Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'locksmith'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day

Cost Per Day


Found 6 results

  1. Well not actually ripped off, I have not paid them. I hold my hand up to being a bit slack here. A tenant complained of a broken lock on a patio door. I googled and called a locksmith in Reading without doing my usual due diligence as I am busy refurbishing two flats. Locksmith arrives, does the job, and phones me. He wants £281, ask him for a v.a.t. invoice and he gets nasty, threatens to "break my door" or sit in. I threaten police action and he calms down, will ask office to phone me. That afternoon he phones me, office has reduced the cost to £181 including v.a.t. Ask for an invoice. Invoice arrives next day for £254.00 Query this with head office, (a one man micro company), and next day they send a revised bill for £181. I am now negotiating a further discount on the basis that, if I make a complaint to the Police about Reading locksmith's threats it could hurt their business. I have told him I shall be contacting Trading Standards. FWIIW, I found a similar complaint of this company over-charging on MSE. I have been away from this board for some time and have forgotten the rules, can I name and shame?
  2. A couple of weeks ago I had to call a locksmith out (from a call centre number). My key would not turn what appeared to be a jammed deadlock. Using airbags to partially hold open part of the door he used an angle grinder to try and cut through the deadlock but unfortunately the blade was too short by about 2mm. He then decided to use a hammer and chisel with a great amount of force for about 30 - 40 minutes. He aborted the job and I was left locked out. The next day another locksmith came round and used a paddle to hole part of the door open sufficiently enough for him to be able to drill through the lock and gain entry. Once in it was clear that there was quite a lot of damage caused to the UPVCS frame, the wooden frame and to the edge of the door. I complained to the first company who denied that their "engineer" used a hammer even though several of my neighbours signed to say that they had heard the hammering. They are denying responsibility saying " Firstly, I wish to clarify my point regarding the liability of any damaged caused. Each sub-contractor that works for us is required to have Public Liability Insurance to cover himself on jobs should accidental damage be caused. Therefore, if any damage was caused by our engineer Danny, then it would be the engineer personally liable for making further arrangements through his personal insurance. Naturally Keytek would assist as and where required should any of our locksmiths cause damage while on site. Surely my contract was between the Company and not the subcontractor they chose to appoint to the job. All helpful advice welcome. Thanks
  3. Having browed around a bit and found the following Quote it just goes to sho as of 06/04/2014 bailiffs MUST now apply to gain a forced entry, this we have known for years, now it's in writing the bailiff will no longer be able to "threaten" forced entry but MUST have permission first see the quote below this quote was taken from here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bailiffs-getting-ready-for-tough-new-regime From my understanding the Bailiff will not have the power to force entry and should now not "threaten" the use of a locksmith, how many more complaints will come if they do and if the do what recourse will the debtor have, what with the "stress" of the threat causing mental harm, the words "bully" come to mind and if I remember my law correctly it is ILLEGAL to bully someone or make words spoken or action taken if it causes harm,alarm or distress to ANYONE that witnesses this? you thoughts please again sorry for the long post , if you follow my train of thought you will see where I am going with this? Please read my other post to start to see the whole picture on this matter it is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?416534-Vulnerable-household-vs.-Vulnerable-adult(1-Viewing)-nbsp further reading that is a must with this post can be found here courtesy of tomtubby http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?414547-The-Taking-Control-of-Goods-(Fees)-Regulations-2014-released-today.(1-Viewing)-nbsp and http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?412530-Council-Tax-arrears...should-you-let-a-bailiff-into-your-home GOV.UK Search Search Menu Departments Topics Worldwide How government works Get involved Policies Publications Consultations Statistics Announcements GOV.UK uses cookies to make the site simpler. Find out more about cookies Tell us what you think of GOV.UK No thanks Take the 3 minute survey This will open a short survey on another website News story Bailiffs getting ready for tough new regime Organisation:Ministry of Justice Page history:Published 29 January 2014 Bailiffs and councils must make sure debts are collected in a fair and responsible way, Justice Minister Lord Faulks said today. Speaking just weeks before new laws on rogue bailiff behaviour take effect, Lord Faulks addressed the Civil Enforcement Association conference in London today, speaking to an audience of more than 300 representatives of local authorities and bailiffs companies. Major reforms to the rules for bailiffs will take effect in April, banning them from heavy-handed behaviour but also making sure they can still collect debts fairly. Lord Faulks told the audience they would be key to ensuring that the people of England and Wales have the fair and effective enforcement system they deserved – and urged them to rise to the challenge. Speaking after the conference, Lord Faulks said: ‘There are some very good, reputable bailiffs around, but we know there is bad practice out there that needs to be dealt with. ‘A small minority of bailiffs have been allowed to give the industry a bad name. ‘These laws will help to clean up the industry and ensure bailiffs play by the rules. They will also make sure businesses and public bodies can collect their debts fairly.’ The changes will put in place new mandatory training and certification requirements for bailiffs, and simplify the fees that they are allowed to charge for their services. They will also impose rules on how and when bailiffs can pursue debts, including: Stopping bailiffs entering homes when only children are present. Banning bailiffs from visiting debtors at night – they will only be allowed to enter between 6am and 9pm. Banning landlords from using bailiffs to seize property for residential rent arrears without going to court. Preventing bailiffs from taking household items, such as a cooker, microwave, refrigerator or washing machine, because they are deemed to be reasonably required to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the debtor. Ensuring a notice period of seven days is given to the debtor before bailiffs take control of the debtor’s goods. Banning bailiffs from selling goods removed from a debtor, unless seven days have passed from the date the goods were removed. Making bailiffs responsible for proving to a court that there are, or likely to be, goods of the debtor on the premises before being granted the power to use reasonable force to gain entry. Before a warrant is granted, bailiffs must give the court information on the likely means of entry, the amount of force required and how the premises will be left in a secure state afterwards. So all in all the best advise anyone will give is as follows, especially when these new rules come in to force from 06/04/2014 is as follows. 1. If you miss just one payment ring the creditor 2. If you miss just one fine payment call the Fines department of your local Court. 3. If you do call any creditor make sure you record the conversation. 4. Always insist you deal with your creditors in writing only. 5. A DCA is NOT a bailiff and as such has no powers. 6. Check out your credit file monthly from now on so you can see all adverse entries and deal with them straight away 7. Never let a bailiff into your home because it will cost you in the long run. 8 If you are on benefits now is the best time to run the "benefits Advisor widget" to see if you are getting all you are entitled too. 9. Claim those that you are allowed to, and always inform the relevant claims departments of ANY changes to your circumstances, as these rule are now being applied. MM
  4. Yesterday I was sent a copy of a thread that appeared on another forum (one that "claims" that bailiffs cannot charge fees of £300 for enforcing a Distress Warrant). Sadly, yet another debtor had taken the dreadful "advice" on that site and promptly paid the amount of the fine only to the court and refused to pay the fees to the bailiff company. As predicted, the bailiff returned to his home yesterday at 6am with a LOCKSMITH. Police were called and they took the side of the bailiff company. The debtor tried to convince the police that the "advice" that he had received from that website was correct (which it is not). Most importantly, contrary to the constant claims on that site that bailiffs have NEVER forced entry, in this case the debtor confirmed on the website that locksmiths did in fact start drilling the lock on the front door ( which is actually quite common). Not surprisingly, the entire incident was most distressing for all concerned and the bottom line is that the debtor ending up paying the bailiff fees of £300. However....there is more........ The dreadful wrong advice EXPOSED the debtor to having to also pay the "locksmith fees" of £190 !!!! The debtor confirmed on the forum that he had been fined £300 for speeding and had been convicted in his absence and sadly, he confirmed that he had received a letter from the court to advise him of the fine but that he "stupidly put it to one side and didn't pay". What is more is that he also confirms that he is "pretty sure that they sent other letter but they were neither responded to or read" I posted about this yesterday on another thread here on the forum and as predicted, this afternoon the other forum site owners removed the entire thread from their site and hid it in a "members area" . This is a very common feature and is clearly to ensure that the public do not get to read of cases where bailiff companies enforcing Magistrates Court fines use the services of a locksmith if the debtor foolishly pays the fine to the court online and refuses to pay the bailiff fees.
  5. November 2012; received a letter from Marston Bailiffs informing me that they have been authorised by Magistrates Court to collect an unpaid ticket fine. Two days after receiving this letter I poster a SAR request, but without the statutory GBP 10. April 1 2013 - a letter from the bailiff (Marston) acknowledging that they received the SAR request and asking for 10 GBP fee. two days later - "no knock" visit with a letter escalating the fine to GBP 600. A representative claims in a letter that he attended the premises but I was unavailable and as a consequence my fine has escalated. The man who signed the letter and left his mobile number is a representative of the bailiff, obviously, but not a bailiff himself according to justice.gov website. The man who signed the hand delivered letter was never contacted. Three days later after the visit, another attempted "no knock" visit, but accidentally disturbed; someone opened the door and was handed the letter to pass on to me. Similar message, but no further escalation of the fee. April 11; SAR request resent + GBP 10 (in form of a postal thing, as instructed) + letter received from Marston on April 1 sent. The documents were scanned before sending. April 21 - a letter from the bailiff stamped "removal division" beginning with "You need to be aware that Marston have Court Authority to remove your goods and to impose fees and charges." Day later, after investigating the issue of complaint on Marston website an e-mail I followed their complaint procedure and wrote them an e-mail as follows; to whom it may concern; Please open and read the copies of documents I received from Marston Group (attachments); The correspondence regarding my SAR request (Scan.Pdf) My response to it. I would like to remind you that the amount of GBP was issued and sent to Marston Group on April 17th, as instructed by you. I did not receive a response to it, yet I received a letter threatening illegal entry and seizure of goods (Scan 2.pdf). Please be advised that since I was unable to receive any response from you regarding the basis of your action, I am left with no other choice but to complain. Please be advised that aside from writing this letter to you (in form of e-mail) - I will also be pursuing legal aid, - will be contacting the courts requesting the disclosure of their warrants and, since I received the threatening letter from you very recently, I consider my household to be under immediate threat of illegal and unwarranted entry - I will be contacting the Police as a matter of urgency to request their advice, assistance, protection and if need be, complaint against you. With this letter I request you to cease all visits to the property by yourselves, your agents and other representatives. I reserve the right to present the copy of this letter to the Police, solicitor and the Courts if the situation escalates. This document was also sent to their complaints office, as instructed. Received no answer yet; but was it an appropriate course of action? Whats rights do they have? Can they claim they never received the GBP 10 check and thus have the right not to acknowledge my SAR request? Does the fact that they just received the proof that it was posted change matters? Can the letter stop their immediate visits? Have they broken their code of conduct in pursuit of the fine and do I have grounds to complain? Please advise, and I would be incredibly grateful. I am dealing with the matter myself and I really, really need support. Is it
  6. please can someone advise me on what do to, iv had a bailff letter today hand delivered from marstons wanting £859 it states , please note the amount now due is 859 pound inclusive of charges for todays attendance. if this amount is not paid in full immediately a further call will be made, without notice, to effect removal, for sale at public auction. such action will render you liable to further substantial costs. i called the enforcement officer who was rather rude and scary , he said i need to pay in full or he will be back with a locksmith to come and remove all the items out my house. im worried sick. this fine was for a unpaid train fair from last year. iv asked the enforcement officer to give me time to seek legal advice to which he said its pointless as he has a criminal distress warrent and theres no way around it. i work full time and im limited on time so please if your reading this and know what i can do please help. i called a solicitor in my area who cant see me untill tomorrow afternoon, i dont know what to do incase i leave work in the morning and come home to an empty house.
  • Create New...