Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • thread tidied. new thread for the court claim is here  
    • new thread created for this claimform please post here now for anything to do with it now . pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’. Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time. You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID. You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .. get a CCA Request running to the claimant . https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/ .. Leave the £1 PO unsigned and uncrossed . get a CPR  31:14  request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] ... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . .use our other CPR letter if the claim is for an OD or Telecom Debt or Util debt]  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ on BOTH type your name ONLY Do Not sign anything .do not ever use or give an email . you DO NOT await the return of ANY paperwork  you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count] ..............  
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton  Name of the Claimant ? lowell Solicitors : Overdales solicitors  How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.  13 may 2024 What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?   Not to my knowledge. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online but it was for a smaller amount they kept on increasing this with me asking Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. It was assigned to a debt collection agency  Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes  Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes I also made offers to pay original creditor a smaller amount but was not replied to Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No Why did you cease payments? I was made redundant and got a less paid job I also spent some time on furlough during covid and spent some 3 months on ssp off work. What was the date of your last payment? May 2021 Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes at the time I communicated with all my creditor's that I was running out of funds to pay the original agreements once my redundancy money ran out that was when my accounts defaulted. I then wrote to all my creditor's with pro rata offers of payments but debt collectors took over the accounts.
    • Just an update for all. I received about a letter every other week, increasing in threat levels. Then I hadn't had one for a about two weeks, then Saturday received a carbon copy of the very first letter they sent me in February. Made me laugh, rinse and repeat. 
    • So, your response was not received by the SCP as you did not send it with a valid stamp. Therefore, from my two option in post #14, the first option is the only one available to you, but you do not have the option of asking to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level as the reason the SCP did not receive your response was down to you. Here's a reminder of what to do: Respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box state that you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. This is a tried and tested method to deal with your problem and is almost always successful. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to do this "deal" because it needs the agreement of the police prosecutor.. During the pandemic courts made every effort to have as few  people as possible attend and they began doing this deal under the "Single Justice" procedure without the defendant's attendance. Some courts have carried this procedure on whilst others have reverted to a personal attendance being necessary. If you are required to attend, your case will be taken out of the SJ procedure and you will be given a date for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. If that is the way they do it in the area involved you will have to attend, see the prosecutor and offer your "deal" in person. 
  • 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

Drakes/Marston group balliffs broken my lock and pushed over my baby daughter-PLEASE HELP!!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5688 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

Maybe she had had a loosing streak and was 'under orders' from her boss to 'remove items' - it has been known. The possibility that she had been too lenient and had been repremanded earlier comes to mind. I am not defending her or her actions - I think bailiffs are evil and have had one intimidate and humiliate me.

 

I don't know if you have filled in the official form to complain yet but it seems that she was well out of order and needs to have her bond rescinded... this is a bailiffs worst nightmare as without a bond they cannot legally collect money... and therefore have no work and no nice 'commission on top' which is what the extortionate fees are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The evidence stacks up that the bailiff didn't actually want you to see the 'warrant'. My advice is to go to the police and file a complaint about this bailiff under section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006. The police are duty bound to investigate whether they understand the terms of the Act or not. Don't let them say that you 'owed the money anyway', as you paid the fees the bailiff demanded, none of which would have been written on a real warrant or Court Order. The law only allows bailiffs to ask for fees and does not impart the right to defraud out of people, let alone excess fees beyond the scale allowed.

 

It might help both you and the police to visit the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary website relating to bailiffs and 'template for a policy document', particulary section 4.6 which gives specific reasons for allowing forced entry and section 4.1 relating to the duties of the police to ensure the correct documentation is shown to them.

 

This is a force that seems to have acheived the right balance and one that has informed it's officers on how to act. It goes without saying that the law isn't variable on this, only the attitudes and the information available within the different police forces are.

 

The bailiffs used by D & C Constabulary are Marstons or Drakes as they then were.

 

Now all you have to do is to ask why if one office of Marstons knows the law, others do not. My belief is that Marston's infrastructure isn't that bad. Somebody in the Marstons area covering your property has simply ignored the law.

 

As I said before, this bailiff's intention to defraud was premeditated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again

 

Just to say I have received a letter from the magistrates court that I sent a copy of my complaint to (as it was their fine the bailiff was collecting). It says they are 'very concerned by the contents of my complaint' and that they have sent a copy to the bailiff manager (who s on holiday for the week) but that he 'specifically wants to talk to me at my address or on the phone'. Hhmm-I ve mixed feelings about this-I m pleased it s been acknowledged, but I m not sure I want anyone from that firm in my house after the way one of their employees acted (maybe if I could chain the TV to the wall and have Simon Cowell s bodyguard there with my children I d be happier!!!)

 

On the other hand, I would quite like to meet him just to prove that I m not a Waynetta slob/ benefit cheating/ workshy threatening and violent person that this bailiff has no doubt made me out to be (she kept telling the police how 'dealing with people like me' was normal in her job:-x-she should try doing my job nursing people with learning disabilities- then she d know what it s like to have to put up with violence/abuse on a daily basis and going back because you care, and you want to make a difference even though it earns you a pittance)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention-when I spoke to a court official regarding all this I referred to the Tv programme that exposed Drakes and he quickly said-we wouldn t use them-we use Marstons-he seemed surprised when I said they re part of the same company-nice to know they do their homework!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter if you do act like Waynetta Slob in your property. It was your house and not the bailiffs to treat like a toilet.

 

 

Yes, that s true, It just annoyed me that that was the picture this woman was trying to paint of me in an attempt to justify her actions- I could tell that the police had pre judged me before they arrived as their attitude changed towards me changed noticeably once they d spoken to me and realised that I wasn t acting abusively towards this bailiff (shouting, swearing, threatening her etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that there is an updated version of the D & C policy. Mine is dated Jan 2007 and therefore is different from the June 2008 version now available.

 

Much the same message though, but with one fateful alteration. It refers to 'warrants' from the county court. As already explained on this thread, county courts issue 'Orders' and not 'warrants' except to their own bailiffs.

 

Still this force is an example to others.

Edited by Fair-Parking
Link to post
Share on other sites

I despair.

 

Why oh why do some think that 'putting a foot' in the door is peaceful or lawful entry .................. IT IS NOT ...............It's ILLEGAL ..............It's criminal trespass & if you push past the occupant that's assault

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree Fair-Parking,

 

The issue here is the un-necessary use of force having already placed his/her foot in the door, the door was prevented from being closed. The Bailiff simply had to apply enough force and no more to gain full entry.Although most bailiffs believe this to be true it's wrong. If the occupant is refusing or objecting to entry then no peaceful entry is available

 

The Distress Warrant would have been valid having been issued by a magistrates court, the offence was one that generated a court fine and as such Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28) - Statute Law Database (having become statute law 11 July 2005) applied in the event that peaceful entry could not be obtained.

Although the warrant should have been shown to any reasonable person requiring confirmation, on this occasion it was`nt.

Simply not showing sight of the warrant is not enough to prevent the use of force, that right exist`s in statute law.

 

I don`t think the police would be interested in taking this complaint any further, it`s an issue that needs to resolved the court.

 

Was the amount of force required?

Why did the bailiff refuse to show grounds for the action to interested partys, after they deal in Bailiff activity all day, a simple guideline along the lines of unpaid court fines do allow reasonable force to be used in the event of no peaceful entry as granted by statute law would have clarified the law.

 

Since when do bailiffs require a court stamped warrant that specifically states that force could be used? In a ideal world this would clarify the bailiffs position from the start, but we do not live in a ideal world and ignorance of the law is no excuse, unfair I know but thats it.

 

See above in red

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes me despair FP is that even those who wish to help & are obviously quite knowledgeable still think putting a foot in the door is lawful & constitutes peaceful entry

 

I can only think they think that because it's what they have been told & got away with for many years

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it is and yes, I agree it's ignorance of the law that bailiffs feed upon

 

 

Although I think a few might I don't think most knowingly feed off it but that they actually believe it themselves because it's what their employer & their mates have claimed for years

 

Say it often enough & it soon becomes gospel

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here is the un-necessary use of force having already placed his/her foot in the door, the door was prevented from being closed. The Bailiff simply had to apply enough force and no more to gain full entry.

 

.Although most bailiffs believe this to be true it's wrong. If the occupant is refusing or objecting to entry then no peaceful entry is available

 

When executing HMCS distress warrants, the "foot in the door" action is perfectly legal but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure. The bailiff is not entitled to use further force of any kind to force the door open. The person trying to shut the door is perfectly within their rights to apply as much force as possible in an attempt to close the door. If the bailiff sticks to the letter of the law it would result in a stalemate as no "peaceful entry" is possible. However, in such circumstances, the bailiff could quite easily justify the use of a locksmith once entry is refused. With the Police in attendance to ensure there's no breach of the peace, "peaceful entry" could be gained.

Certificated Bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

When executing HMCS distress warrants, the "foot in the door" action is perfectly legal.

 

Could you show us this in writing please ?

 

Perhaps quote the law that permits this action.

 

Thank you.

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

Again I despair John you are wrong. To put your foot in the door might be everyday practice for many bailiffs but it does not constitute peaceful entry

 

I ask you to think if, as you state & are correct, the occupant is allowed to use force to remove your foot why do you think that is especially if the bailiff is acting within the law??

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris,

 

I thought I made myself quite clear. I even used bold type to highlight my understanding.

 

I'll try again so please read the following carefully.

 

Is the foot in the door peaceful entry? NO.

 

Is the foot in the door legal? YES but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure so that communication can continue.

 

Can the bailiff force the door open even if his foot is firmly wedged? NO, this would be FORCED entry and highly illegal.

 

Can the bailiff use a locksmith where entry is denied if the Police are present? YES. The Police ensure there's no breach of the peace by arresting anyone obstructing the bailiff executing the distress warrant.

 

Are we clear now?

Certificated Bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...