you are self-employed: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/englan...your_wages.htm :grin: :grin: :grin:

Your creditor can't apply for an attachment order if you're:

• self-employed
• unemployed
• in the army, airforce or navy
• in the merchant navy.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

Note that a creditor can't obtain an attachment of earnings if you are self-employed:

True, but they might be able to obtain a Third Party Debt Order.

As this doesn't seem to be Aktiv Krapital, perhaps you could start another thread on the debt parasites who sent that threat-o-gram?

[maverick67]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

It was Lowell's and I sent them a long reply stating OFT guidelines on debt recovery, if I have time later I will post snippets.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

True, but they might be able to obtain a Third Party Debt Order.

As this doesn't seem to be Aktiv Krapital, perhaps you could start another thread on the debt parasites who sent that threat-o-gram?

...but only if they obtained a CCJ first... :mmph:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

It was Lowell's and I sent them a long reply stating OFT guidelines on debt recovery, if I have time later I will post snippets.

Ah, THEM! We are all very fond of the Lowlife Leeds Losers here on LB... :rofl: :rofl: especially Cel, the site owner, who has set aside some over three dozen SDs issued by them!

You may want to look at this thread, dedicated to the Lovely Lowell: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ell+to+the+oft

[wales01man]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

Its an option for an AOE if a CCJ is granted perhaps Lowells did not know you were self employed or thought you were employed but not telling them?
To get an AOE they must first get a CCJ that costs them money and then apply for an AOE which again costs them money would guess well over a 100 making threats to do this before a CCJ is won seems to be a scare tactic most people would not want their employers to know about their debts a AOE will tell the employer that.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

Its an option for an AOE if a CCJ is granted perhaps Lowells did not know you were self employed or thought you were employed but not telling them?
To get an AOE they must first get a CCJ that costs them money and then apply for an AOE which again costs them money would guess well over a 100 making threats to do this before a CCJ is won seems to be a scare tactic most people would not want their employers to know about their debts a AOE will tell the employer that.

Looks like the Lowlifes are not the only ones to do that, the letter these guys sent really takes the biscuit: :mad2:

...especially when you consider this is for a storecard turned credit card without a new agreement, where there's no chance of getting a CCJ!

Out of the blue received the following letter from Rockwell this morning:

"We write regarding the above mentioned account.

...:blah::blah::blah:
We shall be grateful, therefore, if you will provide us with repayment of the outstanding sum of £10k++ within the next thirty days. If you are unable to afford full repayment at this time please provide us with your firm and realistic repayment proposals together with details of your income, expenditure, assets and liabilities. Please find enclosed a financial statement for you to complete and return to us within the above mentioned thirty day period."

The silly form asking my employers's details (well currently not employed), my car registration number etc. I think a complaint to OFT could be due?

[maverick67]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

My response to Lowells:

Your letter reads “this could result in us applying for the value of your debt to be secured on your property or applying to recover the money you owe by making deductions directly from your earnings along with court costs and interest, alternatively we may arrange for an agent to visit your address to negotiate a settlement”. As Lowell’s have failed to demonstrate to me that there is a debt owing (please see enclosed 3 letters requesting proof of debt) I believe that I have the right to contact the Office of Fair Trading raising my concerns based on their own guidelines including the following:

Communication
Section 3.3 (d)
“sending misleading communications or making misleading
statements which may induce a debtor to make contact on the
basis of a false or misleading premise”

False representation of authority and/or legal position
Section 3.4 (b)
“Falsely implying or stating that action can, or will, be taken
when legally it cannot be taken”

“claiming that a court order/judgement would be enforced
in the absence of having the proper legal authority to do
so”

Section 3.4 (c)
“falsely stating or implying that a particular course of action
will ensue before it is possible to know whether such action
would be permissible

For example, stating or implying that enforcement proceedings will
ensue, including (this is a non-exhaustive list):
• charging order
• attachment of earnings,
under circumstances in which a court judgment has not been
obtained”.

Physical/psychological harassment
Section 3.7 (e)
“When seeking to recover a debt, failing to take appropriate
steps with a view to ensuring that available data/information to
inform the pursuit and recovery of a debt is accurate and
adequate, such that the debtor and the (amount of the) debt
can be correctly identified from that data/information
• a person being pursued for a debt that does not exist”

Section 3.7 (o)
“ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled
or are disputed and continuing to make demands for payment
without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why
the claims are not valid”.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

Expect any reply to contain blustering nonsense.

[wales01man]

Re: Self Employed Do Different Rules Apply

If they reply they will just send another threatogram