Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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 
        • 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

Bailiffs charges - how much is 'reasonable'?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5240 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

When you get a notice in writing saying you owe £120 for example, how much can the bailiff charge for calling round? They have added on £200 for me. This doesn't seem to be in the 2003 act, or on the bailiffs list of fees.

 

Can anyone help, thankyou. M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how much is 'reasonable'?

 

It has to be a countable actual cost.

 

Bailiffs cannot make a gain for themselves by charging anything as "costs".

 

You can ask for breakdown of reasonable costs.

 

If the bailiff wants to charge a fee under a pretence it is accessing personal data in the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 then you can interpret that as the bailiff is unable or unwilling to show its reasonable costs.

 

If you receive no breakdown of reasonable costs the you have no liability to pay those costs.

 

The only bailiffs fees you will have to pay are statutory fees, 28% of the ticket, and if applies, £11.20 letter fee.

  • Haha 1

The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, ty for the replies folks. so in this case, the letter asking for £125 was about right as the council wanted 90 as i stupidly and very regretably overlooked it. i then asked the bailiffs office for a month to pay as i was overdrawn. they refused and upped it to 150. then without notice the bailiff took over and the next day it was suddenly closer to 400!!

 

how can this be justified legally? what reasonable extra fees can they charge eg for a visit and hand delivering a 'removal' letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law provides £11.20 for a letter. Only one letter fee can be charged.

 

Then its 28% on the PCN each time he visits you (max 3 visits). If no goods of yours have been moved in a van to be auctioned, then the bailiff cannot possibly have any reasonable costs for using his van or apply any other charges.

 

The law provides no other bailiffs fees.

 

If a bailiff is trying to swindle you then he commits an offence.s2 Fraud Act 2006. Bailiffs always try it on and try charging you hundreds of pounds pretending they are lawful. Bailiffs tend to give these charges some rather inventive names but the law doesnt say you have to pay them.

The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Link to post
Share on other sites

TY NP ;) That's very intersting indeed. It's making sense now:

 

1. For a parking ticket, they have no right of forceful entry as i have not signed any walking possession or let em in before.

 

2. I owe the council money and the company 'reasonable' fees in their tariff and the 2003 act.

 

3. the 200+ extra charges is a figure the bailiff has invented.

 

4. they are playing on fear. power games eh!

 

5. it's game on now..... i'm not letting these bstds get to me ;)

Edited by layer_cake
correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No right to break in, provided you never let the in the first place.

 

2. Lawful fees are 28% of the ticket each time abailiff visits you plus £11.20 for one letter. Reasonable costs only applies if a bailiff transports your goods in a van and selling them at auction.

 

3. Yes, bailiffs come up with al sorts of fictitious stuff to increase their fee. They are not statutory fees.

 

4. yes.

 

5. dont play their game. Just keep them out and make your car safe.

The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Link to post
Share on other sites

ty NP! I have written to them saying i will pay what they had asked for, before the bailiff came round, plus 28% + £11.20. That comes out at £150 less than the bailiff wanted! i'll keep u posted how it goes and will make a donation too.

 

ps. i have promised myself to never park on yellow lines, lol :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update; I've written to them, told the bailiff the situ in a polite but firm-ish 'I know my rights and you are having a laugh matey' kind of way. He seems to have backed off and I'll pay them next week. Also, I'm submitting a claim for a refund from a previous case last year when they totally ripped me off for £300+

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...