Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5475 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

Guest Happy Contrails

Yes.

 

A walking possessions agreement only needs to be signed, but a parking ticket bailiff can take a car in the debtors absence provided the bailiff is sure the car belongs to the debtor. Bailiffs often look around for a car registration as shown on the ticket before knocking the door.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails

The law prescribing bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid council tax is the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and it provides £24.00 for a first visit and £18.00 for a second visit if one is made. No other bailiff's fees can lawfully be charged if a bailiff has not moved your goods in a vehicle and you have not signed any document consenting to a levy or a walking possessions agreement (currently a flat rate of £10).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So does that mean i can contest the 2 visit charges, only had 1 and the levy charges and also the enforcement fee

 

The Enforcement Fee cannot be charged. Th purpose of the visit was to "levy" upon goods and for this he can charge a levy fee. The "enforcement fee" is really an "attendance to remove" fee. Should not be charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a first visit, where a Notice of Distress was put through the door and a levy on a vehicle down the road, not anywhere near my house was put down. I have read that a Form7 should be used to list levy details. Is this the case, or is it acceptable to use a photocopy of company headed paper and put a levy on it?

 

Also , what is the situation when the company used an area bailiff. The company will not speak to me, but referred me to the bailiff. He has not returned my call. However, the bailiff company will by now know I have put a complaint in to the court about the company and the bailiff. Do you think he knows he screwed up, and doesn't want any more hassle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that a levy fee can only be charged when the bailiff has listed property belonging to the debtor, that can be sold at local auction, to the value of the debt and a form7 of the distress for rent rules 1988 is left, securing the property so it cannot be sold else where. The Ministry of Justice has told me that without this form he cannot charge a levy fee.

 

And the property must be in proportion to the debt, else he'll be levying on flower pots!

 

Cas

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a first visit, where a Notice of Distress was put through the door and a levy on a vehicle down the road, not anywhere near my house was put down. I have read that a Form7 should be used to list levy details. Is this the case, or is it acceptable to use a photocopy of company headed paper and put a levy on it?

 

Also , what is the situation when the company used an area bailiff. The company will not speak to me, but referred me to the bailiff. He has not returned my call. However, the bailiff company will by now know I have put a complaint in to the court about the company and the bailiff. Do you think he knows he screwed up, and doesn't want any more hassle?

 

 

Kimmie,

 

Firstly remember that bailiffs are not used to people fighting back, he is trying to intimidate you. Unless the forms are compiled correctly they probably won't see the light of day in court.

 

You have got your MP involved haven't you?

Right for a bailiff to 'practice' he has to meet certain criteria, now I know you are talking about Newlyns, and I believe they are registered with ACEA - Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies

I am not 100 % certain, so give them a ring and ask, if they are, the ACEA have a complaint proceedure. I wonder if using every avenue open to you will just lend wait to your claim.

Best wishes

Cas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kimmie,

 

Firstly remember that bailiffs are not used to people fighting back, he is trying to intimidate you. Unless the forms are compiled correctly they probably won't see the light of day in court.

 

You have got your MP involved haven't you?

Right for a bailiff to 'practice' he has to meet certain criteria, now I know you are talking about Newlyns, and I believe they are registered with ACEA - Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies

I am not 100 % certain, so give them a ring and ask, if they are, the ACEA have a complaint proceedure. I wonder if using every avenue open to you will just lend wait to your claim.

Best wishes

Cas.

 

Hi Casbah

 

Yes, I do have my MP involved, although he has gone a bit quiet. Probably because he thinks the local council are actually doing something-which they are not. You are correct, Newlyn are registered with ACEA as the Claims Manager of Mer Majesty's court services told me when I put my Form 4 complaint in. I intend to use this route also.

 

Just sent another sterling letter to the council, with a copy forwarded to MP. As their reply to my complaint was, you didnt pay, passed to bailiffs, here is a list of charges. Also they wrote I have sent them a copy of your email for their response. Toothless! I said well its obvious that Basildon Councy Council give out a list of charges and do not follow them. I have made a complaint about unlawful charges and you have not even bothered to look into or question them. In fact I know you have a screen with all their lists and charges on, so they knew what I was getting at. I also said it was an unlawful/ilegal levy, as not my property and not on a Form 7.

 

I said that I had contacted Newlyn as asked to make a payment arrangment, but they refused to deal with me. Passed me onto a bailiff and I called his mobile Thursday 23rd April, to date he has not called me back. Think he may be sh****ng a brick! With any luck.

 

So I have refused to deal with the bailiffs and asked them to take the debt back. Let's see where this goes. In the meantime Newlyn have until the 1st May to report back on my case, and then it goes in fron of the judge for consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ooooooooooh Kimmie

 

I hope with all my heart it turns out you and I are talking about the same Bailiff, because today I have just put in my form 4.

A quick update; I wrote to Newlyn asking for a copy of the form 7s they supposedly have on me, citing the distress for rent rules 1988, and they answered that these rules do not apply as they are rent rules not council tax rules ( and guess what? I got a word for word copy from the council, they in co hoots me thinks) Guess they should have told the government and the courts that, cos according to the court they very much are covered by these rules and they DO have to leave a form 7. If only we could get a petiton going against individual bailiff companies.

Cas

Link to post
Share on other sites

ooooooooooh Kimmie

 

I hope with all my heart it turns out you and I are talking about the same Bailiff, because today I have just put in my form 4.

A quick update; I wrote to Newlyn asking for a copy of the form 7s they supposedly have on me, citing the distress for rent rules 1988, and they answered that these rules do not apply as they are rent rules not council tax rules ( and guess what? I got a word for word copy from the council, they in co hoots me thinks) Guess they should have told the government and the courts that, cos according to the court they very much are covered by these rules and they DO have to leave a form 7. If only we could get a petiton going against individual bailiff companies.

Cas

 

If you pm me, I will give you a name. Thr trouble is Newlyn are a bit coy here, as they have not confirmed that this was the original visiting bailiff. But when I called they just said have you spoken to ******. I said never heard of him, they said its the bailiff.

 

Got an email from the council, saying that they basically said all that they had to say previously (i.e. have to deal with Newlyn. They also said they would not take the debt back. That they could confirm the account was on hold until 20th May for investigation. I still had to speak to Newlyn to make payment arrangements.

 

So I called Newlyn, the girl said you owe £836 and the bailiff has been nstructed o call. I said well according to the council it is on hold. She said I will have to call the council and check. Put me on hold. Then came back and said yes it is on hold. Call after that date and make an arrangement. I said well can you confirm if a letter has gone out to me with a break down of the charges. She said I can see we received it on the 27th (it was 17th April, by recorded), and a response is due out. I asked if they had any information on their file regarding the court response. She said I have no idea what you are talking about. We have had correspondence with the council, nothing about court.

 

So I am now in the process of trying to get hold of the court, to see if they have received anything from them. They gave them 14 days from 17th April. Makes my reckoning tomorrow as the deadline.

 

Looks like its getting interesting. Must dash, need to send another complaint email to the MP about the council.

 

Well Casbah, if the Form 7 is such a major deal I wonder if the levy is enforceable. I have had them previously do it the same way, and we have just paid up. Think when this is over, I will send them a SAR to see how much I have paid them in the last 6 years. Do they have to include all the costs they have charged in the SAR ? May be a bit harder to prove though that they played the same game, additional charges for not calling etc...

 

What do you think? But definately never seen a Form 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kimmie and HW

 

Firstly Kimmie, if I were you I'd go back to the main page, SOMEWHERE on there, it states that the council cannot refuse your payments, they will try and fob you off that you have to go through the bailiffs, now if I were you I'd be devious I'd pay online, you'll get an e mail as a receipt. Make sure you put the account number on it. The last thing you want is for them to be able to put the idea in the judges' head that you are a WON'T pay.

 

HW what do you mean by a screen shot?

 

Cas

Link to post
Share on other sites

gives you all the info bailiff has on your account tomtubby always recommends asking for it

taken from a post by tomtubby

A word of advice to anyone considering making such a complaint. It is always advisable to request a screenshot of your account from the bailiff company. A screenshot is the computer record of your account held by the bailiff company and this will report notes of telephone calls you have made, bailiff notes, precise times of any visits made and details of the dates when all charges were applied to your account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's good to hear - maybe they owe me money from previous years then. They sure have racked up some charges in the past. Not knowing all the facts, I paid them. Think a SAR is in order. Could you ask for screen shots for all the years also, do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't see why not

if you are doing a S.A.R. remember to say on it a screenshot of all accounts current and previous that way they are in no doubt what you are asking for

make 3 copy's send 1 to bailiff company one to the council with a covering letter to make them aware that you have sent a S.A.R.to the the bailiff company one to keep as a record

recorded delivery as always:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...