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.
      • 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 5338 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

Nurse Caz - I gave you advice in your last thread and received no reaction to it. Take it from me and through a world of practical experience dating back over 25 years, that the advice remains exactly the same.

 

You are allowing this nasty little man the satisfaction of knowing that you are dancing to his tune. From playground to present, standing up to bullies is by far the best way of nullifying them.

 

He is a private citizen working for a private company and therefore has very little power under the law.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

thank you guys for your advice, for now I will sit tight and take all the advice I am given on here. I think that I will now have to wait for a response from TEC and also a response from the bailiffs regarding the fees (SAR request).

Am still checking the forum several times a day for any further advice or info - thanks so much!

Caz x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Caz

 

Lets just hope that the bailiff one day ends up on your ward!!! These people have no compassion most of the time and trade in human misery! What a complete and utter waste of your time which would be better spent with your family or working on your studies! Being a student nurse is not easy at the best of times without all this nonsense from some thug! You're already doing your bit to society working for free on the wards for the NHS!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Other thing I am worried about, if my children opened the front door, can the bailiffs just come in? Is there any rules that say they cant pass my children at the front door?
A bailiff can only be invited in by a responsible adult. Any levy obtained if a child answers the door and the bailiff enters would be invalid.

 

if your kids are under the age of twelve the bailiffs cannot come into your property and execute a warrant whilst the kids are prersent.
I think you are mistaken. As long as a responsible adult is present, answers the door and allows the bailiff entry, then the bailiff can seize goods. Of course, better to lock all windows and doors and not let the parasites in at all!
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A bailiff can only be invited in by a responsible adult. Any levy obtained if a child answers the door and the bailiff enters would be invalid.

 

I think you are mistaken. As long as a responsible adult is present, answers the door and allows the bailiff entry, then the bailiff can seize goods. Of course, better to lock all windows and doors and not let the parasites in at all!

 

 

Indeed correct!!!

 

Caz you have pm and i hope i have been of some assistance to you so far.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If an application is pending at the TEC and a decision has not yet been made, the warrant should have been suspended by the LA and the bailiff should remain in the background. If the bailiff is still making a nuisance of himself, either [1] the TEC has reached a decision but you haven't been informed, or if no decision has been reached, [2] the LA have not informed the bailiff the warrant is suspended or [3] the bailiff has been informed by the LA but is a complete b*

 

At the stroke of 10:00am on Tuesday, ring the TEC and get the latest.

 

x20

Edited by jonni2bad
Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you very much for your replys.

I cant call tec til wednesday as I am working all day on tuesday and have no phone access....

But I will def call them wednesday to see whats happening...

Thank you all so much for all this advice - I appreciate the time it takes and cant believe that you all spend time to give strangers such good advice!

Thank you again

Caz x

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE: Thanks to help from tomtubby, it now looks like my out of time request has been accepted as the council failed to respond within the time limit allowed!

However, i also received today a receipt from the bailiff company for my £10 postal order that I sent with the SAR. They have used it for the debt! I assume that they will not now give me a breakdown of the fees - whats my next step regarding this?

Thanks

Caz

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok... so I had a reply from the bailiffs today...

 

Refused to tell me bailiff certificate number or court where he was certificated (??) at, just gave me his name.

Refused copy of warrant - said that both of these were available to me at the door as bailiff had copies of both which is required by law. However they said that they are not required to send copies to me now.

 

They have explained their fees as follows...

 

Original Debt £95

Letter application £13.26 inc VAT

Visit fee 18/06 11.22am £34.94 inc VAT

Attendance charges 18/06 11.22am £141.00 inc VAT

Visit fee 24/07 09.10am £44.72 inc VAT

Attendance charges 24/06 09.10am £141.00 inc VAT

Visit fee 26/08 09.40am £52.25 inc VAT

Total £527.07 inc VAT

 

Can anyone comment on these fees - although it looks like my dealings with bailiff could be over - I dont want to leave this now...

 

This person has frightened my children, we left our home for a couple of days, my children knew it was because of bailiffs. They shouldnt have to be scared of bailiffs at 7 and 9 years old!!! They saw their mum crying because of how this man had spoken to her etc and are now worried incase he comes in during the night!

 

I really want to take this further - but dont know if I have a case?

 

Main points I think that spring to my mind are....

 

the extortionate fees

the way that he gave us a deadline and then took it away - because in his own words "because he felt like it".

To begin with we offered £200 payment off of what we owed and he said no. Wanted it all imiediately!!!

 

Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you

 

Caz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caz take the recordings to the CAB and ask their opinion, in some cases the CAB have good solicitors on board that might be prepared to take the case on, the very fact of what the bailiff had to say to you was diabolical and very unprofessional, i would even go as far as to say harrasment.

 

The fees as far as i can see are pretty much statute for parking unless of course these visits were not done, however this would be hard to prove, personally i would just go for the bailiff and try and get his ticket revoked, People like this should not be allowed to represent the councils!!

 

Good luck and please let us know if you go the CAB

Link to post
Share on other sites

u think the fees are normal?

I dont understand what the actual name for certain visits is. ie - attendance charges, visit charges etc.... The only thing I know is that I have never been at home when the bailiff has turned up. I have had 3 letters through my door, each one stating that I had 24 hours to pay or a removal team would attend out of office hours.... Nothing else at all happened....

Do these fees cover that?

 

I dont think I will go to the CAB - Tomtubby has been ever so helpful to us with these problems. I am happy to follow any advice she can give as I know she knows everything there is to know about the bailiff business!!!!

 

thanks for all advice

 

Caz x

Link to post
Share on other sites

u think the fees are normal?

I dont understand what the actual name for certain visits is. ie - attendance charges, visit charges etc.... The only thing I know is that I have never been at home when the bailiff has turned up. I have had 3 letters through my door, each one stating that I had 24 hours to pay or a removal team would attend out of office hours.... Nothing else at all happened....

Do these fees cover that?

 

I dont think I will go to the CAB - Tomtubby has been ever so helpful to us with these problems. I am happy to follow any advice she can give as I know she knows everything there is to know about the bailiff business!!!!

 

thanks for all advice

 

Caz x

 

Caz parking charge fees differ very slightly to council tax fees, ie vat and things come in to it, as for the wording used an attendance fee should mean just that, ie they have been ie first and second visit, attendance to remove equals a ( van call )

 

As for not going to the CAB fair enough and i know TT's advice is good advice, Is TT going to assist you with a complaint though??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caz parking charge fees differ very slightly to council tax fees, ie vat and things come in to it, as for the wording used an attendance fee should mean just that, ie they have been ie first and second visit, attendance to remove equals a ( van call )

 

As for not going to the CAB fair enough and i know TT's advice is good advice, Is TT going to assist you with a complaint though??

 

How can they be charging an attendance fee and a visit fee at the same time on the same day?? And thats even if they did attend, which appears unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can they be charging an attendance fee and a visit fee at the same time on the same day?? And thats even if they did attend, which appears unlikely.

 

 

Indeed you are correct its either an attendance fee or a van call fee not both, however as Caz has explained she was never in when bailiffs turned up, also As you rightly say and i agree we only have the bailiffs word for the fact that these visits occured in the first place, however i know all our vehicles do have trackers on them and are checked regularly..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caz, i think what Robin refers to on closer inspection is the fees that have been added on the 18/06 a fee for attendance plus van call has been charged, this is clearly exessive and not right, you DO have a case here too, hopefully TT will assist you where necessary!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed you are correct its either an attendance fee or a van call fee not both, however as Caz has explained she was never in when bailiffs turned up, also As you rightly say and i agree we only have the bailiffs word for the fact that these visits occured in the first place, however i know all our vehicles do have trackers on them and are checked regularly..

Therefore the bailiff has acted fraudulently. Additionally, the attendance charge has to be reasonable. I think most would agree that £141 is not reasonable: I can hire a van for a whole week for that figure!

 

Caz also said that the letters read "that I had 24 hours to pay or a removal team would attend out of office hours". This implies that the bailiff was not attending "with a view to remove", rather that they would return to remove on a different day. Therefore attendance charges do not apply, only visit charges. I would suggest that at least £282 of the fees are illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore the bailiff has acted fraudulently. Additionally, the attendance charge has to be reasonable. I think most would agree that £141 is not reasonable: I can hire a van for a whole week for that figure!

 

Caz also said that the letters read "that I had 24 hours to pay or a removal team would attend out of office hours". This implies that the bailiff was not attending "with a view to remove", rather that they would return to remove on a different day. Therefore attendance charges do not apply, only visit charges. I would suggest that at least £282 of the fees are illegal.

 

I refer you to the post above your last Robin :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caz also said that the letters read "that I had 24 hours to pay or a removal team would attend out of office hours". This implies that the bailiff was not attending "with a view to remove", rather that they would return to remove on a different day. Therefore attendance charges do not apply, only visit charges. I would suggest that at least £282 of the fees are illegal.

 

This was my thoughts as well! IF the letters all state that they were giving me 24 hours to pay otherwise a removal team would attend, then surely the removal team haven't attended!!!

Otherwise I would have come home to a letter stating that a removal team HAD attended?

 

I must say what funny banter this site sometimes has between members!!! Very entertaining for the rest of us to read!!!

:grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...