Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I used to post regularly in order to provide factual information (rather than advice) but got fed up with banging my head against a brick wall in so many cases when posters insisted black was white and I was writing rubbish. I have never posted anything which was untrue or indeed biased in any way.  I have never given 'advice' but have sought to correct erroneous statements which were unhelpful. The only username I have ever used is blf1uk. I have never gone under any other username and have no connection to 'bailiff advice'.  I am not a High Court Enforcement Officer but obtained my first 'bailiff' certificate in 1982. I'm not sure what records you have accessed but I was certainly not born in 1977 - at that time I was serving in the Armed Forces in Hereford, Germany (4th Division HQ) and my wife gave birth to our eldest.   Going back to the original point, the fact is that employees of an Approved Enforcement Agency contracted by the Ministry of Justice can and do execute warrants of arrest (with and without bail), warrants of detention and warrants of commitment. In many cases, the employee is also an enforcement agent [but not acting as one]. Here is a fact.  I recently submitted an FOI request to HMCTS and they advised me (for example) that in 2022/23 Jacobs (the AEA for Wales) was issued with 4,750 financial arrest warrants (without bail) and 473 'breach' warrants.  A breach warrant is a community penalty breach warrant (CPBW) whereby the defendant has breached the terms of either their release from prison or the terms of an order [such as community service].  While the defendant may pay the sum [fine] due to avoid arrest on a financial arrest warrant, a breach warrant always results in their transportation to either a police station [for holding] or directly to the magistrates' court to go before the bench as is the case on financial arrest warrants without bail when they don't pay.  Wales has the lowest number of arrest warrants issued of the seven regions with South East exceeding 50,000.  Overall, the figure for arrest warrants issued to the three AEAs exceeds 200,000.  Many of these were previously dealt with directly by HMCTS using their employed Civilian Enforcement Officers but they were subject to TUPE in 2019 and either left the service or transferred to the three AEAs. In England, a local authority may take committal proceedings against an individual who has not paid their council tax and the court will issue a committal summons.  If the person does not attend the committal hearing, the court will issue a warrant of arrest usually with bail but occasionally without bail (certainly without bail if when bailed on their own recognizance the defendant still fails to appear).   A warrant of arrest to bring the debtor before the court is issued under regulation 48(5) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and can be executed by "any person to whom it is directed or by any constable....." (Reg 48(6).  These, although much [much] lower in number compared to HMCTS, are also dealt with by the enforcement agencies contracted by the local authorities. Feel free to do your own research using FOI enquiries!  
    • 3rd one seems the best option, let 'em default, don't pay a penny, nothing will happen, forget about all of this. As for Payplan don't touch them with a bargepole, nothing they can do that you can't, and they will pocket fees. A do it yourself DMP is pointless as it will just string out the statute barred date to infinity.
    • Because that’s what the email said. Anyway it’s done now. Posted and image emailed.    im doing some reading in preparation for defence but I will need my hand holding quite tightly by you good people.  I’m a little bit clueless
    • why do you need adobe...use a pdf online website. all for now...no get reading up and do not miss your defence filing date no matter what. post it up in good time no!!    
  • 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

DCA heavy-handed over increase of repayments - advice needed, pl.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5225 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

Interesting... "can confirm that the reverse of this agreement contained the prescribed terms required under the CCA" but not god enough. Their word is useless to you.

 

Don't worry, they always mention collection activities. You are no where near Bailiffs. You would have to go to Court first, fail to pay if a Judge ordered. Just be aware that debt collectors sometimes call any visit (which is highly unlikely to materialise) a 'pre bailiff visit'. This is a LIE. There is no such thing!

 

Besides, you need to have been sent a valid Default notice before they can take you to Court. (Copy of Default should be included when you SAR) apart from the issues of their compliance to your request for the agreement which could be used to halt any potential Court Action.

 

Here's a thing, before I have a real go at them: is it permissible for the PTs to be on the reverse of the signator document? I need to be sure, in case they're hiding something from me. I don't think so, because they sent the terms in a separate document.

 

Wonder why they won't show me the reverse? Why are they stalling?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...

Update.

 

Bothe DCA and the bank have now - after a few months of glorious silnce - started calling the house again. I have warned them right away about harassment and what I intend to do about it.

 

I also need some clarification about a loan argreement, as opposed to a credit card one: would their signatory documents both be in the same format, ie, will the loan doc have to have PTs on it as well, as I would imagine? Just need that cleared up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would still have to have PT although on a cc they can say something like we will determine the credit limit, on your loan agreement it should have all the figures relevant to your particular case i.e. loan amount, charge for credit, etc. there's a link on here somewhere that details all the PT that each agreement should bear. :)

 

This thread might be of some use to you http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements-guide.html

 

or this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

Edited by madasamuppet
add a link
Link to post
Share on other sites

They would still have to have PT although on a cc they can say something like we will determine the credit limit, on your loan agreement it should have all the figures relevant to your particular case i.e. loan amount, charge for credit, etc. there's a link on here somewhere that details all the PT that each agreement should bear. :)

 

This thread might be of some use to you http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements-guide.html

 

or this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

 

 

Thanks for that. Will have a look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,

 

They have fudged me on the cards but I think that, finally, they have supplied the correct agreement with PTs for the loan. Can you guys confirm this, please, by having a look here Scans :: Appform5 picture by kakkadoo - Photobucket

 

The Terms and Conditions appear to be on the reverse, but I think, as far as I understand it, the PTs are on that document.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as you have blanked out the figures etc then yes it looks enforceable to me

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I did.

 

I will start paying them again, but now both the bank and DCA - which was out of the loop whilst the bank gor re-involved - are now sending Final Demands threatening 'action' if arraesr not paid within seven days. Strangely, their letters took nearly that long to arrive here. At no time have they asked me, since supplying these correct documents, to start paying again; only the DCA has aksed, with the threatening final demand.

 

Incidentally, the bank were adding interest when the account was condisered in dispute. Isn't that illegal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but you can claim these back.

 

if there are any charges etc on the account you can relciam these back to be deducted from figure

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, have started paying again and the DCA is ringing every day. They've had enough warnings off me; I'm off to the local Police station and my laywer tomorrow.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/99376-telephone-harassment-action-plan-7.html#post2203501

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing, the amount of BS they throw at you and expect to swallow.

 

My bank has written to me, saying that they had no notification from the DCA that one of the accounts was indispute. They state that the DCA have no record of my letter notifying them of the account being induspute after going beyond the 12+2 days after they were CCAd. How interesting! I have kept a copy of the recorded delivery slip and have today written to the bank with the time and the date the DCA signed for the letter!

 

Another example of a DCA lying and hiding the existence of documents! Send EVERYTHING recorded, Caggers!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

is there any charges etc on this one that you can reclaim?

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ida,

 

yeh, the bank has been warned about it being illegal to claim whilst in dispute. This is what they are up to, now: denying that their lapdog DCA has ever received the 'in dispute' letter. But I can prove otherwise, to a degree, because I have today sent the bank scans the proof of posting receipts and demanding that the call the Post office automated tracking service to find out when the DCA actually received the letter!

 

Funny, though, how they are both rocking the boat on an account that I have accepted as being enforceable!! It's great, as i have FINALLY gotten a letter form the bank saying the DCA never got the dispute letter!

 

Rock and Effing Roll! :-x My lawyer is now involved; watch this space.

Edited by FlyboyAgain
Additions
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, BTW: the banks and the DCA are VERY quiet over the credit cards that are in dispute! Silence when they know they are caught out; threats and letters akimbo when they know they can collect their pound of flesh.

 

Know thy enemy; I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've just found out that section 77(6) does not exist!! The subsection (6) instrument is only applicable under section 78!! The relevant subsection under section 77 is subsection four!!

 

HAve had to dodge the bank with a typo on that one! Watch out for this!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow Caggers. Today, I welcome into my life the wonderful Moorcroft, whom it appears have taken over one of my accounts where Blair, Oliver & Scott failed miserably. I must admit they came on very strong, with one section of their threats being the 'registration of an inhibition against any heritable proerty that you may own..'

 

How evil is that?

 

Anyway, what I'm puzzled about is this: if Blair, Oliver & Scott just yapped away and couldn't do anything, why has HBoS now instructed another, different DCA? Also, in a recent letter, the bank witter on again about not having to provide the signed document and that they will do so in court. Why change DCAs, then?

 

I'm actually getting bored with this to-ing and fro-ing with them all. I warned the bank today about suddenly supplying signed agreements at court, for I'd want to check their authenticity. I don't trust them one bit. I just don't see how they think they'll benefit by employing another lapdog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One idea is that the bank have instructed another DCA to restart the CCA crap all over again but I'm not having it. What I will watch out for, though, is the possibility of Moorcroft marking my CF. I guess I'd better have a look at the CF, anyway, as I'm sure Blair, Oliver & Scott may have been at it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this just proves even more that they do not want to go the court route and a quick bemused letter to moorcrfot will see them off

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

After a week's blissful silence, my Fife chums rang up again. I spoke briefly and polietly and told them if they had anything to comment on they were to write out to me "NO!", came the raised voice from the other end. I then put the phone down.

 

I'm so annoyed that I've forgotten his name for here was proof of a DCA monkey refusing to write out!

 

However, now that I've started paying the two enforecable loan debts, I have the feeling that the bank and the DCA are going to start hassling me to increase the payments. The bank have admitted such in a recent letter which states that I should contact the DCA do 'discuss a mutually beneficial way forward'.

 

When dealing with a bank or a DCA, nothing can be mutually beneficial!

 

So, with regard to these enforceable accounts, can the DCa, or bank, drag me to court to get me to pay more towards them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they did take you to court, you would apply for a time to pay order and this would you be filling in an income and exp sheet and saying how much you can afford. the judge wouldnlt make you pay anymore than you can afford.

 

if you stick to your payment proposal then theres not much they can do

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Ida.

 

They are already in posession of an updated income and expenditure sheet and the instalments have been brought up to date after I withheld payment to them during the CCA fiasco but I know they are going to start trying to get me to up the instalment amount, just like they used to.

 

I am heart sick of them, really, and I would not put it past them to drag this particluar account to court, even when it's getting paid. My concern would be if the beak ruled that I had to pay the whole lot off! Possibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...