Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i would suggest you look at the dates of posts on those other forums paypal do not sell debts and even if they do, there is stuff and all any debts buyer could do yo you in the UK. forget it, or even better go complaint to your bank and tell them paypal did not advise you £1200 would come out of your a/c, which they should do, and that it was the result of fraud. you don't have to tell them any details.   as for the rest of your debts..   debt IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN THE UK..where the beep did you get that from!!   pers i'd be opening a parachute account and getting asll your income paid into that so NO-ONE can get their hands on it. cause NW are just about to introduce 40% OD int rate and they will forever be draining you of money   get OUT NOW from them.   dx      
    • I'm aware there are some grammatical and reference errors but the post expired before I could fix. I'd really like to know if I've made valid points or not. Thanks.
    • Another thing, they say they have photographic evidence of the entry and exit times, but have not included it in the SAR. If they have photos shouldn't they provide them in the SAR? And if they don't have them now, how can they prove anything?    Should I ask OBS to produce the photos?
    • Is this any better?  I've resigned myself to losing. Admittedly, I don't quite know what I'm doing. I just hope I get a remote hearing, that should save me some embarrassment.      1) The Claimants pleaded case is that the Defendant entered into an agreement with Provident subsequently assigned to Vanquis Bank Limited under account reference xxx.    2) It is admitted I have had financial dealings with Provident in the past. However, have no recollection of the alleged reference number the claimant refers to.   3) In February 2019 I made a formal written request to the Claimant for them to provide me with a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement as entitled to do so under sections 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.    4) On the 21 June 2019 the Claimant sent a response which enclosed a reconstituted copy of an agreement, default notice, notice of assignment Provident to Vanquis, notice of assignment Vanquis to Lowell. [EXHIBIT x, x & x].   5) On 30/07/19, I received a claims form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, for the amount of £369.84. The claimant contends that the claim is for the sum of £369.84 in respect of monies owing under an alleged agreement with the account no xxxx  pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).   6) Contained within the claimants particulars the claimant states that the account was subject to assignment from Provident to Vanquis. The claimant states a further assignment to them occurred on 12/06/2017 with notice given.    7) It is denied notice of assignment from Provident to Vanquis and subsequently Vanquis to Lowell were ever received.    😎 The claimant states documents were received at both addresses. The claimant doesn’t appear able to confirm my address and therefore cannot say with certainty said documents were received. Furthermore, the client did not issue said documents and therefore cannot prove delivery.     9) It is denied any communication took place with myself and Vanquis Bank Limited. Any alleged legal assignment to part of the “Fresh Start” initiative had not been informed. I have no previous knowledge.   10) Under the consumer credit act 2006, until debts have been repaid, there is an obligation to send statements and notices to the debtor at prescribed intervals at no more than 12 months. The statement should explain the money borrowed, money paid, interest in all cases and the outstanding amount. Consequences of failing to make repayments and the opportunity of making minimum payments should be informed. The Claimant has submitted a statement of accounts dated March 2019. This having followed my request for a credit consumer agreement. It is denied this document and any such required statement of accounts required under section 77A during the alleged agreement were ever received.   11) The claimant states that a default notice was issued on 18thJanuary 2017. The payment date requested by Vanquis Bank Limited on said document is  28thFebruary 2017. The formal Notice of Default that was accompanying this letter displays a requested payment date, 28thFebruary 2019. (Exhibit x, x)   12) I argue that this is not in fact a COPY of an original default notice, that they state was issued during February 2017, but that this is a fabricated version of a default notice created by Lowell. Either way the default notice was not issued by the assigned creditor (Vanquis).   13) It is therefore contended that the original creditor failed to serve a valid Default Notice pursuant to section 87(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor of a regulated agreement.   14) The Claimant states a default notice was not required. If there is a default in payments during the fixed term a default notice must be issued. The Claimant states they were informed a default notice was sent on 18thJanuary. The Claimants case relies upon being informed and does not constitute fact.   15) It is denied a default notice was ever received.    16) It is admitted I responded to the Claimant’s pre-action protocol letter addressed in my name. I indicated I did not know if I owed the debt. I indicated as such having no recollection of affiliation with Vanquis nor Lowell. A default for the allege debt appearing on my credit file only November 2019.    17) I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income.   As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   18) Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 6 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3965 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi, my sister in-law received a letter today

 

Contents below

 

letter1.jpg

envelop.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council Confirm

 

Origional Debt £110.39

Court Fees: £68.00

Total: £178.39

 

Equita Fees £42.50

Total £220.89

 

No bailiff Vists at all, just this letter sent received via Royal Mail

 

does anyone know anything about the return address on the back of the envelope?

 

Data Services Centre, Department E, Doncaster, DN55 1ES

 

Equita have said to the council that they have made two Bailiff Visits.

 

however i have a recorded call from the Peterboroigh City Council

 

Saying, that equita immediately add an amount of £42.50 to the account

 

then when we visit the council today they say that the two bailiff visits where

 

27th July and 3rd August 2009

 

Yet, i have another recorded telephone call with Equita today confirming that the fees are for

 

a Letter for an amount of about £11.00 and if payment is not made within 7 days of that letter another fee is added to the account making a total of £42.50

 

Equita confirm that NO Bailiff visits have been made, the fees are for letters.

 

This stinks of fraud but the council dont seem to want to help.

 

 

What the council admited today by mistake was

 

they receieved a letter from my sister in-law with an offer of payment, but failed to reply to it. but insted passed the account to the courts and Equita.

 

I think they have really shot them selfs in the foot here

 

I reckon i have a case under Section 2 of the fraud act 1996

 

Section 2 of the act says

 

2 Fraud by false representation

 

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

 

Equita try to enforce payment of £42.50 which they know they cant legally claim under the Council Tax Administration Act.

Edited by UK26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i need guys, is your input on this and for any info you may have on

 

Data Services Centre, Department E, Doncaster, DN55 1ES

 

Peterborough City Councils - List of Costs ( This is taken from my archive fileing system when i was personally involved with the same council and Equita.

 

This case is the same as my case over a year ago, which i won.

 

 

costs.jpg

 

 

Oh and i forgot to say, that Peterborough City Council have not done the required actions

 

1. did not send a copy of the Liability Order from the court

2. Reply to offer letter of monthly repayments -

3. did not give 14 days warning letter before transferring the account to Equita.

 

Sister in-law is not working at the moment and is in receipt of ESA, again this was mentioned on the offer of payment letter, which the council today have confirmed they have this on the system from her letter.

Edited by UK26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t want to put any recorded telephone calls on here for people to listen too as i got a snotty letter from Equitas solicitors before when i was involved with them last year. but i have sent them off to the council to listen to and hopefully take action.

 

 

Also just played back one of the recordings when Equita say about there charges of £42.50

 

He said they charge about £11 or £12 for the letter and if payment is not made within 7 days then extra fees are added to make it a total of £42.50

 

Well the letter is dated 03/08/09 and received today 10/08/09

so it some how took 7 Days to get to my sister in-law and bang was not able to make a payment offer within the 7 days lol

 

Peterborough Council say to us both, that she needs to make a payment to Equita, i said well Equita allocate the payments towards there fees first before they send any money of the council.

 

The council said, well thats what you must do, pay them direct. i said, that dont make sence, you want her to make payment to a company acting in breach of the law???? they said yes.

 

Why cant the council play fair. i wanted the council to allow us to use there phone while we call Equita and try and dispute the fees and find out what they are for and so the Council could hear what they say on lound Speaker Phone as i knew Equita would say no bailiffs have been around and that its for letters only.

 

- Guess what there response was. Sorry i am not prepaid to witness that, i will make it noted that i denied your request.

Edited by UK26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any imput please guys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like you will have to go through the complaints procedure

 

you know a bailiff can only charge for visits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we know the fees can only be charged when a bailiff actually visits.

 

But its hard work trying to get the Council to understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats because they hope you you will go away :rolleyes:

 

perhaps you should send them a copy of

 

 

Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 613

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

 

SCHEDULE 5 Regulation 45(2)(b)

 

CHARGES CONNECTED WITH DISTRESS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks, i will send them a copy :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{Update}

All the telephone recordings and letters have been sent to the Council and the LGO.

 

So for the council have contacted Equita asking for more information.

 

I know whats going to happen.

 

Equita GPS devices are going to do there majic once again, and that is provde a fake print out.

 

Just happens to be on this case. one of the days Equita Claim to have visited was the date on the Letter that was received yesterday which had a date of 03/08/09 - the same day they claim to have visited, however one BIG mistake was this letter arrived in a envelope with a franked stamp on it with a postal Licence number.

 

 

-------------

right i have a copy

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (No. 613) - Statute Law Database

 

 

is there any other provisons within the act that can be used againts the Council?

Edited by UK26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remind them that bailiffs can only charge for visits and that a bailiff visiting a property must leave a hand delivered letter telling them that a bailiff has called

 

did you look to see if the bailiff was certificated

 

On line search to check if a Bailiff is Certificated.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter was signed (Bailiff Manager) lol

 

not been able to find out the bailiffs name yet as when we called Equita they said no bailiff had been assiged to the case yet.

 

but there fees of £42.50 have been added to the account

 

even they say they can charge £42.50 for a letter :) :) :)

 

Fraud or what

Edited by UK26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remind them that only a certificated bailiff can add charges not office staff

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf

 

Certificated bailiffs — enforce a variety of debts on behalf of organisations such as local authorities. They can seize and sell your goods to cover the amount of the debt you owe. They also hold a certificate, which enables them, and them alone, to levy distress for rent, road traffic debts, council tax and non-domestic rates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea, why don't i apply to the county court for an

detailed assessment of the fees charged by Equita this would allow us to actually say to the Judge that no visits where made. He should then ask Equita for evidance. Unless they use photoshop or something like that, there will be no evidence and Equita will be forced to refund the fees to the account.

 

Peterborough City Council would then have no option but to ensure this does not happen again

 

This will then open them to a can of worms. :)

Edited by UK26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

google this you may find something to help you

National standards for enforcement agents may 2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peterborough City Council complaints department are reading this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good they may learn something and you are not breaking any laws

the bailiff is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a complaints procedure you must go through first before you file a form 4 complaint to the county court and before you can complain to the local government ombudsman

the complaint procedure was posted by tomtubby i will find it for you and post it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for the info, i am fully aware of the complaints procedure, ive been there before with Equita and Peterborough City Council.

 

Ive made it a simple process of CC the LGO in on any emails to and from the council, and the council have started doing the same.

 

 

This time i'm doing it for my sister in-law

 

Would the Police take the case on as per S2 fraud Act 1996?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you confirm if the Court Fees: £68.00 is the correct amount?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you confirm if the Court Fees: £68.00 is the correct amount?

 

 

all councils charge a different fee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the Council make a profit then from the court fee. Surely the fee should be the same with all the courts.

 

I have just sent an email to the court

 

From: Dave

Sent: 11 August 2009 11:15

To: 'jen.cann@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk'

Subject: Council Tax

Hi Jen

Could you please advise me of the current court fee that is normally payable when Peterborough City Council file a claim with your self for non-payment of council tax.

I need the information to make sure the Council are not over charging.

Dave

Edited by UK26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes the council do make a profit a very large profit don't quote me but i think i read somewhere on here its approx £3 for a liability order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked with one of my previous cases and the court fee was £50

 

so its gone up £18 in two years.

 

If i get a response back from the court, and its proved that the council are making a profit, then i will file a claim for damages.

 

Surely they can only charge for administration costs.

Edited by UK26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{UPDATE}

 

Peterborough City Council has now listened to my recorded telephone calls.

 

 

Outcome

 

  • agreed to remove over £100 from the balance ( compensation)
  • has agreed to take the case back from Equita
  • Do a full investigation into Equita
  • Training given to the individual council employee

 

I asked the manager about the court fees of £68. He confirmed it only costs the council £3.00 for each court order. The rest is the Councils agreed admin fees. However due to the size of the debt £110.39 the court fees will be removed.

Edited by UK26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...