Jump to content

photoman

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    2,026
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

photoman last won the day on June 22 2008

photoman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,669 Excellent

About photoman

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here is a link to the judgement. The important bits are the opening summary, and paragraph 98, which appears on page 41. Our conclusion in summary 98. We are concerned with the situation where a claimant sends the Secretary of State a request for a mandatory reconsideration (a revision application) to which the Secretary of State responds by stating that the application is late and does not meet the criteria for extending time. We have concluded that as a matter of statutory interpretation a claimant in such circumstances has a statutory right of appeal to the FTT.
  2. I'm a bit of a lapsed member of CAG; I thankfully needed no more help from the kind members here, and I also felt that my own job, and any help I could give back here was done, as my area of specialisation was business bank charges (starting the thread "claiming on a business account, lets join forces? ...if anyone remembers), and once that door became closed I had a lot less to contribute.......plus lots of other personal things in life just sort of took over my time. There was never any chance of Martin ever becoming a lapsed member though ! His passion, his drive and his quest to s
  3. Ha..... I note that my last post was auto edited by CAG system, putting in the word "problem" were I had put in another word. Sure you can figure out what that word originally was ?.... (it rhymes with Pram)
  4. ...... actually, your probably quite right. You can only prove you received something, not that you didn't receive something. ie: If it were the case that that you had to prove you'd got a letter from someone, you produce the letter. However, to prove you've not received a letter is impossible. Now I recall, I did also receive several letters in the post too, and these were actually identical to those hand posted, so I don't recall which were actually which. They're probably saving themselves even more time, by just posting out the "visit" letters !! (...or ju
  5. Hi Tom, Thanks, I very much look forward to seeing you post on the LGO action. The complaints made to the LGO seem to be pretty common; ie claiming fees for supposed visits, and levying upon vehicles not owned by debtor. I've been thinking about this, and come to the conclusion that the motivations for the bailiff companies for undertaking such actions (which are indeed misrepresentations) are pretty obvious. PROFIT !! This is out and out FRAUD as defined by The Fraud act 2006, and the LGO, the government and the courts should be laying down the law and pro
  6. By the way. Not sure if it was clear form my "success" post that the bailiffs actually dropped ALL their fees in my case. Ie: the £24.50, the £18 and the £29.50 levy fee. Strictly speaking I could actually have still been held liable for the legit 1st and 2nd visit fees. However, I sort of had them by the short and curlies here: If in response to my letter they'd written back, insisting the levy was proper and lawfully done, then they would have needed to go on and provide evidence of the grounds used to imply the vehicle was mine.... of which there is obviously non
  7. The really crucial issue to hand here is not the small additional fee that the Bailiffs charge for performing a levy. (In my own case it was only an additional £29 levy fee they were trying to claim). Although such sums may seem trivial, imagine that they are routinely adding such fees to thousands and thousands of cases, so adding up to many thousand (if not millions) of pounds, and you start to see their motivation. However, the real and more worrying issue is the progression of fees and charges that may then be incurred, and also the escalation in legal rights of the bailiff
  8. Thank you Tomtubby. I've just received by email the CAG July newsletter, which focusses on exactly this matter, and has been compiled in conjunction with your good self. As many on this forum may have been drawn to this thread after facing similar issues, then perhaps it may be of benefit to post here the content and advice given in the newsletter regards this subject ? Could you do so, or would you mind if I did ? regards PM
  9. SUCCESS !! Letter from Bailiffs received today stating that they are dropping any claim for any charges on their own part. They claim to be doing so as a "gesture of goodwill" (...... so nothing to do with the fact that they could face criminal charges for Fraud if they continued huh) !! A convoluted and still defensive letter from Equita, in which they try to defend their actions by claiming that they would have actually performed relevant checks on the vehicles prior to any actual removal. A success of sorts in that Equita have dropped any attempt to enforce thei
  10. Agreed, but it wouldn't bring home to them the seriousness of their offence. I would very much like to see how they respond one they are aware they have committed such a serious offence !!!
  11. If they send you a statement of account, and it includes a "levy fee", then send them this: In response to your letter of XX/XX/11. Thank you for the information provided, and the statement of account. I note that the account breakdown includes a charge for a “Levy fee”.

 I strongly refute your claims of having performed any such levy, so if you contend otherwise then you MUST provide me with the following information :
 
1/ The time and date that such levy was performed and by whom (the bailiffs full name, and the county court where the bailiff was certi
  12. Natty123, I've recently been through a similar experience. Equita claiming to have made numerous visits, and also claiming to have performed a levy. 1/ In the first instance, I would advise that you do not speak them on the phone at all. They are slippery as a fish, and will try to get you to agree to an arrangement that will probably be unreasonable. ONLY DEAL WITH THEM IN WRITING. 2/ Does their total claim include their own fees ? You should write tho them and request a breakdown of account. 3/ If their breakdown includes any levy fees, then you should contest s
  13. PS: Some may claim it's a perhaps bit strong to assert that the bailiff company are committing fraud by acting in such a way? However, I believe this is exactly what is happening. Look up section 2 of the "FRAUD ACT 2006" which states: Fraud by false representation (1)A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b)intends, by making the representation— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2)A representation is false if— (a
  14. I've recently had this problem, whereby Equita sent me a letter claiming to have performed a levy upon a vehicle I do not (nor know who does) own. Here is the letter sent to the bailiffs (which I have sent along with a highlighted copy of the relevant sections from "The Fraud Act 2006" ) Dear Ms XXXXX, In response to your letter of XX/XX/11. Thank you for the information provided. Your letter claims that your enforcement officer XXXX XXXXXX performed a levy on XX/XX/11 upon a vehicle bearing the registration number XXX XXXX . I HAVE NEVER AT ANY TIME OWNED THAT
  15. Here is the letter sent to the Bailiffs (... which I have sent along with a highlighted copy of the relevant sections from "The Fraud Act 2006" ) Dear Ms XXXXX, In response to your letter of XX/XX/11. Thank you for the information provided. Your letter claims that your enforcement officer XXXX XXXXXX performed a levy on XX/XX/11 upon a vehicle bearing the registration number XXX XXXX . I HAVE NEVER AT ANY TIME OWNED THAT VEHICLE. I can only presume that at such time the agent in question randomly selected a vehicle parked near my home and decided to imply I own s
×
×
  • Create New...