Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, If they haven't followed the court's directions there will be little tolerance of the court. Anyway please can you upload a copy of the court paperwork
    • Yes, you should have applied for an immediate strike out as soon as the deadline expired. Without the agreement, they are stuffed Forget Barclaycard, Asset link is now the creditor, and it is down to them to provide the agreement.  That needs to go into the witness statement. They have not provided the agreement contrary to directions of the court and request the court strike out the claim as to the original court directions.
    • I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me.    Defense I filed:  1.       The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2.       The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023. 3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule. 4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post. 5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. 6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: - a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. 7.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation                  that the money is owed. 8.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
    • Paint is a free programme on any Windows PC. But don't worry, the choice here is not either perfection or nothing. As you say, use your scanner, save the file ... and then use the "choose files" option when you post to CAG to add the file. We can do all the redacting and converting to the correct file type at this end.  The important thing is just to get the info to us. Why not do an experiment this afternoon and see if the above works?  
  • 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 3803 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

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

no, you must first get the facts absolutely right, you need to send a SAR, ask for a screen printout, etc.

 

Anything to show that it was an uncertificated bailiff who has caused you all this greif.

 

Whatever you do don't show your hand until you know for certain and can prove it.

 

Then you've got them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could do with TT's help on this one. Hope shes visiting soon. Date on letter is for the 5th of December :eek:

 

Could do with putting the brakes on asap

 

Please post TT :-)

 

Fwog

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say someone is orchestrating posters on this forum to suggest a commercial site and taking discussions away from this site

 

Stop making such childish comments please.

 

NOBODY is suggesting anything of the kind...it is just your imagination. For most people on here it is help that they require and from me they will get just that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Notice of Seizure has the bailiff actually levied on your vehicle?

 

Is it subject to finance?

 

How much is it worth?

 

Is it a "tool of your trade"

 

You say that the bailiff has listed 2 visits fees and a levy fee. The bailiff CANNOT charge a visit AND Levy fee for the same visit. Do you know the dates of the visits?

 

I am aware of one council who have insisted on having an undertaking from their bailiff co against any claims made as a result of the redemption of goods fee!!!I would therefore suggest asking B&S under which statutory ruling are they charging a "Head H Fee" (redemption of goods).

 

On the matter of the bailiff and his certification it is best to act with caution and request confirmation from B & S. They MUST provide this.

 

All bailiff companies are aware that they are not allowed by law to charge a credit card transaction fee. Once again I would suggest asking B & S for proof of their right to charge this fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tomtubby

 

00.19 post.....Wow you burn it at both ends:)

 

1,Cars mine

2,worth 5-6k

3,Unless Im a pimp.....no:D

 

The dates are oct 28th, nov 3rd and nov 14th

Im really on a timer now...this is getting close..I dont want to query them too much. (..... as Im on the phone to BS there towing the car away and firing charges at me).

Its too late for the post as its 5th Dec they're returning ,so will a phone call halt them ?

I was told by debt line that if I make them aware of thier mistake, they're likely to send another bailliff around to fire more charges and make their case watertight

Im 99% sure on the certification being different from the name on the seizure notice. The other 1% tells me he must not even be on the list.

As Ive said ..its really close.. would I be better to pay them and take it up with the council at a later date? I don't think I will get any joy out of BS....:thinks:wont play fair.

 

 

I called The National Debt line and they've came up with a figure of £65.19 for the charges.

 

The final leter is and advertisement of goods notice and theyre comming to grab car 5/12/08 :eek::eek::eek:

 

Any ideas would be good :)

 

Thanks

 

Fwog

 

PS yes the levy fee in post 20# is on the car which is what the seizure notice is for (you dont have a cry smiley so this one will have to do) :/

Edited by fwog
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is some doubt as to the legality of the seizure, what would happen if the car vanished while this was being sorted out?

 

I'm not suggesting you break the law in any way - but I think it's a fair question and my gut instinct suggests that unless BS are acting legally there's little they could do.

 

Any comments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant get TT :( so I think the best course would be to pay them (today) and then take it up with the council.

I really dislike bailiffs and the less I have to do with them the better.

 

I could adopt the siege mentality but as I have the funds to pay, I dont think its worth dragging this out any longer.

We all know bailiffs dont play fair,so if I satisfy what they 'think' theyre owed, I can then - probably- get some sense out of the council.

 

Its a sorry state of affairs when the power that be employ these bully boys to do their dirty work.

Im mean , if your in distress,you have financial difficulties, where in the heck are you meant to stump-up the money from? The bailiffs lead you into a spiral of ever higher charges with no get out clause. Ive read a few posts where people have complied with the bailiffs and they seem to get screwed in the long run. Its as though the bailiff thinks you owe them a living.:evil::mad:

 

 

Thanks for all the help. You cold do with a few more people on here just pointing new posters to the basics, as this cuts through alot of the bailiffs c**p;) (present company accepted :) )

 

Thanks to everyone who has posted on this thread. The info has been greatly appreciated

 

Will post back when Ive been in touch with the council

 

Fwog

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi all,

 

Well Mr Bailiff has gone forth to multiply with £600 of my hard earned, worth it to have a quiet Christmas:(

 

Just to recap, I want the council to ....

 

1, refund the charges levied when Bristow an Sutor took a debt card payment (4%)

 

2,The bailiff didn't use his certificated name on the seizure notice. I would like to complain to the council regarding his lack of respect to due process. Therefore any pointers to the legal obligations of a certified bailiff when serving a notice would be good

 

3,The fees outlined in my previous post seem excessive to Debtline , how do I go about recovering the excess? (roughly £35)

What's the best way to go about this?

 

Would it be best for me to go to the bailiff first to complain?

Or , as I'd rather do, go direct to the council with my grievances?

 

Any ideas on how to follow this one up would be gratefully appreciated.

 

Regards

 

Fwog

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject Access Request, then if you can show that they have overcharged, ask the council for the money back, if they refuse and you are 150% sure of your facts sue in the small claims court.

 

But you must get your facts right, and make sure that you appear to have acted reasonably at all times.

 

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks for the reply,

 

Yes, my facts are 100%. Its just the question of improper practices when executing a seizure notice, do I make the bailiffs aware of this or would it be better to complain to the council as Im likely to get a better response from them as they are instructing the bailiff ie I don't want this filed in the bin by the bailiff.

 

Also, where can I find the guidelines issued to bailiffs regarding proper practises when acting under instruction from a council?

 

Thanks again,

 

Fwog

Link to post
Share on other sites

But at the end of the day, what matters is who pays and how much.

 

That's the way the law seems to work unfortunately, and the only thing that it will come down to is if the tax was collected, and whether the bailiff charged the correct fees or not.

 

As you may have read from tomtubby's posts, the credit card charge is definitely unlawful, but for some reason the debit charge remains undefined, which means the bailiffs will charge it until some judge somewhere comes out and states that they mustn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But at the end of the day, what matters is who pays and how much.

 

That's the way the law seems to work unfortunately, and the only thing that it will come down to is if the tax was collected, and whether the bailiff charged the correct fees or not.

 

As you may have read from tomtubby's posts, the credit card charge is definitely unlawful, but for some reason the debit charge remains undefined, which means the bailiffs will charge it until some judge somewhere comes out and states that they mustn't.

 

 

Chris

 

Wow, so there's a definition between credit and debit cards even though the judge ruled that the charge itself was illegal? That sucks.

 

Heathliver,

 

thanks for that link,very informative:D By the way, do a preview before posting to see if the BB code has worked :)

Most of th time its just a gap between the command and the text;)

 

Fwog

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we owe tomtubby the credit for finding the caselaw, but yes, that's it.

Pay by CC and no charge allowed, pay by DC and currently the charge isn't disallowed, unless you can find a bored and competent barrister to challenge it for you for free - it's daft, but that's the wonder of our legal process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The matter of charging a credit card transaction fee has been the subject of at least 3 Detailed Assessment hearings to the court on the matter of bailiff fees and I am aware that in each case the Judge has ruled that it is UNLAWFUL to charge a this fee.

 

They can however charge a £1 fee for payments made using a debit card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The matter of charging a credit card transaction fee has been the subject of at least 3 Detailed Assessment hearings to the court on the matter of bailiff fees and I am aware that in each case the Judge has ruled that it is UNLAWFUL to charge a this fee.

 

They can however charge a £1 fee for payments made using a debit card.

 

interesting very interesting, so why oh why do all companies that i have heard of charge between £1 and £1.50 for a debit card and between 3.5% and 8% on a credit card transaction when it would appear to be illegal and why has no-one challenged this, its crazy and must be stopped!!!

 

ROBBING BAR STEWARDS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to this is very simple and is mainly down to publicity.

 

The bailiff companies all know that they should not be making these credit card transaction fees but they do not think that you know this.

 

If you write to the company to ask them for details of the legal ruling that provides for them to charge this fee you will normally find that hey agree to refund the fee. If this does not work we always find that a letter advising that a letter will be sent to the Local Government Ombudsman or even asking for details of their auditors normally works !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think it's the bean counter mentality - goes like this...

 

Most people will fold and pay it, along with the other fantasy charges, so they will make a profit even if they are caught out.

 

Remember the ford pinto class action - they worked out it was cheaper to pay some greaving family compensation rather then recall the cars.

 

Same strategy

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to this is very simple and is mainly down to publicity.

 

The bailiff companies all know that they should not be making these credit card transaction fees but they do not think that you know this.

 

If you write to the company to ask them for details of the legal ruling that provides for them to charge this fee you will normally find that hey agree to refund the fee. If this does not work we always find that a letter advising that a letter will be sent to the Local Government Ombudsman or even asking for details of their auditors normally works !!!

 

Thanks or clarifying that point for me TT.

 

It would be a good idea , considering the amount of debt these people create, to calculated the amount theyve defrauded people of,with this charge, bet its a tidy sum. I might go to Companies House and download thier returns for last year. See if that can give me a figure:cool:

 

Letter being composed, putting in asbestos envelope as I type.:D:D

 

Fwog

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to this is very simple and is mainly down to publicity.

 

The bailiff companies all know that they should not be making these credit card transaction fees but they do not think that you know this.

 

If you write to the company to ask them for details of the legal ruling that provides for them to charge this fee you will normally find that hey agree to refund the fee. If this does not work we always find that a letter advising that a letter will be sent to the Local Government Ombudsman or even asking for details of their auditors normally works !!!

 

many thanks for the reply tt, im guessing it will only be a matter of time though before this unethical practice will have to stop, well heres hoping anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...