Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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
      • 161 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 3794 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

my council tax account was passed to the newlyn but i have cleared the councill tax account but battle with bailiff is going on they trying to charge £162.50 .

 

i covered my self by sending them proof that my car is private hire but they keep saying they still can clamp my car but can not take it .

i also told them not to visit my house as my wife has mental history and she is till seeking some counseling for it and they said we will visit tell your wife not to open the door

 

where before they was sending me the letters with both our names now they only start sending letters only stating my wife's name

only.

 

i am attaching recent letter they send me and in this they also said ( Goods maybe removed in your absence )

 

they never got levy on items as we never had them visit physically let them in or open the door for any bailiff so how can they say goods maybe removed in your absence .

 

please help me thanks

 

newlynabsence.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

money all paid to the council and just bailiff fees owing?

 

The most they can charge with no levy is £24.50 first visit and £18.00 second visit

 

they cant levy on goods just to cover there fees the liability order/warrant is satisfied

 

Bailiffs are relying on fear and intimidation thinking you will pay up

 

Get on to local MP and to council to get a breakdown of there agents fees

 

That seams a standard letter

 

Bailiffs on to a looser no levy they cant take car

 

they have no levy no right of entry

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send this letter to Newlyn by recorded delivery

 

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges.

 

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were certificatedlink3.gif at.

e - the date of the Certification.

 

This is not a Subject access requestlink3.gif under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would appear that the Local MP should be directed to this site and the others

 

Clearly he does not know what bailiffs can and cant charge and should have a read up on things

 

try the breakdown from the bailiffs

there is no warrant so they can do very little to get there money before giving up

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does your wife have a CPN or similar? Did the Bailiff leave you a Notice of Seizure?

 

I don't know how this notice of seizure looks like or it's wording I only have letter through post by newlyn and one letter was in red color and all the crap about their action

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how this notice of seizure looks like or it's wording I only have letter through post by newlyn and one letter was in red color and all the crap about their action

 

 

have a look at the form 7 in this link it shows what notice of seizure

looks like

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/schedule/2/made

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are trying to charge you £162-50 they must have levy on some of your possessions - you mention a car in your original post. A Bailiff is allowed to charge £24-50 for his 1st Visit to you & £18-00 for his 2nd - providing he has not made a levy on your goods. If this has been charged then that leaves £120 unaccounted for. It is all the more urgent you send off for the breakdown of fees as said in Post 4, this best done initially by email followed by a copy in the post.

 

If they have made a levy on anything it is a legal requirement they leave you a Notice of Seizure - also called a Form 7 because that is its number. This is usually an A4 sheet listing the goods seized and on the reverse it should have a list of what they have charged.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I did not revieved any form 7

 

I did talk to the the guy

the appointed bailif that came and visited my house my wife was not home so he left letter with the sum on it and his name

 

I did search his name on bailiff data base but he was not bailiff

 

I asked him why he came

he said he came to claim the money and I told him not to come when I am not home as my wife's depression history

 

he told me to tell my wife not to open door as he will keep calling at my house.

 

I warned him that he will be breaking law by doing that and I also said I got proof of signiture post that I have provided the documents to your office

which they never send me acknowledge so far it's been over month.

 

He than asked me what time I am home so he can come and collect money

 

I said you not getting any money or any access to house so don't bother

 

he than said he will come and clamp my car

I said up to you but

 

I have provided the proof of car

it is work car and I do my earning than

 

he told me that he can clamp it but can not twoe the car away

and keep it clamped until I pay the money .

 

Since I have talked to him I have recived 2 letter first my name and my wife's together

as shows on council tax second letter today with only my wife's name as I posted in perivoius post

 

.thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am on stage 2 of council complain procedure as they are not upholding my complain again now i am going to local ombudsman

 

mpletter.png

 

Surprise, surprise. The Minister of State responsible for the certification of bailiffs comes out with crap like this. He really does need to invest in a copy of John Kruse's book, as I have. Just waiting for it to be delivered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they will claim a levy on your motor, if it is contract hire then it cannot be levied or seized, as it belongs to the finance company. Once they have responded to the Acme letter, if they have levied the car it can be challenged.

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 they will claim a levy on your motor, if it is contract hire then it cannot be levied or seized, as it belongs to the finance company. Once they have responded to the Acme letter, if they have levied the car it can be challenged.

 

the car is private hire

Link to post
Share on other sites

the car is private hire

 

Then it belongs to the hire company and cannot be either levied on or seized. Make sure the bailiff is served with a photocopy of the hire document. This will kill his pig, but if he then tries to levy on or seize it, he will be acting illegally from the outset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong Old Bill, but when the OP says his car is private hire, he means it is a minicab. Probably why the bailiff says he can clamp it but not remove it. So a question to the original poster - does the car belong to you or does the minicab company own it? If it belongs to you, does the car have any outstanding HP on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Does the vehicle have a Private Hire plate on it? If so, it is used for business purposes and the OP's livelihood and the bailiff will be on a sticky wicket if they try to levy on or seize it.. If it is subject to finance, it is third party property and, therefore, cannot be levied on or seized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debt for the council tax has been cleared then, im sure when I say this, that the bailiff cannot levy for his fee's only.

 

However the council must give you verification that your debt have been discharged with them. They can take the bailiff fee's out of the payment that you have made, which would leave the debt still owing.

 

I would offer or pay the bailiff for the two visits, which are owed. The levy on the vehicle can then be queried. No lawful levy, then no fee above the visit fee's.

 

You stated that the bailiff wasnt a bailiff, did you mean that he wasnt a certificated bailiff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Does the vehicle have a Private Hire plate on it? If so, it is used for business purposes and the OP's livelihood and the bailiff will be on a sticky wicket if they try to levy on or seize it.. If it is subject to finance, it is third party property and, therefore, cannot be levied on or seized.

Car got private hire plates and I have send the documents by recorded delevery to newlyn and also I have updates council office with the documents and the car is on my name .i called citizen advice beru they asked me to call free debt help line and they told me that bailiff are not able to clamp the car but try to keep the car out of their sight .thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debt for the council tax has been cleared then, im sure when I say this, that the bailiff cannot levy for his fee's only.

 

However the council must give you verification that your debt have been discharged with them. They can take the bailiff fee's out of the payment that you have made, which would leave the debt still owing.

 

I would offer or pay the bailiff for the two visits, which are owed. The levy on the vehicle can then be queried. No lawful levy, then no fee above the visit fee's.

 

You stated that the bailiff wasnt a bailiff, did you mean that he wasnt a certificated bailiff.

Bailiff is refusing to accept my first fee payment .the name of the guy who visited me third time is not listed on the bailiffs data . I also offered council that I am willing to pay only one first payment to newlyn now the newlyn is adding more charges my fear is if council pays it and than will start chasing me for what will I do than anyone can highlight me on this issue please thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Newlyns cannot add any further charges without being able to prove they have lawfully incurred them. You could try threatening to have their fees submitted for Formal Determination. In layman's terms, when bailiff fees are subject to a Formal Determination, a County Court Registrar scrutinises the fees and, where it is found fees are excessive or not in accordance with legislation, they are disallowed. Also, the Registrar has the power to report a bailiff to their certificating court if what the Registrar finds brings into question the bailiff's fitness to hold a bailiff certificate. This is contained in the Distress for Rent Rules 1988.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...