Jump to content

dettydoo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

dettydoo last won the day on December 12 2015

dettydoo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About dettydoo

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. My sympathies for your loss. I was in an identical situation a while back when my husband died. We had no joint assets (I owned the house we lived in from prior to our marriage) and he left many debts behind. I can only emphasise what those above are telling you and that is you are NOT responsible for any debts in your late husband's sole name, however much some may try to mislead you into believing. My policy was to communicate as little as possible with firms. After all as I was neither my late husband nor his executor, I had no obligation to them. I returned many letters just crossed off 'deceased'. (Hard to do I know). Those I knew to be chasing debts, I returned with the following note: "Please be advised that family members of Mr ***** deceased will not be dealing with any estate for the above, as the afore-mentioned died insolvent. It is trusted that this fully clarifies the situation and that the family of the deceased will not be troubled further." No name or signature, naturally. I heard no further from them after that. I trust you are aware of the Bereavement Payments you can get. Form BB1 from your local Job Centre is the form that is required. I got a £2,000 lump sum payment and now receive a weekly Widowed Parents' Allowance - for those without children I believe there is also a Bereavement Allowance for a year. It all helps! All the best from someone who has been in your situation.
  2. Can't thank you enough for all your helpful responses. We did send off yesterday an immediate letter to Kingston Borough Council letting them know we will hold them fully accountable for an breach of the regulations in taking the blue badge vehicle. Our personal belief was that this was a 'try on' by the bailiffs to try and intimidate him into paying the almost £700 this has now arisen to. Next week will crack on with the paperwork regarding the original pcn itself. Certainly would be worth trying to ask them to use their discretionary power to cancel it first. Once again thanks for all your help - I will let you know if there is anything we need any further advice on and will certainly post any developments here, so hopefully it may of assistance to anyone else in the same position in the future!
  3. I can pass that information on to his relations who were dealing with the paperwork of the debt originally. Just to confirm I never at any point have assumed any responsibility for helping him either pay or get out of his penalty charge notice, I just wanted to clarify whether or not a car with a blue badge could be taken, and I am happy we have now established it cannot. But thanks to everyone who offered assistance.
  4. Many thanks, soapstone, much appreciated. Just one question, again as a point of argument, what would the situation be if the enforcement agents breached these The Taking Control Of Goods Regulations 2013, i.e. came and took the car even with a disabled badge on it?
  5. "If he is that vulnerable and unable to look after his own affairs at 80 years old maybe driving is not such a good idea anyway?" He is passed fit to drive by his doctors and DVLA - the only ones that matter. If you read the criteria of 'Vulnerable People' you will also see that pregnant women, the unemployed or those who have a poor command of English are included. As I think I stated above, are you claiming they shouldn't drive also? I also understand that a man in the War flew a Spitfire with no legs. A certain Douglas Bader. Perhaps he shouldn't have done that? Disability is no indication of an ability or not to be able to drive. "They are not really helping the matter" I came on this forum to try and find the ruling on a point of law, not to be lectured as to what I should or should not be doing when in fact I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever regarding any debt, raising funds or the management thereof. The gentleman in question was attacked in his own home a while back and as far as I am concerned if I am in some small way trying to prevent a disabled War Veteran suffering distress in the last few years or possibly months of his life, regardless of what he does or does not owe, and that those in positions of power are made to adhere to their own quality standards, my conscience is completely clear. My main reason for 'helping' him on this forum is purely because I have access to the internet. He does not, in common with many senior citizens. As for your suggestion that therefore I should 'lend him the money', judging by your past posts on similar issues you quite clearly have a poorly-disguised agenda with your remarks, so don't propose to respond further to trolling, anymore than I would have done had it been on twitter.
  6. To confirm the situation immediately after the traffic violation occurred. Mr B was admitted to hospital two days after (he was obviously at that time unaware of the bus lane violation), and was seriously ill for a considerable time, at one point not being expected to survive. By the time he had sufficiently recovered to deal with numerous aspects of letters, etc., the Bailiffs had been instructed. Obviously he is now fit to drive, and if he wasn't would not do so. At times when he was unable or medically required not to drive (such as immediately after his heart bypass), he has not done so. However surely his status as a 'Vulnerable Household' is not dependant on his ability to be in charge of a car. I notice 'Vulnerable Status' also might include the pregnant and those may have English language problems, neither of whom it would be considered as unfit to drive. The Council in question have ignored all medical documentation sent to them. The Bailiffs have also ignored a request for a copy of their complaints procedure. However, my main question was not directly concerning the PCN, but a point of principal and legality as to whether his car, displaying a blue badge, can be removed, after having read that it cannot on a Citizens Advice Bureau page. This is, of course, our immediate concern, as without a car it would render him housebound (he lives halfway up a hill and cannot walk up from the bus stop). Would this not therefore be contrary to the rights of disabled person (only thinking..). I am aware the Police cannot remove the car, unless it is causing a dangerous obstruction, so why should greater powers apply to a bailiff, so it is less a question about parking violation and more about disability rights. Once again, many thanks.
  7. Medical documentation was sent in the form of a detailed list of all the medication he takes for heart problems, artery blockages. etc. Obviously a doctor would not prescribe medication if it was not required! I also believe, according to what I have read of the Enforcement Agents' Standards, that to be 'elderly' in itself is enough to be considered vulnerable (I assume a man in his eighties would qualify) (paragraph 77), and they have written proof of his age. They also say the use of discretion is a must in any cases where they may be potential for vulnerability (paragraph 70 and 71). I will await to hear more in the morning, and thanks again!
  8. No, he doesn't have a Free Road Fund Licence, just the blue badge in his name because of his inability to walk. The blue badge is clearly displayed in his window. Yes, the Council involved have been fully informed and have received a formal complaint as to the behaviour of their bailiffs in disregarding his vulnerability status. The only mitigating circumstances surrounding the ticket were that he was too ill to attend to it when it was received (at one point it appeared he was not going to survive) and by the time had recovered enough to ask for help with his affairs the Bailiffs had become involved. It was at this point I composed a letter advising both Collect and the Council of his vulnerability status and that they should cease their intention to call at the property and deal with collection by other means. Collect ignored this and called twice. Once I answered the door and the person was extremely aggressive, demanding to discuss the matter with me (which I believe is also against their regulations). I am sure that Mr B could pay the amount of the original ticket - perhaps from deductions from his Pension Credit at an acceptable rate, but this has now been multiplied sixfold by bailiff's charges. The most serious aspect, and I don't feel I am exaggerating here, is that any stress on his doorstep could literally kill him, and I simply cannot believe that these people are allowed to behave in this manner when their National Standards quite clearly state otherwise.
  9. Thank you, Sparks, that is exactly what I am trying to do. Regardless of whether or not I could afford to lend Mr B the money, £400 worth of the sum claimed owed was added AFTER the Bailiffs had chosen to breach their Code of Conduct and visit a person they knew to be classified as 'Vulnerable'. Perhaps I am somewhat naive in this matter, but I do believe these people should be held accountable for simply believing they have no obligation to adhere to the regulations set up for their industry.
  10. Funnily enough, Mr B (not his real name) did apply for Motability but did not qualify because he did not receive any disability benefits until after the age 0f 65, and therefore receives Attendance Allowance and not the required DLA. These bailiffs have constantly ignored and refused to accept that he is a vulnerable household - he is in his eighties, suffering from cancer and heart disease, and was recently attacked in his own home so becomes extremely nervous at the presence of strangers. If he isn't vulnerable, I don't know who is!! We are currently compiling a full complaint to CIVEA, but in view of this letter today think we need some urgent advice as to what they can or cannot do. Seriously worried that if anyone calls to take his car while he is on his own at home, he could suffer a heart attack or something. Once again your help is much appreciated.
  11. It is his own car, owned outright, and the blue badge has been granted by his local council a few years back (after medical reports, etc.) due to his inability to walk more than a few yards, circulation and heart problems. He receives Attendance Allowance. I found the blue badge advice on a Citizens Advice Bureau page (can't link so will cut and paste) Can bailiffs take a vehicle? Bailiffs are allowed to take your vehicle when collecting a debt. There are some exceptions to this, which are: a vehicle which is necessary for your work, study or business, and where there is no alternative public transport you could use instead, as long as it is not worth more than £1350 - this rule does not apply if your debts are for business rates or taxes a vehicle which you're paying for on a hire puchase or conditional sale agreement a vehicle which is displaying a disabled blue badge and is used for transporting a disabled person Much appreciated!
  12. I have one upset old gentleman here so am really trying to help him as much as I can - but am not sure of exactly what I need to do.
  13. I am writing on behalf of an elderly 80-year-old, seen your Forums in the past, and hoping you might be able to give me some advice on his behalf. Mr B was given a PCN by Kingston Council for driving in a bus lane. He has had several periods in hospital, and therefore the matter has now been processed to bailiffs, Collect Services, who have now called twice at his property (despite being advised he is a vulnerable person). A complaint was made to Collect and a copy of their complaints procedure requested. No response has been received from that, and a complaint has been lodged with CIVEA, but he has today received the letter below, which has caused him great distress "Dear XXXX XXXX Due to your failure to settle this unpaid Penalty Charge Notice(s) your vehicle has now been included on our outstanding pcn ANPR database. In the event we LOCATE your vehicle it will be REMOVED and taken to auction without any further warning. Additional costs of £xxx.xx will be incurred plus auctioneers costs." The car is his sole means of getting around (he can barely walk a few yards) and displays a blue badge registered in his name. I had always believed (and indeed have seen on the Citizens Advice Website) that a car displaying a blue badge and for the use of a disabled person cannot be taken by bailiffs. Is this correct. If so what steps should now be taken. The car is in his driveway (he has no garaging facilities or anywhere else he can leave the car) and he is quite upset that these people (who have already been very aggressive with a carer who answered the door for him). Can they take this car with the blue badge? Should we write to them? Is there legislation we need to quote? Any help would be much appreciated. He cannot afford the amount they are requesting (now over or near£600), and these bailiffs seem to think they can just walk roughshod over whatever regulations are in place to help vulnerable people like him.
×
×
  • Create New...