Jump to content

Tim Deegan

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Tim Deegan

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I should think...only guessing though, that they called at the address on the warrant because the OP hadn't changed the details with the DVLA. And that nobody was in, so they called back another two times. It doesn't seem right that they can charge to knock at the door, and not get an answer. Maybe someone can tell us if they can. Or it is possible that they just didn't believe the person at that address who told them that the person on the warrant didn't live there. That is actually more or less what I said. I think you may have misunderstood me.
  2. If they haven't told you what the 'other' fees are, then they haven't given you a proper breakdown. Ask again for a breakdown of the 'other' charges.
  3. I can understand that you are still looking into the bailiffs actions as a backup. However you need to concentrate on the legallity of the warrant, and therefore it is the council who are your target. If the council issued an illegal warrant, then I should think they will be made to refund you. Then the council will have to pay the bailiff (not you).
  4. Yet again you have completely missed the point!! I didn't make a statement saying the warrant was illegal. I said that if the warrant was illegal, then that is the avenue that the OP should go down. If the bailiffs acted illegally, then that is a seperate issue, but it isn't clear if they did or not, and so shouldn't be used as the primary course of action. [EDIT] [EDIT]
  5. I think the OP said they hadn't informed the DVLA. This is why I asked right near the start of this thread if this could count against the OP.
  6. I think you are missing my point. The OP's argument is with the council rather than the bailiffs. If the warrant wasn't legal in the first place, then it is the council that they would need to claim the money back from. I shouldn't think the bailiff would lose out, as they were just carrying out work contracted to them by the council, on information supplied to them, that they had every reason to assume was correct.
  7. If the bailiffs were executing a warrant that was issued by the council, then they may have had good reason to believe that they were acting lawfully as far as the above goes. They probably wouldn't have known anything about any correspondense prior to the issue of the warrant. Now someone may correct me on this. But it is my understanding that the half hour was the time it would take for the tow truck to arrive. And that they clam your car to prevent you driving it away before it arrives. If the bailiff had been in the tow truck, then he could have taken the car there and then.
  8. Very good point. Especially as you should be able to prove that neither you or your partner lived at the address where all correspondense was sent to, at the time that they sent it.
  9. I'm afraid that this is an all too common story with Dreams. On a brighter note. AS long as you didn't buy your bed and mattress from one of the other big retailers, you probably got far more for your money than you would have with dreams.
  10. Final responses aren't always final, once the company realises that they can't win the case. However many large companies think that they are above the law. How many times have we all heard the line "our company policy", when their company policy doesn't comply with the law. And the trouble is that Dreams probably do think that they are in the right, when they clearly aren't. And this is probably why the company rep hasn't come back onto this thread.
  11. If they didn't issue warrants, then they can't use bailiffs who must have a valid warrant. You have said that yourself.
  12. So you are saying that it is 100% illegal, all of the time for bailiffs to seize or clamp any vehicle when executing a warrant? We are not talking about individual cases that you have read about. We are talking about all cases. Because this is what some of you on this forum have implied.
  13. In my understanding, that's to make it harder for the bailiffs to find, and only for that reason. Most bailiffs don't use ANPR's and would be unlikely to spot your car if it was parked 100 yards down the road.
×
×
  • Create New...