From a £230 unpaid bill to the loss of a £3M castle

[scotia]

I'm not sure that this should be under Legal Issues (practical). But it does strongly suggest that this is something you should not do.
It started with an unpaid bill of £230, and after much legal wrangling over 22 years it has resulted in the loss of the £3M Knockderry castle in Argyll..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-60579467

[Mike4]

A typically frustrating BBC article to read.

Ms Van Overwaele claims she paid the original £230 bill yet the article fails to deal with why the court clearly didn't believe her.

[Arborbridge]

A typically frustrating BBC article to read.

Ms Van Overwaele claims she paid the original £230 bill yet the article fails to deal with why the court clearly didn't believe her.

Hardly a complaint to level at the BBC alone, is it? I'm always finding frustration with journalists not asking the obvious questions, or not explaining something clearly, or not pushing a point for clarity. I wonder if it's sometimes due to subeditors wanting to cut stuff down to fit, just blundering in.

So let's not aim a missile at the BBC as though they are somehow unique in this respect.

[UncleEbenezer]

A typically frustrating BBC article to read.

Ms Van Overwaele claims she paid the original £230 bill yet the article fails to deal with why the court clearly didn't believe her.

Hardly a complaint to level at the BBC alone, is it? I'm always finding frustration with journalists not asking the obvious questions, or not explaining something clearly, or not pushing a point for clarity. I wonder if it's sometimes due to subeditors wanting to cut stuff down to fit, just blundering in.

So let's not aim a missile at the BBC as though they are somehow unique in this respect.

A bit harsh, innit? It's a BBC story, so who else is to blame (other than, of course, the protagonists)?

[Arborbridge]

A typically frustrating BBC article to read.

Ms Van Overwaele claims she paid the original £230 bill yet the article fails to deal with why the court clearly didn't believe her.

Hardly a complaint to level at the BBC alone, is it? I'm always finding frustration with journalists not asking the obvious questions, or not explaining something clearly, or not pushing a point for clarity. I wonder if it's sometimes due to subeditors wanting to cut stuff down to fit, just blundering in.

So let's not aim a missile at the BBC as though they are somehow unique in this respect.

A bit harsh, innit? It's a BBC story, so who else is to blame (other than, of course, the protagonists)?

Agreed it was a BBC story, but the comment implied that the BBC is particularly to blame:

A typically frustrating BBC article to read.

It isn't. The BBC is probably more rigorous in its journalism than other services.

I hear the BBC - under attack as ever - is losing top people again, owing to commercial interests being able to offer vastly greater salaries and giving scant attention to "impartiality" (which means journalist have more freedom to say what they think).
Ironic this, considering how many times we read on here complaints that the BBC is not impartial and that it offers to pay people too much.
This great institution which is at the heart of British culture, needs support, not missiles, direct or indirect.


Arb.

[Dod101]

It is a pity that an interesting point has again got lost in a wrangle about the BBC. No article that I have read (and it has been widely reported in the Scottish newspapers) has given much more detail than the BBC article so I would suggest that the criticism of the BBC here is an unjustified, automatically prejudiced, reaction.

It seems to be a typical story of how principles can sometimes be very expensive. Why people allow their affairs to spiral out of control like this is a complete mystery to me.

Dod

Moderator Message:
I agree. Discussion of the BBC's reporting is off-topic on this board. Off-topic posts risk being moved or removed. (chas49)

[servodude]

It seems to be a typical story of how principles can sometimes be very expensive. Why people allow their affairs to spiral out of control like this is a complete mystery to me.

Dod

I've often found that people who live in castles can be "a bit different" - not sure which comes first

[vrdiver]

I've often found that people who live in castles can be "a bit different" - not sure which comes first

An Englishman's home is his castle...

Nuff said

[servodude]

I've often found that people who live in castles can be "a bit different" - not sure which comes first

An Englishman's home is his castle...

Nuff said

Yeah.. but there's "castles" and then there's castles

Perhaps it's a Scots thing?
from the first hit I found

- a "bit different" probably wasn't going far enough

-sd

[1nvest]

UK laws do seem to be in need of revision. Call in the bailiffs programmes that I have seen in the past do seem to have some cases where small amounts of unpaid claims have been escalated to involve legal costs and bailiff costs that in some cases amount to many multiple of the amount in dispute.

As a example my elderly mother spent a week in hospital a few weeks back and a British Gas bill arrived whilst she was away from the home. Best I can tell its delivery date was around a week after the date printed on the paper bill, and another late payment bill along with a £13 penalty arrived a few days later.

It was only that I went around to prepare the house for her discharge from hospital that I found both and immediately paid the bill and penalty. I wonder if she had instead been in hospital for a couple of weeks whether the claim might have been further escalated to perhaps involve hundreds of pounds in legal costs and hundreds of pounds of bailiff attendance costs?

Seems like a method whereby the unscrupulous can mug individuals, and more so the elderly.

[Pendrainllwyn]

230 quid vs all the hassle. Mind-boggling to me.

I used to regularly cycle past Knockderry Castle. A lovely spot. Worth a look if you have 3M burning a hole in your pocket.

Pendrainllwyn

[Lootman]

230 quid vs all the hassle. Mind-boggling to me.

But it is the principle. If I don't believe that I owe the money then there is no way I will pay a bill. To do that is to reward bad behaviour.

I once had a dispute with NatWest over a charge made on my credit card. I think it was about 100 quid, albeit 25/30 years ago. I refused to pay that charge and, as the months went by, the interest and penalties mounted on that amount. But I was resolute that I was not going to pay it.

I gradually worked my way up the management hierarchy, starting with the call centre, then the call centre supervisor, then the regional manager. At every step I was refused.

Eventually I wrote to the CEO and laid out the entire story. Within days the head of PR at NatWest wrote to me stating that, although they did not agree with my argument, as a gesture of a goodwill they would write off all the charges.

The lesson is that if you make enough of a nuisance of yourself, and soak up enough of the valuable time of senior executives, you can prevail. You just have to want it and be willing to be tenacious.

[Mike4]

Eventually I wrote to the CEO and laid out the entire story. Within days the head of PR at NatWest wrote to me stating that, although they did not agree with my argument, as a gesture of a goodwill they would write off all the charges.

Now I would have found that deeply dissatisfying. I would have wanted them to write off all the charges only if they accepted my arguments were right.

[vrdiver]

Eventually I wrote to the CEO and laid out the entire story. Within days the head of PR at NatWest wrote to me stating that, although they did not agree with my argument, as a gesture of a goodwill they would write off all the charges.

Now I would have found that deeply dissatisfying. I would have wanted them to write off all the charges only if they accepted my arguments were right.

Surely you'd also want something for all the time you'd put in as well?

[Lootman]

Eventually I wrote to the CEO and laid out the entire story. Within days the head of PR at NatWest wrote to me stating that, although they did not agree with my argument, as a gesture of a goodwill they would write off all the charges.

Now I would have found that deeply dissatisfying. I would have wanted them to write off all the charges only if they accepted my arguments were right.

Surely you'd also want something for all the time you'd put in as well?

In my case, no, because I derived a perverse pleasure out of achieving a moral victory, and that was sufficient reward.

I guess if it had gone to court I might have sought extra for emotional pain and suffering. But the thing with a credit card debt is that it just endlessly rotates and so there was no need for legal action by either party.

[Clitheroekid]

230 quid vs all the hassle. Mind-boggling to me.

But it is the principle. If I don't believe that I owe the money then there is no way I will pay a bill. To do that is to reward bad behaviour.

Unfortunately, simply believing you don't owe the money doesn't miraculously transform a debt into a non-debt.

It was no doubt exactly such a - mistaken - belief that caused this unfortunate woman to end up where she is.

[Lootman]

230 quid vs all the hassle. Mind-boggling to me.

But it is the principle. If I don't believe that I owe the money then there is no way I will pay a bill. To do that is to reward bad behaviour.

Unfortunately, simply believing you don't owe the money doesn't miraculously transform a debt into a non-debt.

It was no doubt exactly such a - mistaken - belief that caused this unfortunate woman to end up where she is.

Well of course there are always two sides to every such story, and invariably both sides think that they are right.

In the case I described earlier, I had hired a car. At some point during my hire, a parking ticket was issued. However there was no ticket on the vehicle and so I knew nothing about it.

I paid for the rental, no problem. But then the car hire company charged my card for the parking ticket. My argument was that regardless of whether I parked illegally or not, I was entitled to due process. When the car hire company paid my ticket I was effectively denied the ability to fight my case at traffic court.

Obviously the car hire company disagreed and would not refund me. So I refused to pay that item on my credit card bill. Moreover I stopped using that card so that the entire balance, including fees and interest, was the disputed amount.

And then as described earlier I took the issue all the way up to the CEO, who erased the debt.

So sometimes being stubborn wins these fights, and sometimes it doesn't.

[Lanark]

Obviously the car hire company disagreed and would not refund me. So I refused to pay that item on my credit card bill. Moreover I stopped using that card so that the entire balance, including fees and interest, was the disputed amount.

And then as described earlier I took the issue all the way up to the CEO, who erased the debt.

So sometimes being stubborn wins these fights, and sometimes it doesn't.

In your case it sounds like the bank just paid the hire company and wrote off the debt as not worth fighting for. The car hire company got away with it.

Was it Hertz by any chance?
https://archive.ph/2ks2Q

[Lootman]

Obviously the car hire company disagreed and would not refund me. So I refused to pay that item on my credit card bill. Moreover I stopped using that card so that the entire balance, including fees and interest, was the disputed amount.

And then as described earlier I took the issue all the way up to the CEO, who erased the debt.

So sometimes being stubborn wins these fights, and sometimes it doesn't.

In your case it sounds like the bank just paid the hire company and wrote off the debt as not worth fighting for. The car hire company got away with it.

Was it Hertz by any chance?
https://archive.ph/2ks2Q

I think it was Alamo or National. This was back in the 1990s or 2000s.

It is not uncommon for customers to refuse to pay credit card items for disputed charges. Rather than argue with the vendor it can be easier to argue with the card issuer.

Whether the card issuer just eats the loss or reclaims the charge from the vendor is something that I do no know. If it happens a lot with a particular vendor I would like to think that the card issuer reconsiders its business relationship with that vendor.

[Lanark]

I'm not sure that this should be under Legal Issues (practical). But it does strongly suggest that this is something you should not do.
It started with an unpaid bill of £230, and after much legal wrangling over 22 years it has resulted in the loss of the £3M Knockderry castle in Argyll..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-60579467

A classic case of fur coat an nae knickers.

The cost of running, even just heating, such a large abode can eat away at a persons finances and they are often too proud to downsize.
If the place sells for £3M, then they should get £2M+ back after all the debt has been paid, so I doubt they will be homeless for all that long.