CPA's are differenty than cards. Cancellign a card doe snothing to a CPA, since the CPA is tied to the bank account and not the card. You need to cancel the CPA itself, or better still, get your bank to change your account number.

With respect, that's not a hard and fast rule. CPAs require the card number and not necessarily (or at all) the account number, so the card number is used to collect them. For every person who says cancelling a card won't stop a CPA and has experienced CPAs going through on an old card, there is someone who says it will stop it and has cut people off by doing this.

And as I said above I can tell you first hand that cancelled cards do affect CPAs as I deal with it on a daily basis at work.

It seems to depend on the bank involved and the manner in which the card is cancelled (e.g. cards replaced automatically due to expiry dates can be different to cards replaced by the customer damaging them can be different to cards that are lost/stolen etc).

Cancelling the card won't stop this and you will have to battle with your bank probably for many months to get it back. I would get a new bank account quick sharp and make sure your current one has nothing in it.

You certainly can stop CPAs by getting the card replaced - I can tell you that from experience. Where I work (in subscriber management for a magazine publishers) we use CPA to collect subscriptions but many customers believe we use direct debit. Barely a day goes by without an angry customer calling in demanding to know why they've been told their subscription has been cancelled and it always boils down to them having got a new debit card and not telling us and so we were cut off at source.

With some banks a replacement card seems to stop CPAs as a matter of course, with others it depends what you tell them - if you merely ask for a card to be cancelled or replaced then they might still allow pre-existing CPAs through, but if you explicitly state that it has been lost (and therefore you must presume it might have been stolen) then CPAs shouldn't go through on the old card details.

Thats a very good point!! i have however got the written letter on the way and a scanned copy stating all of the above and that they will do it as stated.

 

will let you all know at the end of the month

Did you get your letter from MMF yet?

Not wanting to rain on your parade, but not in a million years would I have given a company like MMF my card details, as has been suggested it would have been better to get their bank details and make a transfer to them. But now that it's done, I would strongly advise that you transfer out all funds from your account except for the exact pounds and pence figure you have agreed with them and then as soon as they have taken payment report your card 'lost' with your bank so that you get a new card with a new number that they can't touch - with valid card details on file and funds in your bank account you are leaving yourself wide open to them taking a swipe for whatever they want, this company has no regard at all for the law, regulations or best practice, they just do whatever the hell they want.

Evidently I spoke too soon with my SB debt. After months of sending 'Mike' round 'in the next few days' (who never turned up) and 2 months since 'preparing my account for legal action' they have now stopped messing around and have transferred my account to the 'Legal Department' ('Protection House' must be one hell of a complex, to accommodate this gigantic department structure they have!).

Oh, and they've made yet another reduced settlement offer to boot, but warn that I have only 5 days to take them up on said generous offer to prevent 'further legal action' (further action? There hasn't been any action yet!)

I found this out today from an email. Laughingly, they advised I should reply with my name, current address and date of birth in order to comply with the Data Protection Act - which they've just breached by listing details of a creditor and an amount owed without first verifying that I'm the correct person!

In law, a creditor is in a different position to a postman or a member of the public asking directions. When you took this loan, you impliedly agreed that the creditor could communicate with you to discuss repayment. You do not have the contractual right to revoke that agreement until the loan has been repaid.

A private company without a valid warrant from a court has absolutely no right to call at your home after you've told them not to, regardless of what MMF like to say. Stopping them visiting with a WOIRA is completely valid.

Ive been getting a new email from Sharon , i think its one of Mikes girlfriends as Sharon also knows how to send threats , Sharon also struggles with reading the content of the email you send , but sharon does read it , so now i have someone who i can challenge by name surely i can hold her responsible personally and direct any/all complaints at her personally as its easier than directing it a company , correct ? im sure i read this somewere that they should act responsible but when they hide behind a company its harder to prove , but if you get the name of someone then they become fully responsible for all actions .

Not really. If 'Sharon' breaks the law then in theory you could bring a private prosecution against her but in practice the company is liable for the actions of their employees whilst performing duties for the company. Personal liability is usually restricted to company directors, or a restricted set of offences which the law has deemed serious enough to warrant holding individuals to account (such as alcohol sales to minors). Also since MMF have form for inventing staff (such as 'Mike'), I very much doubt that 'Sharon' is anything more than whoever sends her emails that day.

Ive noticed that the rob sands name keeps appearing , is this a real person and does he know who Mike is ...

Has anyone met Mike ?

'Mike' would appear to have at least 2 jobs with MMF. As well being spending months leaving messages saying that he's a doorstep collector and is coming round 'in a few days' the same voice as 'Mike' also leaves messages from the 'MMF Home Visit Department' explaining that if you don't ring to sort it out then they will be forced to pass it on to a collector. So 'Mike' would seem to be a doorstep collector moonlighting as an office worker, passing accounts to himself to collect!

Incidentally, to those who advise MMF never give up, they um...seem to have given up in my case. I have an SB debt which MMF bought last August (when it was already SB...bid of a dead duck for them there). Never received a single letter from them but this was more than made up for with phone calls, text messages and emails which all curiously got sent in the middle of the night which went on for 7 months. I ignored them totally due to the lack of anything in writing and that the debt was SB.

Last thing I got from them was an outrageous text message which basically said that they were preparing my account for legal action without further warning and if the case goes to court and I'm not there then they will rely on the text message as evidence that I knew about it!

That was over a month ago, not heard a peep out of them since from any means of communication.

But our 1% should be enough though! In theory, a single proved case of MMF doing what we know they do is enough to shut them down. Granted, if it were a single case MMF would find a scapegoat to sack and assure the regulator that it was an isolated incident that won't happen again which would keep them happy. But it wouldn't be long before a second case, then a third, then a fourth. At which point the regulator should take conclusive action.

But the regulators DON'T care. They will only act if the backlash against any failure to act will become unacceptable to them. Hence why it's become necessary for half the country to complain about MMF before something is done.

Unfortunately that means that nothing including the FCA changes is likely to see the back of this appalling company - I'm quite sure that in 5 years' time MMF will still be keeping some old granny awake at night for fear of 'Mike' coming round 'in the next few days'.

Simply put? Hardly anyone complains to the regulators, so the regulators dont investigate. it's also curious that theyve only stepped up their practices since Rob sands joined them.

But surely enough people have? How many people have posted to this forum quoting an email from trading standards with lines like 'We can confirm the business you mention holds a licence as a data controller under the Data Protection Act' and how many people have stated they've spoken on the phone to the regulators about MMF and got a 'not them again?' response? I'm sure that Trading Standards and the OFT is more than aware of what MMF get up to and have enough documented cases to do something about it. I'm sure they are proactive enough to monitor forums like this and be able to conduct their own investigations into MMF without specific complaints being made. They just don't care enough to do anything, which is why I question why FCA regulation will be any better.

I agree, it's beyond me how they get away with it too. A lot of people seem to think MMF will be shut down in April when the FCA take over regulation and control of debt collection becomes more regulated. Personally, I doubt it. MMF have already done more than enough under the *existing* legislation to justify being stripped of their licence as a data controller (which would make it impossible for them to carry on) and/or for the OFT or Trading Standards to shut them down based on their appalling business practices.

But that hasn't happened and they're still going. It's not about how many teeth an animal has, it's about whether or not it's willing to use them. I'd love to believe the FCA will do something about rogue companies like MMF, but their mandate seems focussed towards rogue pay day lenders, not rogue DCAs.

A doorstep visit from MMF is much more likely to happen than with other DCAs, but ultimately if a visit were to happen they are no more important than any other DCA and can be treated in the same way.

More than likely your friend will end up with daily messages from MMF (along with some amazing emails which all curiously get sent in the middle of the night - probably to harass the uninitiated who aren't sleeping at night through worrying about MMF) which will eventually end up alternating between 2...firstly 'Mike' will announce he's scheduled to visit within the next few days (a speech which will include such gems as "to avoid the unnecessary embarrassment of me turning up unannounced"), and then the next day exactly the same voice as 'Mike' will state he is from the MMF home visit department and you should call them before they schedule a visit (which if you believe 'Mike' has already been scheduled!). It will stay like this for months and months before their tactics change.

The two things your friend needs to be aware of is that A) MMF are completely at odds with the law and will claim authority they don't have way beyond what any other DCA will (including claiming their debts don't become statute barred, and claiming that you cannot revoke their implied right of access) and B) their persistence extends way beyond what a DCA will usually do - they will probably chase him daily for a year or more.

Your friend should always keep in mind the two cardinal rules of dealing with any DCA - 1) Always remember that a DCA is not a bailiff and has no legal powers whatsoever and B) NEVER speak to them on the phone, they will say ANYTHING if they think that will make him pay - both of these points are especially true when dealing with MMF.

A 'reduced settlement offer' from a DCA is usually a given that they don't have the necessary paperwork to enforce the debt in court and a last ditch attempt before they give up - God knows what this means with MMF though. Is 'Mike' still sending emails in the middle of the night saying he's coming round in a few days?

The voicemails are standard DCA threat-o-grams designed to scare people who don't know better. It doesn't take long before they run out and you'll hear the same ones over and over again - usually after a couple of weeks you end up stuck in a laughable alternation between two messages. Firstly 'Mike - A Doorstep Collector' will leave a message that he will be calling at your property in the next few days, the next day you'll then get another message where exactly the same voice as 'Mike' proclaims that the account will soon be passed to home visits for transfer to a doorstep collector if you don't call them back - it would seem that 'Mike' performs the dual role of being the only doorstep collector MMF have, and also works in the call centre, transferring cases out to himself!

The LA involved is Capita-outsourced so no surprises that they've got a cushy deal set up with Equita. If the removal fee is agreed in the contract, does this make it a 'legitimate' charge then? The arrangement was done by telephone, I've already suggested to my friend that arguing about the arrangement set is likely to be a dead-end as Equita will deny anything other than their version of events, but I was hoping to get the 'attendance fee' refunded.

My friend now has a further breakdown from Equita, now with dates added on.

27.03.13 - Debt - £112.00

27.03.13 - First Notice - £13.44

06.06.13 - First Visit Fee - £42.00

06.06.13 - Attendance Fee - £200.40

Various - Card Payment Fee - £4.68

17.04.13 - Giro Book / Admin Fee - £5.82

TOTAL BALANCE - £378.34

As advised previously, the 'attendance fee' has been documented previously as a form 9 given as a receipt showing £167 + VAT for the cost of employing '1 man and 1 vehicle' to remove goods. The only man and vehicle involved was the bailiff himself and his own van, there has never been any attempt at a levy. And although it's only for a fiver, the 'giro book / admin fee' applied on 17th April seems a bit random, as this wasn't the date of either of the payments made under the repayment plan which was allegedly defaulted on, nor did my friend have any communication from them at all on that date.

So, this saga continues. I did pay the council tax debt in full and in person at the council, who finally accepted payment after much arguing when I asked her if she was authorised by the council to refuse payment of council tax owed to the council, and if so would she be prepared to put that in writing so that I could make a formal complaint to the CEO. She then decided that she would accept payment after all but stated on about 5 occasions that the council could not be held responsible if the bailiffs continue to pursue me.

Rossendales never replied to my request for a breakdown of fees, and the matter went quiet...until today.

I've just come home to the same hand delivered form I got back in may, this time claiming that I owe '£0.00 plus costs', this is still claimed to be under the authority of the warrant issued to the council for the council tax debt, rather than the bailiffs claiming by themselves.

Rossendales main number refused to do anything other than supply the mobile number of the bailiff. I've not called him but I have checked online and Rossendales are still claiming £172.50 in fees for this account (but have updated it to show £0 debt), which they have failed to supply a break down of.

I still have £42.50 to hand to cover the 1st+2nd visit fees but that's all I'm willing to pay them, and even then how can they pursue me under the Council's warrant when that warrant has been satisfied, would they not need their own warrant?

As I said above you need the dates.

I'm going to advise my friend to reply with this, will this do?

To whom it may concern.

 

 

 

Thank you for your recent communication dated in response to

my request for a breakdown of the fees charged in respect of the above account.

 

 

 

 

Whilst I appreciate the information provided, your response does not

satisfy my request. My request was for, as a minimum:

 

 

 

* The date & time of any bailiff action that incurred a fee - you have not supplied this

 

 

* The reason for the fee - you have not supplied this

 

* The amount of the fee - supplied

 

* The name(s) of the bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a fee was charged - you have not supplied this

 

* The name(s) of the Court(s) the bailiff(s) was/were certificated at. - you have named a bailiff and supplied his certification details, but have not stated which fees, if any, were applied by him.

 

* The date of the Certification.- as above

 

 

Please respond with the requested information which you are obliged to

supply. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a Subject Access Request

under S7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and as such it does not

incur a fee of £10.

 

 

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

 

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

 

And what about the dates these charges were allegedly made on? equita

have form for loading fees that do not comply with the Regulations.

 

The letter I wrote for him to request the breakdown is the standard one which appears on here, requesting time and date of fees and the bailiff applying them.

Equita's response was a 'tick box' thing which lists every fee on their books and then marks off the ones they have charged in this case. No date & time is noted for any of them. They did name the bailiff and confirm when and where he was certificated, but this is just noted at the bottom of the letter, they don't apply a bailiff's name to each fee. Until the bailiff turned up the only fee Equita had charged was the letter fee (he made an arrangement at the first letter through Equita's call centre before it got assigned to a field bailiff).

A friend of mine has recently paid off Equita to the tune of £378 following a doorstep visit giving him 24 hours notice to pay. This is in respect of a parking ticket which he already had a payment arrangement with Equita which he was sticking to but they decided he had defaulted on.

My friend had agreed a monthly repayment, made the first and second payments, but then got a knock from the bailiff who claimed his arrangement was not for monthly payments but for 4 weekly ones, and as such his second payment was made 2 days late. Although my friend pointed out that as he is paid monthly he would never have agreed to a 4 weekly payment and also pointed to the fact that he had made 2 payments as evidence that he was paying back his debt, the bailiff demanded full repayment within 24 hours or face removal of goods.

No levy appeared to be made on any goods (he opened the door to him but the bailiff did not enter, and he now has a different car to the one at the time of the ticket so no car was levied on) and none is specifically claimed, but I couldn't see how in the absence of a levy the bailiffs fees could have got so high (almost £250 added on top of his repayment arrangement). I told him to request a breakdown, and Equita have replied with this:

First Notice £13.44

First Visit Fee £42.00

Attendance Fee £200.40

Card Payment Fee £4.68

Giro Book / Admin Fee £5.82

When I questioned the huge 'attendance fee' he told me that the bailiff said this was for 'attending equipped to remove goods'. When my friend paid the fee the next day he request a receipt and a breakdown, at which point the bailiff went off to his van and came back handing him a form 9 for £167 + Vat of £33.40 to get to the £200.40 fee.

The form 9 states this is for 'The cost of attending to remove goods on for the purpose of sale is calculated as follows: Number and type of vehicles used for removal - 1, Number of Men Employed - 1'

My friend has confirmed that the bailiff turned up on his own in a small white van which presumably was the bailiff's own van and not one hired for the purpose.

To me it seems a clear case of the bailiff can't charge any removal fees as he has no levy (the bailiffs don't even seem to claim one on their breakdown of charges) and thus no knowledge of what equipment he may require to 'attend equipped to remove goods'. The form 9 seems a bit inappropriate in this case too.

Equita's breakdown does rather smugly state that all the charges are prescribed in 'The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993'. I looked at this quickly on legislation.gov.uk, but this seems to refer to debts under the Road Traffic Act 1991. However, the PCN was issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Any advice on what he can claim back here? My thinking is complaint to the council on the grounds that the bailiff company didn't set the original agreement up correctly (although he'll probably never prove that) but the £200.40 'attendance fee' seems completely contrived, and how strong are any of the others?

I have a first name for the person at the council who answered my call, followed by the first name of the 'team leader' who told me not to bother paying online as it would only get credited to this year.

Looks like online payment wouldn't be a wise move if I have no guarantees as to where the council would apply the payment.

I am planning a visit in person to the council on Friday to see if that yields better results.

So, I have managed to secure the funds to pay off the debt in full on Friday, along with the maximum of £42.50 in fees. I decided that I would contact the bailiff first to tell him when I could pay and find out how much he wants as if it was just debt+£42.50 then this is what I'd be paying anyway. He said he be happy if I paid on Friday but when I asked for the balance he quoted a figure which would amount to about £170 in charges. I asked him for a breakdown of these charges, he told me that he doesn't have it to hand, but he would have and would show me 'if he visits again', but if another visit is necessary this would be chargeable too. He then got nasty and told me that the only way to stop this bill getting any bigger is to pay what he asked for, and if I wanted to argue the charges I would need to do that after. I hung up on him, he didn't call back.

I decided what I would then do is pay the council directly and argue with the bailiffs about their fees after. I rang the council who stated that they could not accept payment directly from me as it has gone to bailiffs and that the matter must be sorted out with them. I said that I didn't think they could refuse payment if I'm offering to pay the debt in full and asked spent 10 minutes asking to speak to a manager and going round in circles before telling them that if they wouldn't accept payment in person or over the phone then I'd just them pay online, but either way I was going to pay them. I was then told that this wouldn't work and if I did pay online this would just be taken off this year's bill, not last year's which the bailiffs are trying to enforce.

Following a further few minutes of going round in circles arguing I hung up on the council too.

Can anyone confirm where I stand with paying the council online? Can they choose where to credit the amount (I'm sure I've seen things before which says payments are always applied to the oldest debt first), and what happens to the warrant itself once the debt is paid? I will happily pay the £42.50 to Rossendales and am willing to argue the toss over their £170 in charges, but do they still have a valid warrant if the debt itself is paid and only their fees are left outstanding? I'm up for the fight with them but I can't be dealing with months of parking my car in another town and checking the door before opening it in order to prevent them gaining a levy whilst this is being sorted.

The amount due is correct, as I said above it's not something I can argue with and whilst I anticipated making a repayment plan with the council for it I could manage to borrow the amount within a couple of weeks so I can clear the debt itself. I would prefer to go down the route of paying the council directly and then arguing the toss with the bailiffs over their fees later. If I do that, what is likely to happen with Rossendales? Would they even get an update that the debt itself has been repaid and they can only chase me for fees, and what happens to the warrant itself once the debt is paid? Could they levy on fees alone?

Hi,

I have a Council Tax debt from last year which had a Warrant issued in March.

Can't argue about the debt, but I have not yet been able to start making repayments due to financial troubles.

I only moved to this area within the last year, and in the old area the LO followed a distinct pattern of letters that took place before the matter would leave the council's books.

About a month after the warrant, you'd be sent a very strongly worded letter giving you 14 days to pay.

About 2 months after that, you'd get a final warning that further collections activity would commence if you didn't arrange to pay within 14 days.

Rather stupidly, I assumed this was standard practice and so anticipated these letters would arrive to put the matter off for long enough for me to sort my finances out and pay them.

It seems the my new LO doesn't work that way (should've guessed really when they charge £85 for a court summons vs £60 where I used to live).

I had the summons issued, and today have come home to a hand delivered letter from Rossendales

(it was left hanging out of the letterbox so I've put it back there for obvious reasons),

with no warning at all that they were going to start bailiff action

(I also find it odd they're using Rossendales when they are an LA who have outsourced their admin to Capita)

Rossendales in their letter have stated that I can still pay by instalments with an initial payment of £50, but they haven't stated their costs.

I'm not going to attempt to avoid the debt,

but I want to make sure that I do not pay a penny more than necessary in bailiff's fees

and so want to be a bit more clued up before contacting them.

Can anyone confirm what the maximum fee should be for a single delivered letter,

if anyone with experience of know what instalments they are likely to take,

and whether an instalment plan with the bailiffs would be subject to a levy

(provided their costs are not insane, I can probably borrow the money to pay them off in full within a week or 2).

One thing I find a bit odd is the date of the warrant is printed on the letter,

but everything else is written on by hand (even saying it's for council tax is a tick box,

there are other options for Road Traffic debt etc).

It also has been stapled to something else at some time.

Although it's hand delivered, I'm almost the actual bailiff has not been here

- my car was parked outside (it's now been moved 5 miles away)

and my front facing windows were wide open all day

so the seizure which they apparently intended to do could easily have been done.

The full text of the letter is:

 

NOTICE OF BAILIFFS ATTENDANCE

 

 

MAGISTRATED LIABILITY ORDER / WARRANT OF EXECUTION DATED ------ FOR

 

 

UNPAID COUNCIL TAX

 

 

 

Re: Address: (my address)

 

 

Amount Due (amount due) PLUS COSTS

 

Payment should be made direct to the bailiff below to avoid unnecessary

action

 

I have attended today with the intention of seizing your goods and chattels

as are necessary to discharge the above debt.

 

If you cannot pay this amount in full you should be aware that even at this

late station with an initial payment of £50 you can still pay by

instalments.

 

 

To discuss the options open to you please contact me immediately on

--------

 

 

Failure to contact regarding this notice will result in further enforcement

action, which will incur further costs.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

Mr. -------

(Bailiff in Charge)

You got EXACTLTY what you requested and paid for, YOU made the mistake.

That is not in question. I made a mistake, not the railway company. My point is that the railway will now see me punished for that mistake whereas other customer service industries would consider it a matter of goodwill to allow me to make it in order to keep my custom. My point is also that this entire argument has come about because I bought my ticket online and collected it from a ticket machine - a route the TOC promotes heavily. Had I purchased it in person at a ticket office (which I would gladly have done if it isn't liable to closure without warning) the clerk confirmed that he could and would have refunded it. This reeks of discrimination given that another person could make exactly the same mistake but, because had they used another route to purchase it, wouldn't have the problems I have

Other retail industries cannot be compared as 'like for like' customer service matters for very good reason.

What are the 'very good reasons'? A privatised railway operation is a commercial service business, where a service is provided in exchange for payment from the customer. Without the customer there is no business, therefore you don't upset the customer, even if the law says that you can. Seems simple enough to me. I don't know why the railway industry think they are so special and so exempt from common practices elsewhere in other commercial customer service industries.

People who book advance tickets get a complimentary seat reservation and once booked, that ticket & seat is no longer available to other travellers at the same price. You want to change your ticket at a later time, in so doing you have denied another traveller the right to book that cheap ticket and seat because the numbers of these are strictly limited, so it is not a comparable business at all.

Who said it was a discounted advance ticket? It was a standard ticket for the full fair bought in advance - not a discounted one. There was no cheap travel and no seat reservation involved. No other passengers have been denied any rights - I only paid the same as a walk up passenger. The reason I bought it in advance was because the starting station is unstaffed with no ticket purchasing facilities and I didn't want the hassle of going on a man-hunt to find the guard who more often than not does nothing other than ride in the rear cab, emerging only for station duties and making no effort to check tickets - or sell one to those who don't have one. I was actually doing my bit to make sure I paid for my journey, when many travel the route concerned free of charge due to no ticket barriers and poor ticket checks on trains.

I was interested to see your note that you have done this several times before.

Perhaps you should have learned by now that you should take more care when

purchasing tickets and that people are not obliged to keep bending the rules to

correct YOUR mistakes.

I said I have done it a few times before, out of about 2000 tickets bought in the last 10 years. Hardly commonplace. And on this occasion the mistake occured during one of 7 tickets purchased on the same day.

Just making the point that the general attitude in this particular forum seems completely at odds with the attitude of the rest of CAG, which is around trying to make sure people are treated *fairly*, not just to take the view that if an industry can get away with doing something then it must be right.

Take a step back for a second. Is it *really* such a big deal or an unreasonable request for someone to say 'I booked this ticket the wrong way around. I want it changed'? It's not. In most industries, the need to be seen to be providing good service and keep the customer happy is reason enough for it to be changed, even if the law surrounding the matter doesn't require the industry to do so.

As I said earlier, until today I had no idea that the view of the rail industry, which seems well represented in this forum, is to make sure that customers pay for their mistakes, and to justify that on the grounds that 'we do it because we can'. Are we supposed to be grateful that you provide a train service, as if it's not something operated on a commercial basis and which doesn't depend on the passengers paying to use it? Do those in the industry not get that you don't have a job without us? It might be in the NRCOC, but no way in hell does refusing to change a ticket without paying a £10 admin fee which is pure additional revenue constitute good customer service. In my own field of work I do things for customers to keep them happy even though there is nothing in law to require me to do so on a daily basis because if we did anything else we'd have gone out of business years ago.

But whilst we're arguing legality, it is my view that explicitly stating that there is no right of refund in a contract is arguably illegal and constitutes an unfair term in the contract. I had hoped to receive some advice on that point, I can see that I won't get it from here.