Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!: Ch5 9pm
Discussion
andymc said:
is anyone white British or are the producer's stirring things?
Like yourself I had noticed the preponderance of debtors from ethnic minorities. It does appear mildly racist, unless of course it's based on what we don't like to call "the truth". I have a feeling that some cultures feel that they can get away with things because of their ethnicity and their apparent inability to understand the law. Or maybe it's simply that the cases we're shown are the most interesting and will attract the regular viewer.TwigtheWonderkid said:
andymc said:
is anyone white British or are the producer's stirring things?
Saw one the other night, white British 72 y/o man, refusing to pay tp vet bills after his staffy attacked their dog. He was a right nasty 
. In the recent series the ones I really felt sorry for were the parents, white English btw, who had been guarantors for a daughter, the agents had turned up at their house. They got daughter on the phone and she blatantly said it was now her parents' debt, parents who seemed decent sorts, even if their taste in house decorations was a bit suspect. Daughter admitted debt but completely washed her hands of it, that's what you really can call being a right nasty count. <<<Note android auto(in)correct won't let me spell that last word correctly.
FiF said:
In the recent series the ones I really felt sorry for were the parents, white English btw, who had been guarantors for a daughter, the agents had turned up at their house. They got daughter on the phone and she blatantly said it was now her parents' debt, parents who seemed decent sorts, even if their taste in house decorations was a bit suspect. Daughter admitted debt but completely washed her hands of it, that's what you really can call being a right nasty count. <<<Note android auto(in)correct won't let me spell that last word correctly.
I saw that and just felt so sorry for parents having tried to do the right thing, there was a similar one where daughter was contacted turned up and at least tried to help parents out but dad just didn't understand guarantor concept saying I only signed so she could get rental...Slight disagreement with OH over a recent episode, the one with the wedding dress shop.
Summary, shop owner has been taken in by one of these we will negotiate your business rates down outfits. Told nothing to pay up front, but still paid 70 quid deposit. Not totally clear what happened next, assume they managed to negotiate a reduction of SFA, but then hit him with a bill for 700. Court, he lost, up to HC, now facing bill of almost 1600.
So it now goes that initially he denies being the named person, big mistake, all sympathy from OH immediately lost, which I can understand.
They say they don't have the money, as usual, metric tonne of valuable stock, warned that the 260 quid they do have in cash isn't enough, the claimant wants full payment immediately, a payment plan not acceptable, escalation to removal of goods will increase charges to 2,500 and a few pence.
Obviously this is all in the edit, but agent guy rings for van, wife says cancel the van and heads off to try and get the money somehow. Returns with 2000, so now they offer the 2000 + the original 260.
Call to office, again offer is rejected and they want the full removal fee. Wife heads off again to try and get more money, van arrives, she comes back with some more cash, van sent away and they pay the full 2500 plus.
This is where OH and I differ slightly. Clearly the guy had been turned over, own fault for not understanding / reading small print. He initially lied about identity, told agents he couldn't pay and for them to take goods, so OH reckons deserves all he got.
Have sympathy with that view, however refusing the 2260 offer, which covered the initial claim plus more than half of the escalation fee seemed extremely cynical and kicking someone when they are already down, just because they, recovery agents, could do that.
Tbf looking at the stock they didn't seem to be struggling, but who knows the truth.
So any thoughts, am I just being too soft?
Summary, shop owner has been taken in by one of these we will negotiate your business rates down outfits. Told nothing to pay up front, but still paid 70 quid deposit. Not totally clear what happened next, assume they managed to negotiate a reduction of SFA, but then hit him with a bill for 700. Court, he lost, up to HC, now facing bill of almost 1600.
So it now goes that initially he denies being the named person, big mistake, all sympathy from OH immediately lost, which I can understand.
They say they don't have the money, as usual, metric tonne of valuable stock, warned that the 260 quid they do have in cash isn't enough, the claimant wants full payment immediately, a payment plan not acceptable, escalation to removal of goods will increase charges to 2,500 and a few pence.
Obviously this is all in the edit, but agent guy rings for van, wife says cancel the van and heads off to try and get the money somehow. Returns with 2000, so now they offer the 2000 + the original 260.
Call to office, again offer is rejected and they want the full removal fee. Wife heads off again to try and get more money, van arrives, she comes back with some more cash, van sent away and they pay the full 2500 plus.
This is where OH and I differ slightly. Clearly the guy had been turned over, own fault for not understanding / reading small print. He initially lied about identity, told agents he couldn't pay and for them to take goods, so OH reckons deserves all he got.
Have sympathy with that view, however refusing the 2260 offer, which covered the initial claim plus more than half of the escalation fee seemed extremely cynical and kicking someone when they are already down, just because they, recovery agents, could do that.
Tbf looking at the stock they didn't seem to be struggling, but who knows the truth.
So any thoughts, am I just being too soft?
FiF said:
Slight disagreement with OH over a recent episode, the one with the wedding dress shop.
Summary, shop owner has been taken in by one of these we will negotiate your business rates down outfits. Told nothing to pay up front, but still paid 70 quid deposit. Not totally clear what happened next, assume they managed to negotiate a reduction of SFA, but then hit him with a bill for 700. Court, he lost, up to HC, now facing bill of almost 1600.
So it now goes that initially he denies being the named person, big mistake, all sympathy from OH immediately lost, which I can understand.
They say they don't have the money, as usual, metric tonne of valuable stock, warned that the 260 quid they do have in cash isn't enough, the claimant wants full payment immediately, a payment plan not acceptable, escalation to removal of goods will increase charges to 2,500 and a few pence.
Obviously this is all in the edit, but agent guy rings for van, wife says cancel the van and heads off to try and get the money somehow. Returns with 2000, so now they offer the 2000 + the original 260.
Call to office, again offer is rejected and they want the full removal fee. Wife heads off again to try and get more money, van arrives, she comes back with some more cash, van sent away and they pay the full 2500 plus.
This is where OH and I differ slightly. Clearly the guy had been turned over, own fault for not understanding / reading small print. He initially lied about identity, told agents he couldn't pay and for them to take goods, so OH reckons deserves all he got.
Have sympathy with that view, however refusing the 2260 offer, which covered the initial claim plus more than half of the escalation fee seemed extremely cynical and kicking someone when they are already down, just because they, recovery agents, could do that.
Tbf looking at the stock they didn't seem to be struggling, but who knows the truth.
So any thoughts, am I just being too soft?
I watched that episode last night. I too had little sympathy for his self generated plight - especially when it seemed that, when push came to shove, they were able to come up with the cash - quite easily. They were just trying it on. Summary, shop owner has been taken in by one of these we will negotiate your business rates down outfits. Told nothing to pay up front, but still paid 70 quid deposit. Not totally clear what happened next, assume they managed to negotiate a reduction of SFA, but then hit him with a bill for 700. Court, he lost, up to HC, now facing bill of almost 1600.
So it now goes that initially he denies being the named person, big mistake, all sympathy from OH immediately lost, which I can understand.
They say they don't have the money, as usual, metric tonne of valuable stock, warned that the 260 quid they do have in cash isn't enough, the claimant wants full payment immediately, a payment plan not acceptable, escalation to removal of goods will increase charges to 2,500 and a few pence.
Obviously this is all in the edit, but agent guy rings for van, wife says cancel the van and heads off to try and get the money somehow. Returns with 2000, so now they offer the 2000 + the original 260.
Call to office, again offer is rejected and they want the full removal fee. Wife heads off again to try and get more money, van arrives, she comes back with some more cash, van sent away and they pay the full 2500 plus.
This is where OH and I differ slightly. Clearly the guy had been turned over, own fault for not understanding / reading small print. He initially lied about identity, told agents he couldn't pay and for them to take goods, so OH reckons deserves all he got.
Have sympathy with that view, however refusing the 2260 offer, which covered the initial claim plus more than half of the escalation fee seemed extremely cynical and kicking someone when they are already down, just because they, recovery agents, could do that.
Tbf looking at the stock they didn't seem to be struggling, but who knows the truth.
So any thoughts, am I just being too soft?
If you want the benefits and stability of living in a civilised society, there is a price to pay i.e. obey the law of the land and do what you are instructed to do by the courts.
I've got sympathy. There are a couple of Manchester based firms who employ sales teams who will lie to customers every hour every day of the week. One thing they do have is water tight contracts.
One of the firms in particular charges high commission to small firms then applies for small business rate relief. While in a way the firms are getting a saving that they did not know about, the fee's are out of all proportion to the work that they do.
One of the firms in particular charges high commission to small firms then applies for small business rate relief. While in a way the firms are getting a saving that they did not know about, the fee's are out of all proportion to the work that they do.
surveyor said:
I've got sympathy. There are a couple of Manchester based firms who employ sales teams who will lie to customers every hour every day of the week. One thing they do have is water tight contracts.
One of the firms in particular charges high commission to small firms then applies for small business rate relief. While in a way the firms are getting a saving that they did not know about, the fee's are out of all proportion to the work that they do.
I do have sympathy for people who fall for con men - up to a point. If it's a little old lady living alone with her cat, definitely. If it's a fairly savvy business operation who are looking to cut costs and get out of paying their taxes at every opportunity, not so much.One of the firms in particular charges high commission to small firms then applies for small business rate relief. While in a way the firms are getting a saving that they did not know about, the fee's are out of all proportion to the work that they do.
Eric Mc said:
surveyor said:
I've got sympathy. There are a couple of Manchester based firms who employ sales teams who will lie to customers every hour every day of the week. One thing they do have is water tight contracts.
One of the firms in particular charges high commission to small firms then applies for small business rate relief. While in a way the firms are getting a saving that they did not know about, the fee's are out of all proportion to the work that they do.
I do have sympathy for people who fall for con men - up to a point. If it's a little old lady living alone with her cat, definitely. If it's a fairly savvy business operation who are looking to cut costs and get out of paying their taxes at every opportunity, not so much.One of the firms in particular charges high commission to small firms then applies for small business rate relief. While in a way the firms are getting a saving that they did not know about, the fee's are out of all proportion to the work that they do.
Where, in my opinion they fell down badly, was firstly ignoring the court decision, and then attempting to frustrate the collection process by lying over identity.
Plus what evidence have you got that they were trying to not pay due taxes at every opportunity, if they qualified for rates relief then why not take it? On that basis by not paying income tax on my ISAs I'm also trying not to pay due taxes on certain income, except of course taxes are not due.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff