Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3196 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

Scoop has a good story tonight http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/2697.html&query=bailiff+and+warrant+and+council&method=Boolean

 

 

This is re: JBW at para 3 see the argument

 

 

 

 

 

 

Story from here http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

Edited by mikeymack2002
added ore info
  • Confused 1

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a later case JBW spoke of the debtor being responsible for paying the fees, I was wandering what people think of the highlighted section on page 2 of the new attachment?

 

 

Info from here http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:moQgBtmUxsUJ:www.monckton.com/court-appeal-gives-important-ruling-scope-service-concessions-implied-contracts-procurement-cases/+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This summary of the legislation though incomplete is, I hope, sufficient for the purpose of the resolution of the contractual dispute. The scheme is reasonably clear. When a parking fine has remained unpaid for a sufficient period, the local authority to which it is due may apply to the county court for a warrant. (As a matter of administrative arrangement all parking fines are dealt with through the Northampton County Court.) The warrant is then supplied to a certificated bailiff for enforcement. The bailiff begins the process by writing a letter as provided for in the first item in the charges schedule. He may then take possession of goods. If the debtor continues not to pay, his goods are sold and the fine and the charges which have accrued are collected in that way. The only way in which the charges can be recovered is through voluntary payment by the debtor or by sale of his goods. They become payable but are not a debt like other debts. In re Long, ex parte Cuddeford (1888) 20 QBD 316 a judgment debtor sought to add the costs of an abortive execution to the judgment debt to reach the £50 necessary to support a petition for bankruptcy. It was held he could not do so. Lord Esher MR relied on the case of The Marquis of Salisbury v Ray (1860) 8 CB(NS) 193, but that case is not helpful here, I think, as it turned on whether under section 123 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 the expenses of a previous execution by fi. fa. could be added to those of an execution by ca.sa., it being held they could not. But Fry LJ stated:

 

“It seems to me that these costs can only be recovered out of a particular fund, viz., the fruits of the particular execution, and that the debtor is under no personal liability for them.”

 

Thus the bailiff gets paid only through the process of execution: if he becomes entitled to charge fees, but does not continue with the execution process, he will not recover them and he cannot sue the debtor for them.

 

 

 

This is very interesting I would have thought.

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may well not apply, since April 2014, as the new regulations will have rendered a great deal of caselaw obsolete.

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

Stories selected by SCOOP consist of those that are picked up overnight by Google using various words etc. I am at a loss to understand why this JBW case had been picked by SCOOP and more so given that there is no story as such attached. It is most odd.

 

The two cases that you have linked to MM are not in any way connected. One was against City of Westminster and the other was against the Ministry of Justice.

 

Under the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act a great deal of previous case law that dealt with 'distress' 'execution' 'levy' has now been revoked. Furthermore, we now have a new statutory fee scale in place for ALL debts (including Magistrate Court fines). As I have said, a very odd link for SCOOP to pick up.

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

Link to post
Share on other sites

The stories that are featured on the SCOOP 'sticky' link are sourced by LACEF and feature on their own forum. Many times threads on here are picked up by SCOOP and naturally feature on the LACEF forum.

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

 

One interesting story reported on SCOOP is the following one which provides details of their forthcoming seminar in Manchester. Of interest in the story is the part about the background to LACEF itself. This states as follows:

 

Now in its 18th year, LACEF has a membership of nearly 1000 from over 220 local authorities and national government departments.
It is one of the biggest government forums on the public sector KnowledgeHub platform
, and regularly tops the monthly league table for activity out of 10,000 groups.

 

One of its primary roles is to assist local authority staff in sharing best practice, legal questions and work towards government consultations.

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/17835/online-news/lacef-team-up-expands-ct-event-into-the-public-sector

 

PS: It is my understanding that members of LACEF routinely view this forum (and others as well ) and discuss its contents on a daily basis. As stated above, it is one of the largest government forums and includes in its membership, senior figures from the Local Government Ombudsman, police forces, HM Court service, Ministry of Justice, DVLA and many many others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for me posting the links earlier was to try to understand the costs involved prior to the new regs and the contracts. I know that the new regs have taken over from the previous fees structure but....

 

 

Is it right the way I have viewed this. The contractor would pay xx for each enforcement then charge a debtor xxx which obviously is greater than what they paid HMCS, ( as they are a profit making business) who in the old days set the amount they the then Bailiff charged the defaulter/debtor?

 

 

Also I thought the new regs only allowed reasonable costs incurred? No way does it cost £75.00 or so to post a letter? Or to set up an account, I will post arguments about this later...

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for me posting the links earlier was to try to understand the costs involved prior to the new regs and the contracts. I know that the new regs have taken over from the previous fees structure but....

 

 

Is it right the way I have viewed this. The contractor would pay xx for each enforcement then charge a debtor xxx which obviously is greater than what they paid HMCS, ( as they are a profit making business) who in the old days set the amount they the then Bailiff charged the defaulter/debtor?

 

 

Also I thought the new regs only allowed reasonable costs incurred? No way does it cost £75.00 or so to post a letter? Or to set up an account, I will post arguments about this later...

 

Whatever the fees were before April 2014 is irrelevant really given that we now have an entirely different fee scale.

 

Your point about the £75 Compliance Fee is a valid one though and it may assist if you read what I had written on this subject earlier today on another thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448008-Ross-and-Roberts-Council-Tax-Arrears&p=4754841&viewfull=1#post4754841

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry BA I totally have to disagree with your comments on the other thread. Reason: The EA company already have these in place and it is part of their business structure, specifically because the company has already got the items listed in place. Simply using your argument to state it is a fair price to pay is totally wrong. I can see yet another Rev: Green case (fees) argument sometime in the future.

 

 

A debtor is NOT responsible in any circumstances for the day to day running of a company nor are they responsible for paying for the costs of the running of the said company. This therefore this makes a mockery of the new fees scale already. In my view this is not a reasonable cost and therefore a penalty.

 

 

You know me well enough to know this particular post is not aimed at you in any shape or form, nor is it a complaint it is just an observation.... Right across the enforcement/debt industry it s a REASONABLE costs that is allowed, not profiteering from the less fortunate among us....

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...A debtor is NOT responsible in any circumstances for the day to day running of a company nor are they responsible for paying for the costs of the running of the said company. This therefore this makes a mockery of the new fees scale already. In my view this is not a reasonable cost and therefore a penalty.....

 

Agreed! Engaging the services of a profit making company which probably has demanding shareholders to keep happy and who are paid dividends, could be considered an extravagance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you MM. Your point about the fees not being reasonable have been noted. The fees scale was included in the public consultation way back in February 2012 (I submitted a very detailed and lengthly response).

 

You have mentioned above that sometime in the future you can envisage that the fees could be subject to challenge as in the case of Reverend Green (I assume you mean Reverend Paul Nicholson). There is a major difference between the two.

 

Enforcement Agent fees are outlined in Statutory Regulations. The fees complained about by the Reverend are the 'summons costs' and sadly, the regulations (unlike those in Wales) do not provide an actual fee and instead, state that the fees should be 'reasonable'.

 

For background information about the fees scale, you may find the links (to Impact Statements etc) in the following page useful:

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-bailiff-action

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I am expecting to get a big kicking in my butt for post #9 but to have someone else agree with my observations is warmly accepted. Thank you for that.

I know BA will understand what I am trying to say but the new fees structure is nothing short of profiteering on a massive scale. BA has stated many times that the sheer amount of LO's fines and others is really significant. This IMHO is well say no more.......

 

 

How can these "letter fees" be justified for anything other than a penalty that a debtor/defaulter. We now live in a very modern age so much so that a computer can make a file and print a letter in a matter of seconds.

 

 

Having worked in the printing trade for a while we would receive a CD full of information to print and place in envelopes all the letters for the company. We would process 1.000's of them a day. Cost to print and post was next to nothing. Imagine if you will that a bank was to charge every single customer £75-00 to open a bank account simply because of the costs time and postage involved, we would be in an uproar would we not? So why should an EA company get away with it?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BA , I was not referring to that case in particular, you know that, I was stating to use the words that the REV. complained about the fees, I am also showing that the fees are wrong and extortionate. Yes the Statutory fees have been agreed and in place for over a year we know that. But why and whom decided that a debtor must pay such a high level and why or if this figure can ever be challenged? If not then this is a penalty.

 

 

 

 

If the figure can be challenged is there anything happening in the "background" to have this reviewed and lowered to a more reasonable level?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...You have mentioned above that sometime in the future you can envisage that the fees could be subject to challenge as in the case of Reverend Green (I assume you mean Reverend Paul Nicholson). There is a major difference between the two...

 

The first Reverend mentioned was the one who featured in Cluedo. The latter was the real life Vicar of Dibley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he still around ?

 

I thought he was murdered in the library with the lead pipe.

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

A debtor is NOT responsible in any circumstances for the day to day running of a company nor are they responsible for paying for the costs of the running of the said company. This therefore this makes a mockery of the new fees scale already. In my view this is not a reasonable cost and therefore a penalty.

.

 

It is indeed a paradox that Courts quote that when a contract is breached that only the actual cost of the breach can be charged for but this goes out the window when it is the State that is involved. Does anyone seriously think that when you overstay for a few minutes in a parking bay that even the charge when reduced by 50% for quick payment is anything other than a penalty? And so to is the £75 for sending out a letter to a debtor. No way is it justifiable.No way is it justifiable. Yes I know I said it twice. What is the point of having an Office of Fair Trading who pontificate about treating debtors fairly yet raise not even a whimper when Councils are raising millions of pounds per annum from motorists and bailiff companies making fortunes from merely sending out letters.

I understand that there are fewer complaints about overcharging by bailiffs and Councils are getting their money quicker but at what a terrible cost to those in arrears. It is sickening. The MOJ is not fit for its purpose and the Magistrates and Judges should be ashamed of themselves for being a party to it. As should the politicians who passed the Bill. But of course all these fines and charges pay their wages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that this thread was started to provoke discussion and if so, here goes.

 

In my very detailed response to the Consultation on Bailiff Reform (other 30 pages) I supported the introduction of this fee (unlike a few other advice agencies) and the past 12 months have been very interesting indeed with the level of debts being settled (either in full or by way of payment proposals ) at the Compliance Stage substantially increasing on pre April 2014 figures. This has many advantages such as:

 

Enforcement agent fees are limited to £75

 

The debtor avoids having a bailiff attend the premises.

 

The debtors household goods and vehicles are secure. etc.

 

Creditors are paid sooner.

 

Have a look around at forums....it is rare to see a complaint about the Compliance fee being £75. Over the 12 past months I have received thousands of enquiries and I can say with all honesty that not one of them concerns this fee.

 

PS: This Compliance fee of £75 pales into insignificance over the next few weeks when the Criminal Courts Charge of £150 starts being applied to ALL Magistrate Court fines.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think perhaps this is being looked at the wrong way. Bailiff companies are commercial firms, their fees do not have to be proportionate. The firms are contracted by the council as business to do a job, this is not unusual , the health service does it and many other public bodies.

 

The fee scales have been set down in the legislature to stop them overcharging for their services, but they have to make a profit otherwise they would not provide the service. There is no proportionality involved, it is the fee which they charge for collecting the debt, that fee is sanctioned by parliament, that is all there is to it.

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

The following document really does need reading as it outlines very simply the basis of the fees and the 'pro rata' distribution.

 

The document is the Explanatory Memorandum to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. It is a Statutory document, and unlike the regulations themselves, is written in plain english and not gobbledygood........

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/memorandum/contents

 

PS: Dodgeball...excellent post above....

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....The document is the Explanatory Memorandum to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. It is a Statutory document, and unlike the regulations themselves, is written in plain english and not gobbledygood........

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/memorandum/contents....

 

This is a classic statement from the government (para 8.3):

 

....Without this, successful enforcement could potentially decline significantly and enforcement agents may be encouraged to act in an aggressive manner in order to try and recoup the entire debt. It was therefore decided that enforcement agents should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of proceeds between enforcement agent and creditor.

 

The government doesn't usually give in to mob rule. Why is it different where bailiffs are concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a classic statement from the government (para 8.3):

 

 

 

The government doesn't usually give in to mob rule. Why is it different where bailiffs are concerned.

 

To me it sounds like a sensible measure when faced the reality of a commercial concern.

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

Probably because the majority of what they collect is Government Debt.

 

Exactly!

 

It tells us nothing we don't already know I suppose, which is the government has a tendency to pander to opportunists and criminals if it's at the expense of the taxpayer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not Government Debt, it's debt owed to the Government; there's a significant difference.

 

Where I struggle a bit with all this is if the enforcement companies didn't collect the debts owed (with or without an element of profit for themselves), the councils' purses would have a bigger shortfall each year. Who, ultimately, would pay that shortfall? Would it not mean the taxpayers who have already paid their share the previous year having to pay more for the current year?

 

We then get into a spiral of the payers paying more and more whilst those who choose not to pay for one reason or another get away with it. That cannot be fair.

 

I support fully the notion of the poorest in society paying either nothing, or very little. I don't subscribe to EA's not being able to collect debts due legitimately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely right CD, that is not to say that all must not be done to help those who through no thought of their own fall behind with payment.

You cannot keep blaming the authorities for doing what must be done in order to balance the books. I saw some person the other day recommending those who had the funds to, "put the money in the bank and deprive the authority from it for as long as possible, " everyone pays for the antics of the "jack the lads" amongst us who think they can get away without paying.

 

Whether you agree with bailiffs as an institution or not, the fact is they are here to stay(in the medium term in any case) people have to start interacting with them or better still interacting with the authority before the matter gets to the bailiff, for everyone good.

Edited by ploddertom
Trying to keep it friendly - no need to bow down to how others operate

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...