Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
  • 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 5410 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

hi wonder if you can help.on tuesday my mum got a letter through her door saying jacobs were coming to remove goods in 48 hours.

She had an arrangement to pay them 104 per fortnight which she was paying.in may she was 6 days late with 1 payment and the next thing this letter was delivered. sha has since made all payments on time. she phoned the bailiff and he said he wants 500 by 2o'clock today or he will come with police to remove. is he just threating her or can he really do this

Link to post
Share on other sites

tell your mum to lock her doors and windows do not answer the door to him if she must speak to him tell her to do it through an upstairs window

 

has the bailiff been in your mothers house before

does the bailiff have a walking possession agreement

 

1) how much was the liability order for

2)how much has the bailiff added in charges

3) does she know how much she has already paid

4) what are your mothers circumstances does she work is she on benefits

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes he has been in and does have a walking possesion order

 

she had lived in her flat for 3 years and never recived a council tax bill then she received one which had 3 years altogether onit she obviously couldn't pay it all at once because it was nearly £3000 she was taken to court and bailiffs were sent out. she doesn't know how much charges were put on the bills however she had calculated it would be paid in full in middle of october

 

at first she was paying them 250 a month but was struggling the agreed to lower it in to fornightly payments of 104

 

she earns 190 a fornight which is piad in to my bank account

Link to post
Share on other sites

by any chance was doing a WP a condition of allowing your mum to pay in installments - are popular tactic of Jacobs.

 

Plus if your mum is up to date in her payments I don't believe they can enforce anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it was said they wouldn't accept a payment plan unless she let them in to levy goods

 

she doesn't have that much they can take anyway as she lives in a 1bed flat shes more worried that they come and break down the front door to the flats then break in hers while she is at work

she lives in private rented and is worried her land lord will then charge her for the door which she cant afford to pay.

she did ask the bailiff if he could give her a time he was coming and he said no if she s not she not in there is nothing he can do about it

Link to post
Share on other sites

because they have a walking possession agreement they can come into your mother house

having said that they don't want your mothers goods they want to add a van charge if memory serves me correct JACOBS charge £120 for this

however if the bailiff was coming to remove your mothers goods and i very much doubt they will as she has never missed a payment (you cant call a late payment missed)

they must send her a letter first giving the time and date of the removal

 

Forcing re-entry

The law upon the rights of bailiffs to force re-entry to premises in order to remove

goods previously seized has recently been clarified. In Khazanchi v Faircharm

Investments; McLeod v Butterwick [1998] 2 All ER 901 the Court of Appeal held that

bailiffs may only force re-entry where they are being deliberately excluded from

premises. It will thus be necessary in most cases for the bailiff to notify the debtor in

advance of the date and time of the visit in order to remove. If the debtor is then

absent from home, or refuses entry, force may be employed

Link to post
Share on other sites

she earns 190 a fornight which is piad in to my bank account

she earns less tha £100 per week this means she is entitled to housing and C/T benefits which I hope she is getting, and the full amount, Can I ask if she was getting this amount in the time of when the first council tax was due.

Link to post
Share on other sites

she is also classed as being on a low income which means she shouldnt even be paying back that large amount, she should get back intouch with the council asap and explain how much the bailiffs want off her, she also needs to know how much they have charged her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs are notorious for that - I HATE the fact that they say only payment arrangement with a WP.

 

I refused and they still try it on with me - every few months cancel my arrangement and then say they will only let me pay monthly with a WP. Every few months I then go spare at my council who then call them off and make them reinstate it.

 

Have you tried calling the council and asking why if the account is up to date are they allowing their agents to threaten your mother?

 

The council are responsible for the bailiffs actions whilst collecting council tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bailiff is trying to frighten your mum a well known bailiff tactic

all that will happen is the bailiff will add a van charge

did the bailiff give your mum 3 separate walking possession agreements for the 3 accounts

are the same goods on the 3 agreements

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bailiff is trying to frighten your mum a well known bailiff tactic

all that will happen is the bailiff will add a van charge

did the bailiff give your mum 3 separate walking possession agreements for the 3 accounts

are the same goods on the 3 agreements

 

no did one levy for all 3 accounts ,but while she was trying to pay them what they wanted she feel behind with last years ct payments which went also to jacobs a diffrent balff came to levy again and levied the same thing as the other had as like i said she doesn't have a lot for them to take

 

no hallowitch she live in cleveland

Edited by lochnettie80
adding tp post
Link to post
Share on other sites

a different bailiff came to levy again and levied the same thing as the other had

is/was she still paying on the previous accounts when they levied the same goods

is it this account the bailiff is coming to collect on today

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep 3 lots of 65 she has manged to get an appointment with cab at 2pm today they have phoned local council to get them to stop any further action un til it is dealt with

 

will let u know the out come thanks for all help

Link to post
Share on other sites

the baillif has an unlawfull levy the charges for this must be removed

 

your mum needs to ask the council

for

 

the amount of all liability orders sent to the baillifs and the date they were sent

she also needs a screenshot (breackdown) of charges of all her accounts from the baillifs

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE COUNCIL TAX (ADMINISTRATION AND

ENFORCEMENT) REGULATIONS 1992 (SI 1992/613 AS

AMENDED BY SI 1993/773, SI 1998/295, SI 2003/2211, SI 2006/3395 AND SI 2007/501

(SCHEDULE 5)

NOTICE OF

CHARGES CONNECTED WITH DISTRESS

1. The sum in respect of charges connected with the distress which may be aggregated under

regulation 45(2) shall be set out in the following Table-

(1)

Matters connected with distress

(2)

Charges

A For making a visit to premises with a view

to levying distress (where no levy is

made) –

i) where the visit is the first or only such

visit £24.50

ii) where the visit is the second such

visit:£18

 

2.—(1) In heads A and B of the Table to paragraph 1, "the relevant amount" with respect to a visit or a levy means—

  • (a) where the sum due at the time of the visit or of the levy (as the case may be) does not exceed £100, £12.50,

  • (b) where the sum due at the time of the visit or of the levy (as the case may be) exceeds that amount, 12½ per cent. on the first £100 of the sum due, 4 per cent. on the next £400, 2½ per cent. on the next £1,500, 1 per cent. on the next £8,000 and ¼ per cent. on any additional sum;
  • (2) Where a charge has arisen under head B with respect to an amount, no further charge may be aggregated under heads A or B in respect of that amount.

and the sum due at any time for these purposes means so much of the amount in respect of which the liability order concerned was made as is outstanding at the time.

 

anything you dont understand just ask

Link to post
Share on other sites

not even another firm of bailiffs can levy on the same goods never mind the the same company doing it three times. your mother should go to housing advice as she would get it paid and they can back date it three months so this would change the first bill and take it out of the bailiffs hand full stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I'm an ex employee of jacobs.

The CAB have an arrangement with jacobs so if they call jacobs then they have to take the case back from the bailiff and stop any action and also they have to accept a payment plan, the minimum is £5 per week.

The fees seem unlawful to me. Can you tell me which bailiff it was and what council you're dealing with? I will give you some advice on exactly how to deal with jacobs. PM me if you need more help. thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...