Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Avg. Content Per Day

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dodgeball last won the day on April 4

Dodgeball had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,220 Excellent

About Dodgeball

  • Rank
    Gold Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

403 profile views
  1. How long have they given you to send the form back? The statutory period is seven days but many EA's give you more. Just some basic things about CTax bailiffs you probably already know. They have no powers to force entry, however, they can gain access through an unlocked door or take goods from the garden. They can call on any day of the year between 6 am and 9 pm. If the Bailiff does not collect, and the warrant is returned to the council all fees will disappear and you will be left with just the original debt. So if you did nothing and you are happy for the threat of the Bailiff calling for up to twelve months you could just "sit it out" and eventually you may get away with just paying the council the original debt without fees. Many subscribe to this course of action. The downside is, for the period mentioned there is the continual threat of the bailiff calling and all the stress that goes with it. in addition most importantly, the authority, on the return of the warrant may just pass it to another bailiff. So perhaps over the weekend, you could decide which path you want to pursue. I don't want to persuade you either way but personally, I would rather just get it sorted, (With the authority if possible) and get on with the important stuff in my life :).
  2. No sorry DX, should have been clearer. He can charge the compliance(£75) three times, but the enforcement fee just once, that is, if it is reasonable for him to attend at the same time for all warrants.
  3. If you are successful in getting through to the council, tell them you are not trying to avoid the debt and would be happy to commence a repayment plan with them(the authority) immediately.
  4. Also, mention section 9 of the taking control of goods regulations. This limits the period a warrant may be applied to twelve months. Time limit for taking control of goods 9.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor after the expiry of a period of 12 months beginning with the date of notice of enforcement. This may be more apposite if you have received a notice of enforcement at the dates quoted.
  5. 83.2 CPR (1) This rule applies to— (a) writs and warrants of control; (b) writs of execution; (c) warrants of delivery; (d) warrants of possession. (2) A writ or warrant to which this rule applies is referred to in this rule as a 'relevant writ or warrant'. (3) A relevant writ or warrant must not be issued without the permission of the court where— (a) six years or more have elapsed since the date of the judgment or order; This is from the Civil procedure rules. I would ring the council in the first instance, although they may just refer you to the Bailiff. Just ask when permission from the court under section 83.2 CPR was obtained.
  6. Hi As DX says ring the Authority and find out when the LIability orders were issued. They are barred from acquiring one after six years under the Council Tax Regs. Also, if the LO was issued over six years ago, they will be barred from enforcing until they obtain the permission of the court. If the EA has more than one Warrant to enforce at the same time he should only levy the one fee.
  7. Yes, and as said they are generally quite approachable, and being salaried has a lot to do with it. Sorry, I was referring to EAs. I can't think of any other situation where you get two for one.
  8. Yes and I think I pointed out that the enforceability of the CCA is dependant on more than the document you posted. On its own, the agreement sites all the correct terms and is compliant with section 77. However, it also has to comply with the agreement(copy) you signed, how can anyone who as not seen that document say one way or the other. I went on to explain how it would be impossible to calculate the terms on the second agreement from the first as the first did not exist. I seem to be constantly repeating myself, and I do not see you doing anything to move this case forward.
  9. This is probably in relation to the second charge that bailiffs make, It can only be rendered when the debtor has not satisfactorily responded to the first notice and the bailiff calls at the property. The Regulations state that this fee £235 should cover any other, simultaneous calls, for other debts that are on the bailiff's books. Your priority is to ensure the offer you made in relation to the first notice you received is accepted, thus the second stage fee will not be due at all.
  10. It may be as said that one or some of those charges were within the TCC, this would account for the error.
  11. In your defence you could say: The APR calculated to 99% rather than that indicated in your reconstruction. I remind you that the FCA defines an acceptable margin of error as .1% below the actual value or 1% above, this represents a breach of section 65-127(1) CCA1974. The increased APR also leads me to believe there was another item in the charge for credit, That or the repayment details were incorrect, which would render the agreement unredeemable, not having the original it is impossible to ascertain what was on it.. AS well as the other factors I submit that it would be extremely unlikely, and certainly beyond the realms of the evidential test for you to be able to reconstruct a Section 77 compliant copy feel free to alter/ammend substitute/ correct spellimg etc/.
  12. The cause of action date now corresponds with the DN date plus 14 days. This must be held in mind whenever our dealing with SB issues, So do you know exactly when the default was issued. The date would have to be before any assignment to a debt collector. Further, no one seems to have told you why the letter sent to you was incorrect, it seems pretty reasonable to me. They could not issue a default so they waited for the agreement to terminate itself, and the proceded, what's wrong with that?
  13. I feel you should be made aware of this ruling, I am unsure whyyou have not been already.
  14. Nope, nothing, section 42 was my post, i presumed you meant 41. No matter
  • Create New...