Leakie
-
Posts
945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Leakie
-
I think it is continuous, on the DD I had an email with the new payment schedule, I do not know if registared keepers are informed if they pay once a year. Leakie
-
Hi Mark you are way off the mark with regards to Bankfodder What he said was also correct. if the fscs had not paid out it would still have been down to the employers!! leakie
-
Totally agree BN I was not paid by a client and it quickly spirals out of control, Missed payments on CT Lo awarded enforcement cost added, but back to square one as did not have the cash to pay next CT and so it continues. Some time people need a break to get sorted, Unfortunately that does not always happen, People are not always cowards it is circumstance, which is not the creditors problem, Unfortunately Enforcement is a one size fits all Leakie
-
Well said BN Leakie
-
No Probs any more problems get back and help will be here for you Leakie
-
Thanks BA I thought there was a thread where some one stated the opposite, and it was argued quite a lot. Leakie
-
You may be lucky, I personaly think that if the EA has not call then no extra should be charged, but others say once it has been passed to the EA then the £235 is due. You have done everything you can, lets hope this will be the end of it, please update if you need too Leakie
-
Hi Simon Unfortunately, the £50.00 will not be the final payment, Unless you can persuade Rossendale not to send the EA, It will be another £235 to pay A bit harsh as only £250.00 outstanding. Sorry for the bad news Leakie
-
Thanks for the update Bru, and for the correction, Just glad you got it sorted in the end. Leakie
-
good result council back down Newlyns backed down as they were wrong!! obviously not a strong case if went to court otherwise they would not back down . good result Bru as you agreed you owed the £310. Leakie
-
This is why I said about the dates and a grey area, If Bru had paid 2 weeks later then the NoE would have expired, and anything happening would have been unlawful and he would have had a stronger argument.
-
Just had a re read of the first part of the thread. Key dates NoE dated 16-08-15 Payment 03-08-16 ( payment made to council less EC fees) Car seized 19-08-16 So it looks like not quite the 1 year for the NoE. But as has been stated in the past on other threads, The £75 is due when the council passes it over to the EC so this must be the start of the NoE . may be a bit of leeway there? To me Bru it Looks like you are in a grey area, How much is the car worth? I think it is cut your loses and pay the £310, get your car back. or let them keep the car, I do not think you will win on this one as it is a grey area with the dates, for a strong case. What ever you do I wish you luck, In my opinion the regs are too one sided for the EC, leakie
-
Thanks for getting back on this, I would have thought that as the council came back, with the offer, they must have realised that the correct procedures were not followed. Otherwise they would have stuck to there guns. I agree that the £310 is owed but even then Bru said that the first time he had any contact, or visit was when the car was taken!
-
Something does not sound right here, The council have had some of the fee's cancelled, Just guessing the council and the EC are trying it on as they know they have not followed the regs, The council were probably asked for the remainder of the amount. Good luck Bru please let us know how you get on. BA you had a partial result, Why have you not followed through to the end? Sorry by this I mean that the car should be returned, regardless of if the enforcement fee and the compliance fee being paid or not. so that he is put back in the position before the car was unlawfully taken. The EC could the reapply and continue as it should have been done in the first place! Also the EC/Council should pay any costed whilst the car was in unlawfully seized!
-
Thanks for the explanation DB
-
Why is this DB ? why should it be in any different just because they are Bailiffs Is it to stop discourage claims against them? just curious.
-
Thanks WD seemed to have missed that point Stand corrected no problem
-
Hi Erisbrother Thanks for the interest. A bit of an update. The meeting for last week was cancelled at short notice. But we had a meeting today, Well EWMHS (emotional well-being mental health services)have decided that my son has a problem and needs to have a gradual return to school. So County Missing School Child working Services have now closed the case, The problem I had no one on the Medical side were prepared to commit themselves until they knew what was wrong. But EWMHS decided this was the best way forward, even though, they have not assessed him, to see what the problem is! Just seems like they were just going through the motions, and causing me a lot of distress in the process. How can the know what the problems are until they have seen my son.? So the main part is over for now, and hopefully he will get the help needed, the school have now change there attitude as from today. These agencies seem more worried about following procedure than about helping my son with his issues. more meetings to come , so will update as and when, it may be useful for other menbers? Leakie
-
Sorry to put a dampener on a great thread In the past you have said a receipt or proof of payment is needed as well, As tax insurance and v5 is not proof of ownership? Stand corrected if wrong or does it depend on the EC?
-
I suppose the simple way to put this DB, 1- If there was not a controlled goods agreement in place 2- The NoE had Expired 3- Would the EA be able to legally, take the car in lieu of payment. 4- If they are which part of the legislation covers it. And to answer about the dates The Op did say they had no contact with the EA until the car was taken. Only letters and the car was taken after the NoE had expired. If the EA did turn up nothing was left to say a visit had taken place. I think this is correct I am sure Bru911 would correct me if I had summarised incorrectly.
-
I believe there are 2 issues here that need to be separated. 1 The car taken on an out of time NoE (Should the car have been taken with the out of time NoE No I do not think so) 2 the £310 owed to the EC (are they owed in my opinion yes they are )
-
Yes BA But it would not be just a council Clerk, From my experience once you have a LO you deal with recovery dept. And they should know better , if not they need to be retrained I think we are missing the point The Op thinks there has been an injustice, as the NoE had expired, And if the info on here is correct the EC have not followed correct procedure, The Rules are not set just for the Debtor ! They are there for everyone involved. But for some reason the only ones who suffer the consequences is the debtor and not the EC. Seems like it was designed that way. Yes you did say early on about settling up to save money, but too me something smells here in the way the EC have acted. I can only go on the info I have picked up on here it just does not feel right to me, The Op will decide which way he wants to go with this, He is making his own informed decision. He has asked for help with the section 85 so lets help him through this. that is after all why he came here in the first place,
-
Bailiff Advise is the best one for this, as she has stated in an earlier post she has only lost one
-
Hi BA possibly good advise but you do tend to pay up then fight for the money back. It may be easy for you to say, but some debtors do not have the spare cash, Yes may be lose the car, but with the fees it probably will not cover the fees if sold. By the sound of it the OP is working on the Principle of what he thinks is right and the Bailiff is in the wrong and not following procedure. which may be the case. Why should people have to try and get the cars back if the Bailiffs do not do the proper checks If there was a penalty for the EA for every time he got it wrong then may be things would change very quickly. As I have said before Procedures are there to be followed to protect the Debtor and the EA, if not followed, the EA should forfeit part of the fees just like the debtor is penalised for not following, or able to follow procedure. BA may be advise on the section 85 would be good advise for the OP
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS