Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If Labour are elected I hope they go after everyone who made huge amounts of money out of this, by loading the company with debt. The sad thing is that some pension schemes, including the universities one, USS, will lose money along with customers.
    • What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.
    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
  • 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 5352 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 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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
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
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
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

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
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
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

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
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?

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: '[email protected]'

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
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
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
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...