Jump to content

taurusgemini

Banned
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About taurusgemini

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. Of course you are assuming that the date the letter is sent is the same as the date on the letter. The reality is a letter dated, say, 1st Feb, sent maybe 4th Feb second class, received maybe 7th Feb. The EA then turns up on the 8th. Don't say that doesn't happen cos we know it does. As has been said, it costs £1.10 to send a letter 'signed-for' - surely the grossly excessive £75 compliance stage fee can accommodate that?
  2. What would happen if the invitee disagreed with the "official" line? Debate has been welcomed and encouraged elsewhere, let's hope the same applies here.
  3. I seem to have found where the advice originated to do a chargeback and 'make the bailiff pay the debt', for want of a better description; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?158942-leter-from-bailiff-re-council-tax/page2 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?156344-Marstons-took-money-on-my-bank-card
  4. I have certainly seen examples of debtors either being told that because their goods are over £1350 they can be taken, or have been taken. Another example - a debtor's only asset is a work van valued around £1500, and is essential to his job. Can the EA take that vehicle leaving the debtor with no van to go to work in, effectively making him redundant? Is that what Parliament intended? Pay the bailiff or lose your income?
  5. I recall making comment on this situation recently but it came to nothing. It seems that if your work goods are valued at £1349 they can touch nothing, but if they are worth £1351 they can take the lot - taking the figures to the extreme I know, but you get the drift. Surely they should be leaving you with goods worth £1350? For example, if your goods are worth £2000, they can take £650 worth of them? I can't see it being the intention of Parliament to have a situation as stated in my first paragraph, as that would be grossly unjust.
  6. So who is claiming the amount is no longer outstanding? Clearly if the amount has been refunded, the amount is outstanding. I suppose the only difference would be if you could prove you never owed the money in the first place.
  7. Who is saying that a chargeback results in a warrant ceasing to have effect? I'm a little puzzled by this assertion.
  8. I don't see where a debtor's been advised that doing a chargeback ceases the enforcement power. Can you direct us to it? A chargeback is simply that - if you feel you have been forced to pay something unlawful, you can ask the bank to send you the forms to start the process. It may be accepted, it may not. I did one last year with Tesco's after they mucked up a home delivery order.
  9. Hull City https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_58#outgoing-408934 Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into force, has Hull City Council handed any monies which a debtor has paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability to its enforcement agent? No, Hull City Council has not handed any monies which a debtor has paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability to an enforcement agent. Southampton https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/242340/response/591914/attach/html/3/FOI%201415%201080R.pdf.html Southampton City Council has not handed any monies, which a debtor has paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability to its enforcement agent.
×
×
  • Create New...