Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
    • At a key lecture in the City of London, the shadow chancellor will also vow to reform the Treasury.View the full article
    • Despite controversy China's Temu is becoming a global online shopping force.View the full article
    • The retailer has come under fire for an advert showing motorcyclists wearing trainers and doing wheelies.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Credit card 'chargebacks'....bailiff fees....what happens to the warrant of control?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3324 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

A subject that we receive a huge number of enquiries about concerns a credit card (or debit card) 'chargeback' and whether bailiff enforcement may recommence.

 

A year ago I started a thread on this subject which has received 6,000 views and given the new legislation (that came into effect on 6th April) it would be wise to update the information with a new thread.

 

Again, from the enquiries that we receive, a lot of people are encouraged to make a 'chargeback' request following information on various websites. The following is taken from one particular FMoTL website:

 

As can be seen the debtor is specifically told that when completing the 'chargeback' form they must NEVER mention the word 'bailiff' on the form and instead, should state the following:

 

"The merchant forced me to make over my card details by placing me under undue pressure exerted upon me to coerce me to perform an act that I ordinarily would not perform and this constitutes a misrepresentation to obtain a money transfer. I asked the merchant to refund the money who refused to do so and is in breach of contract and remains indebted to me".

Debtors are also informed that:

 

"It strengthens your application considerably if you support it with a sworn statement proving the card transaction was made under duress. This increases the chances of getting a rapid charge back to a near certainty"

 

It would seem that debtors are being informed that if the credit card company reverse the payment that bailiffs cannot enforce the debt given that 'apparently' the 'enforcement power has ceased' and that there is "nothing in the regulations that provides for bailiffs to revive it". The supposed case law being paragraph 58 of Schedule of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and paragraph 31 of the Guidance in the Taking Control of Goods, National Standards 2014.

 

So....is the above advice correct?

 

NO...it is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't see where a debtor's been advised that doing a chargeback ceases the enforcement power. Can you direct us to it?

 

A chargeback is simply that - if you feel you have been forced to pay something unlawful, you can ask the bank to send you the forms to start the process. It may be accepted, it may not. I did one last year with Tesco's after they mucked up a home delivery order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple fact is that if the credit card provider reverses the payment it is exactly the same position as if a debtor paid by cheque and the cheque 'bounced'. Payment has been 'temporarily' made and then reversed.

 

Paragraph 58 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007.

 

This paragraph is very clear. It is entitled:

 

"Payment of the amount outstanding" as states as follows:

This paragraph applies where the debtor pays the amount outstanding in full.....

 

a. After the enforcement agent has taken control of goods, and...

b. Before they are sold or abandoned.

If the credit or debt card provider had 'reversed' or refunded (for whatever reason) the amount earlier 'paid' by the debtor then clearly, the debtor cannot claim that they have 'paid the amount outstanding in full' !!

 

Most importantly, debtors should be aware that if making such an application they are requesting that the bank reverse (or refund) the entire payment that had been made to the bailiffs. This means that the amount due to the creditor (local authority or magistrate court (in the case of a court fine) and the bailiff fees have been returned into the debtors account.

 

So...has the warrant 'ceased to have effect'?

 

NO...it has not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a 'charge back' request is successful, goods belonging to the debtor continue to be 'bound' and can be removed and sold.

 

Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 is entitled:

 

Time when property ceases to be bound and para 6.1 states:

 

For the purpose of any enforcement power the property in goods cease to be bound in accordance with this paragraph.....

 

3. The property in all goods ceases to be bound when any of these happens:

 

a. The amount outstanding is paid, out of proceeds or otherwise.

 

b. The instrument under which the power is exercisable ceases to have effect.

 

c. The Power ceases to be exercisable for any other reason.

 

NOTE:

 

If the amount paid to the bailiff has been reversed, then clearly the debtor cannot claim that the 'amount outstanding' has been paid. Accordingly, the goods remain 'bound'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me no-one is 'peddling' this info - not sure what purpose this thread is serving.

 

I can see the need for the thread..... it is informative.

 

It was commented thus:

 

"If there is a valid reason to open a chargeback dispute, then the bank must do so. The whole point of a chargeback (in the cases involving bailiffs) is to make an allegation of fraud, to which there is no defence. Then the money paid over is returned. A chargeback is not initiated merely because the debtor wants their money back.

It was replied to as follows:

"Once the enforcement power concerned has ceased, there is nothing in the regulations that provides for bailiffs to revive it. Paragraph 58 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 guideline 31 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the need for the thread..... it is informative.

 

It was commented thus:

 

"If there is a valid reason to open a chargeback dispute, then the bank must do so.

 

The whole point of a chargeback (in the cases involving bailiffs) is to make an allegation of fraud, to which there is no defence.

 

 

This statement is dreadfully inaccurate. If an individual considers that a bailiff has committed 'fraud' then clearly it is for the police to investigate and not for the debtor to take matters into their own hands !!

 

PS: I see that an FMoTL associated website are once again dissecting posts on this thread and the person who made the above comment has provide the following 'advice' for debtors"

 

A crime number from the police station should be obtained and this is done by reporting the crime of fraud, in that you have been defrauded by a bailiff under section 4(1)©(i) of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

Anyone considering this dreadful advice should be aware that since section 4.1© (i) was introduced into the Fraud Act 2006 there has not been one single case where police have found that the bailiff had defrauded a debtor !!!

 

PS: A police 'crime number' is given to everyone who contacts the police. Members of the public are given a 'crime' number if their wheelie bin goes missing or their cat gets stuck up a tree!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was replied to as follows:

 

Once the enforcement power concerned has ceased, there is nothing in the regulations that provides for bailiffs to revive it.

 

Paragraph 58 of schedule/12 Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

 

Guideline 31 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents: Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014"

 

 

Further inaccurate information.

 

If payment has been reversed/refunded by the credit card company/bank then there can be no doubt at all. The debtor has not paid the debt to the creditor or the bailiff fees. Therefore, the warrant of control has not been 'executed' and the warrant has certainly not 'ceased' to have effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This statement is dreadfully inaccurate. If an individual considers that a bailiff has committed 'fraud' then clearly it is for the police to investigate and not for the debtor to take matters into their own hands !!

 

In any case creating a charge back request for a debt which is lawfully brought is fraud in itself, on the part of the debtor

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In any case creating a charge back request for a debt which is lawfully brought is fraud in itself, on the part of the debtor

 

Your comment is the reason why this thread is so important.

 

Debtors lying on credit card chargebacks are unwittingly committing fraud themselves. They also fail to realise that the credit card reversal/refund is not just for disputed bailiff fees.....it is for the amount of the Liability Order, parking charge notice or Magistrate Court fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comment is the reason why this thread is so important.

 

Debtors lying on credit card chargebacks are unwittingly committing fraud themselves. They also fail to realise that the credit card reversal/refund is not just for disputed bailiff fees.....it is for the amount of the Liability Order, parking charge notice or Magistrate Court fine.

 

In the current climate of ever more rules favouring the Enforcers rather than the debtor, a Charge back is extremely risky indeed.especially with the potential for a debtor to be regarded as acting fraudulently if the EA action was entirely lawful.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed and the advice is being given to contact the police and get a crime number, now this compounds the offence and introduces whole new ones.

 

The idea is to quote section 4 of the fraud act, this is fine as long as the act has been breached but a bailiff enforcing a warrant and obtaining payment is not, what is happening is that the debtor is breaching section 2 of the same legislature and evidencing it by contacting the police, very dangerous advice indeed.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the current climate of ever more rules favouring the Enforcers rather than the debtor, a Charge back is extremely risky indeed.especially with the potential for a debtor to be regarded as acting fraudulently if the EA action was entirely lawful.

 

I agree.

 

What is of very serious concern indeed is that obtaining a 'crime' number is merely a first step in making a complaint to the police and before the police have even investigated whether a 'crime' has been committed the debtor is taking matters into their own hands and applying to the bank for a 'recharge' or reversal' of the entire payment (including the debt and bailiff fees).

 

Whichever way you look at it, the debtor appears to have acted 'fraudulently'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodgeball and BA, imo the obtaining of the Crime Number, could be construed as attempted fraud, of itself, or even actual fraud, even though the debtor is unaware of the fact.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there is a basic misconception of the charge-back and section 75 facility due to credit transactions, it is not there to reclaim money from EAs because the debtor thinks he should not have had to pay, If a debtor thinks he has been overcharged there are avenues he should take to pursue this, the use of charge back in this is entirely inappropriate, and it is IMO only a matter of time before the banks and the EAs and possibly the police come down very hard on this practice. (and hopefully on the people who advise its use).

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If a debtor thinks he has been overcharged there are avenues he should take to pursue this, the use of charge back in this is entirely inappropriate, and it is IMO only a matter of time before the banks and the EAs and possibly the police come down very hard on this practice. (and hopefully on the people who advise its use).

 

If debtors consider that they have been 'defrauded' then the correct course of action is to take the matter up with the enforcement company and copy the compliant to the local authority or magistrate court (in the case of a court fine). The debtor could contact the police to report a 'crime'. The police would then investigate whether a 'crime' has been committed.

 

It is not for a debtor to take matters into their own hands by bypassing the police procedure and applying to the credit card company to 'reverse' the payment. If they do so...they know full well that the police have not satisfied themselves that a 'crime' has been committed and accordingly, the debtor is deceiving the card company to obtain a refund by deception.

 

I cannot see that there is any other explanation. Fraud is a very serious allegation and it is for the police and not to the debtor to decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[ATTACH=CONFIG]55650[/ATTACH]In my first post I provided a pdf of a document that features on a website that is associated with FMoTL. If that document was considered seriously misleading then you may care to read the following (that I found yesterday on another site also associated with FMoTL).

 

As you will see, the 'advice' given to the debtor is to delay making the 'chargeback' request until the bailiff company has paid the debt to the creditor.

 

It is stated that 'apparently' the warrant 'cannot be revived after it has been executed'. Complete nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who cannot read the attachment it states as follows:

 

 

Postponed Chargeback-How to legally get the bailiffs to pay your debt !!

This is called a postponed chargeback. The same as a regular chargeback but you delay the chargeback application with your bank until after the bailiff company has paid the debt element of the transaction to the creditor or the council.

 

This results in the whole transaction sum being reversed and all money returned to your account.

 

It means that the bailiff company is left out of pocket because they will have paid the debt to the creditor and the net result is you have got the bailiffs to pay your debt.

 

The warrant cannot be revived after it has been executed, it cannot be 're-executed'.

 

The bailiff company cannot sue you for the money back because they were caught cheating and that puts the bailiff company at risk of the judge recommending a criminal investigation.

 

Its 100% legal !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the system was introduced for protection against rogue merchants or retailers, not court approved agents enforcing warrants, the people who advise this are aware of this , it is why they advise the person not to mention that the request involves a bailiff, the bank will just process it thinking it is a normal transaction.

The usual advice before issuing a charge back is to contact the trader and seek refund, then say if they do not comply you will commence the procedure, this is not what is happening here.

 

In the short term of course all that is happening is that bailiff companies are refusing to accept payments made via cards .

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes the system was introduced for protection against rogue merchants or retailers, not court approved agents enforcing warrants, the people who advise this are aware of this , it is why they advise the person not to mention that the request involves a bailiff, the bank will just process it thinking it is a normal transaction.

 

The second template is serious. Debtors are told to 'delay' submitting the 'chargeback' until such time as the bailiff company have paid the debt over to the creditor. This would normally be around 2-3 months (perhaps sooner). In this intervening period the debtor should be advised to contact the enforcement company to dispute the charge.

 

Also, debtors are being mislead with the silly tale that a warrant cannot be 'revived' after it has been 'executed'. Absolute nonsense.

 

In fact, the truth of the matter is that the warrant has actually not been executed at all and payment has not been made by the debtor.

 

The payment has been reversed and if the enforcement company has passed a payment over to the creditor it would be treated in the same way as if a cheque had bounced. HMCTS or the local authority would need to credit that payment back to the enforcement company and enforcement of the warrant can continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that they do not realize is that the charge-back in these cases does not resolve the issue.

The debt will still exist and require settling, if this was a legitimate charge-back it would not.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...