Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder

wilko52

Banned
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wilko52

  1. Mikey-I recently posted this link for you, I thought you might finf it helpful: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/494/made Also, if you can find it, have a read of: Too Poor To Pay (The Impact of The Second Year of Localised Council Tax Support in London) Jointly published by CAPG & Z2K It is an excellent report, very revealing and very well researched.
  2. That is reprehensible. I have openly challenged "my Guru" on more occasions than I care to remember. I do not take sides, If someone is wrong, I challenge them, no matter where they post. Have you forgotten the "Sarah" thread already? How dare you lie and suggest that I stand back and do nothing? You have stalked that forum more than I have-You have continually "bumped" the "polly" thread on here, often using your Lackey, aka "Dodgeball" to start things off. I wouldn't be surprised if you were behind my posts on that thread, revealing the truth, being deleted. I can participate in discussion-Just not with idiots. Your pussyfooting around bailiffs is wrong. You have a conflict of interest and you dare not upset them-How can you possibly give the best advice if you are worried about upsetting bailiff companies? Anyone who has had the misfortune to be stuck on the other end of a phone with you for hours on end will know that you continually name drop these people as if they're B list celebraties "oh I walked back to the station with Andrew Hobley" "Oh Mike Garlands just emailed me" "Oh Peter Felton says the bailiff industry should police itself" etc etc Get your own house in order before criticising others Sheila.
  3. You didn't cover anything. The other individual read my post elsewhere and changed her stance. There was still confusion-My post rectified this. If I had longer, I'd correct more historic threads but we'll probably have to let them go now.
  4. I have a strong feeling that universal credit is also attachable. There is some confusion here-Only one AOB may be implemented at any given time. The deductions made from income related benefits (JSA, income support, ESA, Pension Credit etc) is at 5% (Regulation 7 of the Council Tax (Deductions From Income Support) Regulations 1993) LA's know who are receiving benefits because the responsibility for issuing CTB is with the authority. Anyone claiming one of the above income related benefits would automatically qualify for CTB also
  5. If you can point me to one post or thread of mine that has cost a debtor money, I will stop posting for good on bailiff help issues. You have already succeeded in getting one thread locked today-Shouldn't you be resting on your laurels? You are a self confessed liar-You never advise debtors-You simply exist to antagonise others. If its not me, its MM. Have a good look at yourself in the mirror.
  6. Far better. If she followed the (incorrect) advice given on here, she would have been at the mercy of JBW. She would have been forced to pay £20 per week and an extra £75 in bailiff fees. One slip up and another £235 would have been added as well. The way she is going, she is currently paying nothing, which gives her the opportunity to put a bit aside in a savings account as back up later on. The £235 fee will be removed, as well as the £75 fee. An AOE will be implemented at around £12.50 a week. So she will be paying 50% less and the bailiff fees will be removed. In addition, there is not the potential for the enforcement fee to be added later on if a £20 payment is missed. Its a no brainer. It makes no difference whether the repayments start tomorrow, next month or next year but they will be starting. There will be no bailiff fees paid on this one. I would venture that it is all about you actually, and the other individual of course-You are the ones who are continually "bumping" the thread, despite the fact that you both know that the OP will not be posting again.
  7. Awwww I'd deliberately kept the big words down to a minimum just for you as well. Thanks for letting us know anyway-I'm really interested.
  8. It is not my fault that you cannot read, or fail to understand what is written. If you interpret my comments to have been stating facts, the LOL. I'll just put it down to another "on block" moment. I would however, expect most educated people to read the comment and see clearly that it was a hypothetical example, used clearly to make a point. It is clear that it is impossible to have a rational debate with you-Your ignorance and illiteracy are bad enough but when coupled with your obsession to get one over me, it just degenerates into drivel. To think you had the cheek to accuse MM of trying to point score last week as well.
  9. There is of course another side to this: The only desperation I can see is from two individuals who appear to be praying that this poor woman has to pay the £235 enforcement fee. Councils and bailiff companies deliberately make it hard for debtors to complain or dispute matters. They hope that by sending letters to act as buffers, that the debtor will give up the will to continue, and sadly many so. One of the most important pieces of advice that I could give a debtor is to never give in, never accept what a council or bailiff company are saying and to continue until there is no avenue left open. Evert time you receive a knock back, dust yourself down and go again. Most of these disputes are marathons, not sprints. In this particular case, nobody appears to have picked up on two vital things. Firstly, the council had the opportunity to set up a second attachment. They didn't do so, probably because it is easier for them to simply pass the case over for the bailiffs to do all the work. This was wrong and should be challenged. Secondly, JBW are going to argue that the OP is not a lodger, but co-habiting with the house owner. The welfare team would be powerless to intervene. In any case, why should this woman be expected to pay a £75 compliance fee when an AOE could have and should have been set up? Isn't this the exact scenario that the CAB & DCLG were looking at when they urged councils to look at attachments before using bailiffs? Isn't this exactly why the Government are now under growing pressure to ensure that attachments are implemented wherever possible before bailiffs are used? This poor woman was recently homeless for Gods sake. It is clear that she is in a dark place financially. The current situation is that the woman has no goods of value. The bailiffs have been notified that they do not have permission to enter the property and the council have been asked to explain why an AOE was not considered. JBW have indeed added a £235 fee. This is currently being challenged. There is also a question as to whether a visit has actually taken place as no paperwork has been left at the property. There is certainly no desperation here. In fact, there is more concern regarding the existing AOE as there appears to be problems with that. A request is in, asking for the account to be taken back and a second AOE implemented (as per Government guidelines) No, it is not law but I would expect the LGO to take a very dim view if the council continue in this vein. Currently, the OP is better off, as she is not having to pay the demands made by JBW (an AOE would see her paying almost half) and she is not going to pay ANY bailiff fees, let alone the £235 enforcement fee. I would hope that most people would be supportive here. Councils do not care about their debtors or their circumstances. If Government bodies have issued reports and implemented guidelines, one would expect a council, who are supposed to act with morals and decency to adhere to them. This council have thus far acted in a particularly reprehensible way.
  10. Now you are just being infantile. What is the point of that comment? I was using a hypothetical example to make a point to CB. How could I possibly know what the ratio of Wont pays are, compared to can't pays. In less than 24 hours, you've posted circa 20 times on here-All aimed at taking cheap shots at me. Get a grip of yourself and post something constructive for a change, instead of this constant pettiness.
  11. No sorry-The paper boy etc imply a right of ACCESS, not ENTRY. Seems like it is you who has a fundamental misunderstanding. Just to throw a spanner in the works, it was also this implied right of entry that was used to justify climbing through windows-That appears to be at loggerheads with your "Cambridge Law Journal".
  12. The 1 in 6 figure was an example to make a point. It wasn't based on any facts or figures-It was hypothetical. Yes, of course most people just want to avoid the £310 fee. I would as well in their position. Many times, it should not have been implemented in the first place though and other times legislation has not been followed. I have no idea what you're on about regarding the font colour, do me a favour and spare me an explanation though.
  13. The first problem that you need to overcome is that of understanding the difference between the two scenarios: I am not saying that a bailiff may not attend because his implied right of access has been revoked (as per a NOROIROA) I am saying that a bailiff visiting a premises may imply a right of entry if he discovers the door open, or if the debtor opens the door and then leaves it unguarded for any reason. The bailiff implies this as an invitation to enter. The courts have accepted that either of these two situations (or a persons conduct) may be implied as a licence to enter. It has nothing to do with a NOROIROA. Come back when you are able to understand the difference between the two. If you are unable to do so, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, otherwise it will be disputed indefinitely.
  14. I'm not sure why there is an issue with not encountering any "won't pays"? Anyone with any hands on experience will say the same-Debtors are happy to pay the original debt, they are usually (for one reason or another) more concerned about avoiding paying the bailiff fees. Even in the two not too distant high profile Newlyn PCN cases, the arguments centred around amateurish attempts at changing ownership of vehicles, to avoid fees, rather than avoid the original debt. I think 99% of debtors know that you cannot evade these priority debts, unless you emigrate. Changing the colour of your front will not outfox the system, sadly. I know of just one person currently who is deliberately avoiding council tax. He is conducting his campaign on YT and is fondly known as "one cell". He has recently been made bankrupt and I fully expect him to be jailed at some point.
  15. It is fairly irrelevant in any case. A letter revoking permission to enter will cover all aspects, including unlocked doors. I will however try to explain the situation in laymans terms, so it might be possible for you to understand it clearer.: A bailiff may only enter a premises peaceably AND with the debtors permission. If the bailiff arrives at a premises and discovers an unlocked door, he may IMPLY right of entry. Once inside, this implication may be revoked if the debtor then asks the bailiff to leave. This is where we enter a grey area though and once inside, it will be the bailiffs word against the debtors as to what was said. This is perfectly illustrated in the JBW/Grant case last year, where contrasting accounts were given (one by the bailiff, one by Grant). I letter sent in advance refusing entry will negate any subsequent arguments. The implied right of entry is not essential but whilst writing the letter, it does no harm to add it on. Hope this makes the situation a bit clearer.
  16. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. I've encountered many types of debtor but hardly any "won't pays". Many people bury their heads in the sand, others think they have more time to deal with it than they actually do. I've even encountered a drug addict who was happy to spend her council tax money on drugs, and accept that bailiffs will be calling (at additional cost) some time in the future. There is little excuse for PCN defaulters-I find that quite often, the debtor has a chip on their shoulder and is purposely dragging repaying out. Council tax is a bit different. It is the biggest single debt in the country (in terms of numbers). In my view, this indicates something is drastically wrong with the system. We have people who were deemed too poor to pay back in 2012 who are now expected to contribute something. Millions of LO's are issued every year. People know it is going to cost them more, yet they still allow it to happen. Do you think they choose this path? One of the problems IMO is that some prefer to focus too much on debt avoiders, won't pays, fmotl etc. Society has always had those type of people and it always will do. These people should not be yours or my concern-Nor should they be the concern of help forums. If one genuine debtor is helped, at the cost of 5 evaders getting away with it then it is a success. We can't influence the "won't pays" but we can make a positive impact on the "can't pays".
  17. It is very rare for a bailiff to leave a premises without levying or attempting to obtain payment but 3 in a week? Wow! That must be some kind of record. And all for the same type of debt as well. I personally would not recommend this action, the reasons are as follows: 1. Regardless of whether sufficient goods are available to be controlled, the bailiff will still try it on. Even if he doesn't control goods, he will pressurise the debtor into making payment. He will not simply walk away as he will loose his commission. 2. If bailiffs fail to collect the amount outstanding, an arrest warrant may be issued, meaning the debtor will be faced with paying the whole amount on the spot or face imprisonment. It is difficult to attract sympathy when you have failed to pay a fine and then laughed in the face of the law by ignoring all previous correspondence and then saying "I'm not paying and you can't do anything about it, look, I've got no goods" A court are hardly likely to let the debtor enter into a nice cosy little repayment plan and are far more likely to insist that payment is made through the bailiffs. Otherwise, every single "won't pay" in the country will simply store all their valuables next door and then invite a bailiff inside to check. As a side issue, it is also worth noting that when the legislation was first changed, back in April 2014, bailiffs rarely sought to control goods, unless it was by way of clamping a car. This is because in contrast with pre-April 2014, there is no commission paid for levying/controlling goods. Many still don't bother but there is an increasing tendency lately to obtain CGA's. The reason for this is quite worrying. Bailiff companies are discovering there is no way of getting paid for repeat visits-UNLESS they can try to manufacture a sale visit (which many are now doing). In many cases, the subsequent sale fee is illegal. It is as important now, as it was pre-April 2014, NOT to allow a bailiff entry into your home and NOT to enter into a CGA unless there is immediate threat of removal.
  18. A bailiff may not enter your home without permission. If you leave your front or back doors unlocked, the bailiff may assume an implied right to enter and may legally do so. If you open the door to him and then go back into the house for some reason, then again, the bailiff can lawfully assume an implied right to enter. If The Visit is for a court fine, you can still stop the bailiff entering by refusing access but there is little point because as DX says, he may return with a locksmith and force entry. This will incurrr additional charges. If You are expecting a visit and don't want the bailiff to enter, the best thing to do is to write to the creditor stating that you refuse permission to enter your home and that this refusal extends to all agents working on the creditors behalf. Explain why you are refusing entry (the possibility that you will expose yourself to additional charges is reasonable). Send a copy to the bailiff company. there can then be no doubt at a later stage that permission to enter had been denied. Of course, it is still necessary to remain vigilant but written refusal can never be disputed.
  19. The link doesn't work for me but I was referring to your use of it on GOODF in any case. You ought to be more careful with your choice of words and phrases.-The loony element amongst us will start calling you fmotl Anyway, unless there is concrete proof that the OP is a spoof poster, I would urge you to give him/her the benefit of the doubt and not hijack the thread for your own means. For clarity, I have never suggested you are that person and I am not any "lot"-I post to help debtors, not indulge in your pathetic trivia.
  20. For someone who is so fond of "pin the tail", you really are not very good at it are you? I'm not sure why or how you've arrived at the conclusion that the post is a spoof but it certainly has nothing to do with me and I certainly have no idea who the OP is. Might I suggest that you ensure that you are 100% correct in your facts before posting? Failure to be can very easily result in one page transforming to 70 pages in a very short period. I am assuming that the OP is genuine. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and people need to ascertain what has gone on here. You don't jump from missing a payment to enforcement. There must have been notices and a summons before a LO was granted-It would be almost unheard of for this to all happen within 2 months, especially as the Xmas period was sandwiched in there.
  21. You Could really help by posting something constructive for the benefit of the OP. Failing that, you could take your petty squabbles elsewhere-that would also be helpful. There is a certain obligation for councils to follow guidelines. If no notification or request for information has been received, then this is a clear breach and the OP is entitled to question this. He/she may not want an AOE but the correct correspondence would at least have alerted him/her to the arrears. Then there is the question of the NS breach. This is more serious because not only is the guidance issued by the MOJ but councils require their agents to work under this guidance. It naturally follows that they should do the same. I Think a formal letter in the first instance would be appropriate. A request to suspend enforcement whilst the letter is being considered should be added. If the OP is not happy with the response, then a formal complaint should be considered
  22. Plus of course that the NS have not been adhered to. Remind us all again of your advice to the debtor
  23. Actually, there are guidelines issued by Government bodies such as the CAB and DCLG that recommend AOE 's are considered before enforcement. This is because in many cases, enforcement simply places an added financial burden on someone who is already struggling with debt. AOE 's are much preferable than enforcement. They do not add bailiff fees and the repayments are nearly always lower, without the constant worry of a bailiff visiting if you are late making a payment.
  24. If, for once in your life, you were able to read a post properly, you would see that the complaint went to the head of revenues and not the CEO. It takes all of 3seconds to forward an email, so I wouldn't over worry yourself on delays happening if the complaint goes to the CEO. There are far more delays in searching for names and contact details of recovery managers, the quickest and easiest way is straight to the CEO. FYI the personal secretary deals with incoming mail in any case so it's passed on without the CEO even reading it. Finally, you might want to take on board that stage 2 complaints SHOULD be addressed to the CEO
  25. Well let's return the swerve then. Write to them and advise that no correspondence has been received. Whilst not legally obliged to send notice, the council really ought to be trying for an AOE before using enforcement agents. To do this, they would have to write in orders to ask for employment details. In addition, the national standards advise creditors that they should contact the debtor, warning of the consequences if payment is not forthcoming. Failure to do so is in breach of the NS. Forget about all this nonsense about the costs in sending a letter, they are covered in the costs claimed in obtaining a LO
×
×
  • Create New...