Jump to content

old bill

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


old bill last won the day on November 14 2016

old bill had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

596 Excellent

About old bill

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. I shall clarify, TT. Utilities appear to be using the High Court court route as a default option, rather than as a last resort. There have been cases where the utility compay will not engage with alleged debtors and ploughs on regardless. In one case, an EA working for an HCEO hoodwinked the police into believing he was allowed to put his foot in the door of a domestic property for a non-commercial debt and push against the door. The police have now found out othewise and are not happy bunnies.
  2. TT, I've just posted on another thread you have posted on about this. There are problems with rogue elements within the enforcement industry and professsional trolls causing disruption on the group you mention. The group should not be judged solely on what is posted, as what you are reading may not necessarily have been put there by a valid member of the group of member of the public seeking help.
  3. Thank you for drawing this to my attention, TT. However, I am finding there is abuse of the High Court enforcement process by utlities and it is not isolated cases either. Steps are being taken to identify the main and repeat offenders. If a debt is over £5,000, fair enough as the law requires the debt to be transferred to the HC for enforcement, but there are what appears to be an increasing number of cases of commercial creditors using the HC enforcement process for debts below £5,000 and, alarmingly, under £1,000. Where the enforcement process is being used as a form of punishment for being
  4. Spot-on, UB. That is more or less what the ICO told me when I spoke to them initially about the pensioner's case. There is more to the case than I am able to disclose and those issues have to be dealt with separately.
  5. Until ICO start their investigation, DB, we don't know who else they have been disclosing this pensioner's personal data to without proper authorisation or outside the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1998. For you to claim it is single "no fault" error, my response to such a statement is:- 1. Do you have insider knowledge; and 2. How do you know it is a "no fault" error? The LA have changed their story as to how this happened a number of times. They cannot seem to get their story straight. Without you seeing the exchange of communications between myself and the LA, I doubt you
  6. The LA had no lawful authority to pass the pensioner's personal data to the enforcement company, stu007. In all fairness, the enforcement company advised me the pensioner's personal data was in a digital file with other persons' personal data. They have been helpful in this respect. It is likely they will need to revise their procedures to prevent a recurrence of this.
  7. To answer your question, TT, at the time of the assault, the pensioner was aged 69/70 years, which, according to retired counsel I have spoken to, is an aggravating factor.
  8. The ICO has informed me the matter of compensation is something that has to be pursued separately, TT. As to them fining the LA, I wil have to wait and see what transpires.
  9. Certainly. My experience of dealing with cases of malfeasant EAs is that referring the matter to the Complaints Manager at the enforcement company has resulted in the matter being resolved in most cases. Where LAs are concerned and council officers try to fob one off to the enforcement company, I have found involving local ward councillors and MPs can be useful. Although TCoG has clarified matters where civil enforcement is concerned, there are, sadly, EAs who seem to be under the impression it is "business as usual" and behave as if TCoG does not exist. The matter of the flying 1
  10. As soon as the enforcement company were told that no warrant was in existence, to their credit, they ceased enforcement action immediately. An investigation is ongoing into the matter of how the LA allowed the pensioner's personal data to be sent to the enforcement company when it knew it had no justification for doing so, claiming a fault with their computer system, then claiming something completely unrelated was the reason. The reason the ICO has become involved is that when the matter of the pensioner's personal data was sent to the enforcement company, by the LA, without any justifi
  • Create New...