Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5802 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I had a woman run up to my letterbox and put a demand for £469.82 for a council tax payment that a tenant of mine owed for one month £76.00,

apparently he never paid it and the first i knew of it was when i read this letter, i rang the bailiff and he gave it "im a court bailiff", i gave him back, no your not, your a ****** money collector working for phoenix, not a court bailiff.

my points are

1. never received a demand or anything, from the council, bailiffs or anybody.

2. shall i talk to the council and ask what its all about

3. should i complain about this bailiff, obviously inflated fees, as ive had no letters or visits

4. shall i go ahead and do a stat dec as i have never received any bill

 

any help would be appreciated

 

sam

 

ps the bailiff was not the woman who delivered the letter, and she did not knock at the door, just posted and ran

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the letter that this lady delivered it would state amount of debt before fees added or at least it should do!!!!! This will tell you the amount of fees added and on a first visit it should only be £24.50 assuming that is that its deffo only a first visit???

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.This letter says despite previous requests, i have never had any request at all, from anybody

2. it says arrears owing to lb barnet for ct arrears £469.82 !!! nothing else

the figure is hand written

 

 

sam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a woman run up to my letterbox and put a demand for £469.82 for a council tax payment that a tenant of mine owed for one month £76.00,

apparently he never paid it and the first i knew of it was when i read this letter, i rang the bailiff and he gave it "im a court bailiff", i gave him back, no your not, your a ****** money collector working for phoenix, not a court bailiff.

 

If the debt belongs to a tenant then you are not liable for the debt. Provided you never open the door to a bailiff (speak through a window) the case will be returned to the council unpaid.

 

The practice of post & run is becoming more commonplace (Equita) and doesn't incur a fee otherwise the firm of bailiffs commits an offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Only a certificated bailiff can charge a fee prescribed by law.

 

my points are

1. never received a demand or anything, from the council, bailiffs or anybody.

 

If you arent the debtor then you wouldn't receive mail.

 

2. shall i talk to the council and ask what its all about

 

Yes and tell them the debtor doesn't live there and you don't know where he is now.

 

3. should i complain about this bailiff, obviously inflated fees, as ive had no letters or visits

 

Yes you can make an official complaint but you ideally need to know the name of the bailiff.

 

4. shall i go ahead and do a stat dec as i have never received any bill

 

No because you aren't liable.

 

any help would be appreciated

 

sam

 

ps the bailiff was not the woman who delivered the letter, and she did not knock at the door, just posted and ran

 

If the firm charges a fee then she is committing an offence of Assisting a Offender by aiding a firm of bailiffs to commit an offence under Section 2 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 by seeking to obtain an unlawful money transfer.

First to fly the Airbus A380

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.This letter says despite previous requests, i have never had any request at all, from anybody

2. it says arrears owing to lb barnet for ct arrears £469.82 !!! nothing else

the figure is hand written

 

 

sam

 

Hummm this sounds to me like a committal letter which is basicly the 5th stage along, let me explain the structure

 

1 letter from bailiffs outlining liability from Council

2 first visit from bailiff

3 second visit from bailiff

4 van call

5 comittal

 

IF this is the case then the fees are still wrong, the very maximum should be £278.50, write to them asking for a breakdown of their fee structure!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hummm this sounds to me like a committal letter which is basicly the 5th stage along, let me explain the structure

 

1 letter from bailiffs outlining liability from Council

2 first visit from bailiff

3 second visit from bailiff

4 van call

5 comittal

 

IF this is the case then the fees are still wrong, the very maximum should be £278.50, write to them asking for a breakdown of their fee structure!!!

 

However as you are the landlord and not the tennant its basicly totally irrelevant!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tenant moved out 24th Oct, new tenant moved in 25th Oct, but the outgoing tenant told the council they were moving out sept 30th, so i suppose thats why they have tried to get money from me, but geuinely, i have never had any demands of any description come to me before this piece of toilet paper, if i would have had any correspondence i would have dealt with it immediately

sam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a copy of the hand-delivered letter and send it to the council as a Stage 1 complaint.

 

Explain the circumstances as you have here and confirm the tenant vacated the property on September 30. If you get rebuke from the council then escalate the complaint to Stage 2 addressed to the Local Government Ombudsman.

First to fly the Airbus A380

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the councils problem. Your still not liable for the debt.

 

The general advice is serving the bailiff an affidavit - a statement sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths (£5-10 fee applies). Make four copies, send one to the bailiff by post, one to the local police, one for your own records and one to hand to the bailiff through a window if he turns up.

 

Never use recorded delivery when serving documents by post - it gives the bailiff an opportunity to decline receipt. PO Box addresses are fine.

 

 

 

 

DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP

 

 

 

I [NAME] of [ADDRESS AND POSTCODE] make this statement knowing that it may be presented to a Court and believing the contents to be true.

 

1. I am the legal tenant of the above-mentioned property and own all its contents and I declare there is no entitlement enabling anyone to change ownership, possession, location, use and enjoyment of my property or deprive me of it for the purposes of using it as leverage for obtaining a money transfer from somebody else.

 

2. I further declare that any bailiff or person seeking a money transfer from somebody else including members of my household may not consider my property and chattels to be prima facie to be the property of, or belonging to somebody else.

 

3. I believe that the facts given in this statement are true.

 

4. This statement will be served on a firm of bailiffs known as [NAME] of [ADDRESS] by ordinary course of post and will be considered good service under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.

 

 

[NAME] _______________________

 

Date__________________________

 

Sworn before me:

 

______________________________

An officer of the Court.

 

 

Cover letter serving affidavit on the bailiff:

 

Name of Bailiffs

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Address 4

 

[DATE]

 

BY POST AND BY HAND

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [YOUR NAME]: Notice of ownership of property

 

Please find the enclosed affidavit for your information.

 

I understand you or your firm of bailiffs has seized, or is intending to seize my property at the above-mentioned address as collateral for an apparent debt belonging to somebody else.

 

Please be advised that any attempt to subvert this notice will automatically result in a Form 4 being filed at the bailiffs certificating court without contacting you further. Both you as a firm and your bailiff may be criminally liable for offences under Section 2 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 and any criminal aspect of this matter will be passed to the police.

 

This document is delivered by Royal Mail and served on you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and it is now your responsibility and in your own interests this document is handed to the relevant person within your organisation. I regret I am unable to discuss this matter by telephone or in person.

 

Yours very truly

 

[YOUR NAME]

cc [NAME OF FORCE] Police

 

 

And send a copy to your local police authority.

 

Name of Police Authority

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Address 4

 

[DATE]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Bailiffs and Sections 2 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006

 

I enclose a copy of an affidavit I have sent to a firm of bailiffs known as [NAME OF BAILIFFS] of [ADDRESS OF BAILIFFS] by even post who threaten to obtain my goods as a lien for somebody else's debt. I understand this commits a criminal offence under Sections 2 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

For the purpose of crime prevention, please assign a reference number to enable CAD to be aware of the circumstances should an emergency arise and proper investigation of criminal activity.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

[YOUR NAME]

Enc: copy of affidavit.

 

 

 

If you need to file an official complaint against the bailiff, complete a Form 4 and attach a copy of the above affidavit, and a copy of the document posted through your door and send to the county court Phoenix uses to apply for bailiff certificates.

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/form4_0606.pdf

 

Ask for your costs and affidavit fee. The court should be aware Phoenix are doing hit & run as a 1st visit – that's not allowed and is fraud. Under Name of Bailiff enter - UKNOWN FEMALE. In the Details of Complaint field enter.

 

I was visited by a firm of bailiffs on [DATE] at [TIME] I understand to be [NAME OF BAILIFFS] who posted the attached demand through my door and left the scene driving a small van. The person didn't knock the door or make reasonable effort to contact anyone.

 

The debtor is a former tenant who vacated the property last year and the demand relates to unpaid council tax. I am the owner of the property who witnessed the visit.

 

I understand it is an offence to defraud a debtor with bailiff fees which are not prescribed by law, incorrectly executed and employ the use of uncertificated bailiffs for the purpose of collecting unpaid council tax.

 

I understand the debt is £76 and the bailiffs have added £393.92 as fees. I understand the Firm may be employing a practice of using uncertificated bailiffs to 'hit & run' debtors addresses and qualifying them for the purpose of charging bailiffs fees, and thus, no certificated bailiff becomes liable for defrauding a debtor. In any event, the fees do not appear to be consistent with Regulation 45(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

 

I have tried to reach a resolve with the Firm who became defensive and vexatious in nature.

 

I respectfully ask that I am compensated for my time in clearing up this Firm’s misfeasance and for my efforts in discovery of information.

First to fly the Airbus A380

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Still getting letters from phoenix, but my charm got me this today...

 

Dear Mr Stockman

With regards to our telephone conversation yesterday, the 14th July 2008 :-

I confirm that your council tax liability from the 30th September to the 25th October 2007 has been removed, and the account has been withdrawn from the bailiffs and deleted by my recovery department.

If you have any queries regarding the above, please contact me again.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Edmunds

Local Taxation Officer, Local Taxation, Resources

 

 

result

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...