Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Standard form being sent to large numbers of claimants. Just answer as the form asks.  No need to  go into any detail, unless the forms asks for specific details of how health impacts on daily activities. If you are worried contact Citizens Advice as they are experts with PIP, as they are trained to understand what evidence is required for assessments.
    • Resume payments with the debt collectors? You say not to pay dca though do you not? 
    • yes they mostly would be enforceable, but that wasnt the point. even if they get a CCJ the very worst they could have done is get a restriction k which is useless to them. doesnt hurt anything. the CCJ would remain on file for 6yrs yes, but then gone same as a DN. the rest k charge does not show at all. and even so, the idea was to get your debts issued a default notice ASAP, them RESUME payments.. the advise is NOT conflicting, just you don't read things properly or understand.  oh well. dx
    • This is the dilemma I had then and still have it. The bit that stopped me was the post 2015 comments about them being enforceable now in most instances which I feel hasn’t been answered unless I am missing something. the bonus I guess is not all credit agreements now will be chasing me so less people chasing me down so to speak. this is the problem as there is conflicting messaging out there it is hard to plan a strategic way forward 
    • In 2017 my wife was given PIP and I finally, officially, became her carer. In 2019 she was reviewed and we were told it would be done by phone to make it easier for her as she has mobility issues and anxiety. The review was very simple, Has anything changed? No, ok, we'll stay as you are then. In 2022 a second review, this time by phone again but with an awkward given at the end for 5 years. Today, we got a new review letter (I know wait lists are bad, but I dont think the wait will take til 2027 for a decision). We're a bit confused because it's a letter, not a phone call as before. The form is just questions that ask "has anything changed" Now, since 2017, nothing has changed except we had our home adapted via disability grant. This was noted in the phone calls. So we should really write that nothing has changed in the last 2 years. The adaptations have been mentioned in both previous phone reviews, but not in writing so I guess we should bring it up. But we feel that they want us to explain everything as if it were a new claim again... And are worried if we miss something in the original claim or the phone calls she will risk losing part of the award (a 2 point swing could be really bad) It does just say "has anything changed?" But in dealing with ESA prior to getting PIP, answering the question asked "has your condition worsened or improved" at a review process with a simple "no, I'm still the same" somehow led to ESA ending and needing appeal. So just want a bit of guidance. How much detail is needed? Is minimal ok? Or should we be blunt with the fact nothing has changed, and bullet point the things she struggles with in each section?   I know the obvious thing is to just explain it all,but over 10 years the sheer amount of times the poor woman has had ESA or PIP stopped/refused just because something was missed out in their report, or they felt it meant a new claim should be made, or that they judged her healthy because we missed a tiny thing in our forms. During COVID it finally seemed like it was all just going to be smooth, especially with the phone reviews and the 5 year reward, but here we are. We just want to make sure we have the least chance to trip ourselves up, but making sure we have what is expected if you get me? I wish I still had a copy of the forms from 2017, because I could just verbatim copy them and add in about the adaptation, but (ironically) we lost our photocopies we kept of them when the house was being adapted
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Help!!!! Iv Just Had A Notice Of Seizure Of Goods


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5792 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

They love to play mind games by noting down your reg number, checking the door handles to see if its open and so on......

 

As long as its on finance they cannot touch it and they know it although they will tell you different to scare the bejeezers out of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Balliffs for non payment of council tax i have sent the leter off now from the site butr just concerned as to what to do i live on my own and things like this scare me im in loads a debt really bad need go bankrupt but there is the matter of 350.00 to even do that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. Do not let them in under any circumstances and do not sign anything. They cannot take your car as it is on finance!

 

Still leaves Q 3 and 4

 

WRONG

 

A bailiff can still take a car that is on finance as im sure the more knowledgable of the this forum will vouch for, however its not as easy when its on finance and their is certain criteria to fill as im sure the likes of TT will agree. Personally i wouldn't touch it but there are some that would, but as i say the circumstances have to be right!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

WRONG

 

A bailiff can still take a car that is on finance as im sure the more knowledgable of the this forum will vouch for, however its not as easy when its on finance and their is certain criteria to fill as im sure the likes of TT will agree. Personally i wouldn't touch it but there are some that would, but as i say the circumstances have to be right!!

 

Um, no I don't think so! A bailiff may remove the car, but this would be illegal. The simple fact is that a car on finance does not belong to you, it belongs to the finance company. The law says bailiffs cannot levy goods which do not belong to the debtor. Under what circumstances do you consider it would be legal for a bailiff to remove a car on finance?

 

Here's an interesting bit of research from the CAB which shows why your "profession" is so hated:

 

An analysis of 500 case reports from Citizens Advice Bureaux in England and Wales since October 2006 found that 64% of bailiffs were guilty of harassment or intimidation, 40% misrepresented their powers of entry, a quarter threatened debtors with imprisonment and 42% charged excessive fees. In over half the cases, the debtor was vulnerable. In all these instances the bailiffs concerned were either breaking the law or in breach of their own industry code and nationally agreed standards of practice.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, I am aware the onus is on the debtor to prove to the bailiff that the vehicle is not his. (And that a personal loan for the car is not the same as HP)

 

A bailiff is not allowed to take a vehicle subject to hire purchase.. The vehicle is legally owned by the finance company until full payment is made.

Hire purchase means what it says….you are merely hiring the vehicle…..until the final payment has been made

 

Immediately you are aware that a bailiff could visit…..you must write to inform them that you do not own the vehicle. Our advice would be to send the letter by registered mail….an ensure that you keep a copy for your records.

From the bailiffadviceonline website (their highlights) Edited by robin9342
added info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said certain criteria in certain circumstances we speak to the finance company and depending on the amount owed to the finance company and the amout of debt outstanding we could come to some amicable agreement with the finance company, however like i also said its too much of a pain for me so i personally would not do it, im merely stating that under certain circumstances it can and WILL be done, therefore people need to give out the correct information on this site!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will also add i have seen it done on 2 occasions with no repocussions so i base my posts on experience!! Can i ask if you have any bailiff experience???? And i dont mean that to sound pedantic, its just a question.

Edited by kermit2482
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see that such an arrangement could be legal. The vehicle belongs to the finance company, not the debtor, irrespective of how much is outstanding on the HP agreement. I imagine finance companies would be very reluctant to hand their property over to a bailiff unless there is not much left outstanding on the HP agreement because the debtor would be within his rights to stop paying them.

 

Even then, I would like to see a clause in any car finance agreement which legally permits the finance company to take such action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I have not ever worked for bailiffs (my morals would preclude this). If you read this thread, you will see that the opinion seems to agree that a bailiff cannot take cars on HP (including a post by TT):

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/147978-levy-hp-car-can.html

 

 

Thanks for providing the link, however as i say i talk from experience and seeing this happen whilst in training and being present whilst the phone calls were made to the finance company and then watching the said car get taken away, as they say seeing is believing im afraid and YES i know the car belongs to the finance company and not the CP however we have a liability order and sometimes the finance companies are willing to allow a deal where upon so long as they get their money they dont give a hoot what happens to the car, please rest assured this has happened and why should the finance company care what happens to the car once they have had their money, so you see it makes perfect sense although as i also say its a long drawn out process and one i personally would not get tangled up with as some of my past CP's would vouch for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that you have seen it being done during your training BUT that does not make it legal. We all know that the majority of bailiffs are predisposed to illegal activities (see my quote from CAB!) The debtor in your case was most likely not aware of his/her rights or the legalities (or otherwise) of the actions taken by your firm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said certain criteria in certain circumstances we speak to the finance company and depending on the amount owed to the finance company and the amount of debt outstanding we could come to some amicable agreement with the finance company, however like i also said its too much of a pain for me so i personally would not do it, im merely stating that under certain circumstances it can and WILL be done, therefore people need to give out the correct information on this site!!

 

The Data Protection Act should prevent ANY discussions between any third party, without consent, regardless of who they think they are.

 

So the bailiffs appear to have been aided and abetted by the finance company.

 

Which would make this action even more deplorable.

 

Once again IMO this is just a classic example of the bailiffs abusing their authority.

 

Which as we are learning fast, is very limited indeed.

 

Therefore people need to give out the correct information on this site.

 

 

 

.

Edited by tonycee
Cant believe the ignorance.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will also add i have seen it done on 2 occasions with no repocussions so i base my posts on experience!! /quote]

 

The fact that there have been 'no repercussions' is probably because

most people are still ignorant of their rights. Hopefully, the more people who read this site the less possible it will be for bailiffs to break or twist the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i just rang bristow and sutour to tell them i didnt own the car and it was on finance they said they would have it checked out

They also refused my offer of payment for 33.00 a month and said i needed to pay 157.40 a month for 6 months NO CHANCE

 

so now what do i do??

Link to post
Share on other sites

i just rang bristow and sutour to tell them i didnt own the car and it was on finance they said they would have it checked out

They also refused my offer of payment for 33.00 a month and said i needed to pay 157.40 a month for 6 months NO CHANCE

 

so now what do i do??

 

 

Let them check it out it takes em a matter of minutes, they will see you are right and i pretty much guarantee they wont touch it, especially if you have more than 6 months left on the finance!! As for not accepting your offer this is probably because they want to see you to go through a means enquiry form or at least they should be!! My advice would be to put it in writing to them and see what response you get from that, in my opinion they are being unreasonable but hey what do i know :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i just rang bristow and sutour to tell them i didnt own the car and it was on finance they said they would have it checked out

They also refused my offer of payment for 33.00 a month and said i needed to pay 157.40 a month for 6 months NO CHANCE

 

so now what do i do??

First of all, WRITE to B & S (hmm....B S, what else could that stand for?). Telephone calls are easily denied. There are plently of template letters on here: see the other thread I mentioned. Make sure all contact with them is in writing.

 

Contact the council and tell them the bailiffs have been threatening you with illegal actions and see if they will take the debt back. If you are on certain benefits, they should take it back as you are in a vulnerable group. You can also pay the council direct as they are not allowed to refuse payments.

Edited by robin9342
sp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Utter rubbish in my opinion and i wont harp on as it would clearly fall on death ears

Clearly it is not rubbish when you consider that well over 1/2 of bailiffs break the law in one way or another. Also, if it were "utter rubbish", why then are there so many bailiff threads on this forum?

Edited by robin9342
correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly it is not rubbish when you consider that well over 1/2 of bailiffs break the law in one way or another. Also, if it were "utter rubbish", why then are there so many bailiff threads on this forum?

 

Do i have to keep telling you its because bad news goes down better with society and people pay more attention to it, this forum is a classic example of it, if it were to praise all these people nobody would log on to it!!!!!

 

Now change the record please :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do i have to keep telling you its because bad news goes down better with society and people pay more attention to it, this forum is a classic example of it, if it were to praise all these people nobody would log on to it!!!!!

 

Now change the record please :lol:

And do I have to keep telling you:

 

"An analysis of 500 case reports from Citizens Advice Bureaux in England and Wales since October 2006 found that 64% of bailiffs were guilty of harassment or intimidation, 40% misrepresented their powers of entry, a quarter threatened debtors with imprisonment and 42% charged excessive fees. In over half the cases, the debtor was vulnerable. In all these instances the bailiffs concerned were either breaking the law or in breach of their own industry code and nationally agreed standards of practice."

 

Now, you may not like it, but that is indeed BAD NEWS. Basically the above report confirms that the majority of bailiffs are lying, cheating, thieving, bullying scumbags! A fact that many of the members of this forum can also attest to given their experiences with bailiffs.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...