Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am sorry about getting your status mixed up.  I have noticed one thing in your excellent WS. On their claim they are only pursuing you as the keeper-I think it is  in their Point C that  states along the lines of -the driver did not pay , so the keeper is liable. So on your No keeper Liability section  You may prefer  to alter 13 to    . It is trite Law that the driver and the keeper cannot be regarded  as the same person and the claimant has failed to offer any proof who was driving.  BY  only pursuing the keeper  when the PCN does not comply with PoFA must mean that their claim fails. See what the Site team thinks as it should  stop the Judge from looking at who was driving as your statement preempts them from even thinking about it.
    • What would suffice as proof? I just emailed them back my date of birth. Should I send a copy of driving licence? 
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton   MCOL Northampton N1 ? Manual Claim CCMCC (Salford) ? New beta WWW.MONEYCLAIMS.SERVICE.GOV.UK ?   If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form.   This has been uploaded in my previous messages in the bundle of documents     Name of the Claimant ? Asset Link Capital (NO5) Limited   How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to./   14/02/2020   ^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total Not relevant as his claim was set aside, and has now been brought to the court again by the claimant       Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? Please see bundle of documents in previous thread   What is the total value of the claim? £10,734.1    Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  Yes - this is one of the grounds for getting it set aside   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?  Apparently 2000   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? I do not recall entering into an agreement with Barclays   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ?  It was, but it is not anymore   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned to Asset Link   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No - although they have provided a copy of the assignment notice in their bundle of docs for the hearing   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I don't remember - but again a copy of a letter has been provided (see bundle on previous thread)   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  No    Why did you cease payments?  2015   What was the date of your last payment? December 2015   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved?  I wrote to Barclaycard back in 2015 to ask them to send proof of the original agreement but they just sent me a reconstituted document which had no personal deals on relating to me   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? yes - step change took control and set up payments of £1 pm
  • 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 5278 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 can any one help me, dare i say it involves rossendales bailiffs, i am a married mum of 5 kids, under duress i let this kind man in who was a bailiff and i stupidly signed a wpo, he told me then an there the minimum repayment was £65 pw but if i could fill in a means test which i did our total income is £1500. pm so i offered £55 pw as we privately rent and the council have no 4/5 bed houses to offer us this costs us £700.00 pm they wrote back saying i had to pay £430 pm so i queried this as the bailiff said £65 pw why is that they said he got it wrong he got the council wrong and my particular council need this paying in £20 weeks i paid him £100 on the spot then a further £440, they now have sent the usual letters of no further notices unless you pay outstanding balance we will send a van to remove goods, im not on benefits as my husband works but i do suffer from severe depression is there anything i can do please help this is not making my symptoms any better i am at my wits end

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi can any one help me, dare i say it involves rossendales bailiffs, i am a married mum of 5 kids, under duress i let this kind man in who was a bailiff and i stupidly signed a wpo,

 

do you still have the wpa what goods are listed on it

 

he told me then an there the minimum repayment was £65 pw but if i could fill in a means test which i did our total income is £1500. pm so i offered £55 pw as we privately rent and the council have no 4/5 bed houses to offer us this costs us £700.00 pm they wrote back saying i had to pay £430 pm so i queried this as the bailiff said £65 pw why is that they said he got it wrong he got the council wrong and my particular council need this paying in £20 weeks

do you have any of this from the bailiffs in writing

 

i paid him £100 on the spot then a further £440, they now have sent the usual letters of no further notices unless you pay outstanding balance we will send a van to remove goods,

they wont send a van to remove your goods they will add a van fee

 

I'm not on benefits as my husband works but i do suffer from severe depression is there anything i can do please help this is not making my symptoms any better i am at my wits end

 

 

try not to worry to much about this you are a long way from the bailiff actually removing goods

have you had a breakdown of charges from the bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi hallowitch yes still have copy wpo the bailiff wrote on his part that i had to pay £65pw not mine iv already checked that the last letter i got quoted final notice no other warning given a van will just turn up and will cost a minimum of £110 yet in the letter previously it stated it would cost £150. can i ask you why you think removal of goods is a long way off beacuse im frightnend of leaving my house, the medication im on (sounds stupid) is actually making me feel worse at the moment

Link to post
Share on other sites

no other warning given a van will just turn up and will cost a minimum of £110

this is so the bailiff can charge you a van fee

 

 

if the bailiff was actually going to remove goods they must give you the time and date of removal

there is case law to support this

p5 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.

 

You must write to the council and make a formal complaint about the bailiffs so called mistake

you have an agreement in place to pay £65 per week(how long have you been paying this have you stuck to this agreement) they cant change it because the bailiff made a mistake

 

there is a list of exempt goods that the bailiff cant levy on can you list the goods on the WPA

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks yes they are t.v computer(my sons which is 2nd hand given by a friend) a freeview box another tv and a 2nd hand laptop(my daughters again same friend gave her that) and a very basic £25 quid effort of a dvd player, i have stuck to the agreement i made with the bailiff but after the means test ( iwas hoping to reduce it slightly) once they saw our income expenditure but no they upped it to £110.00 pw??? because the bailiff told me wrong even though i havent agreed to pay them £430 pm and certainly didnt agree with the bailiff himself they have took it upon themselves to say im behind because ive not paid the next installment of £430.00 which ive not agreed to.(hope this makes sense) ive seen on here a thread about vunerable people and how they cant re-enter with force if so would that be the case with me do i fall into this catagory because of my health??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vulnerable situations

 

  • Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with. The appropriate use of discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance could cover every situation, therefore the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is potential cause for concern. If necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor iffurther action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.
  • Enforcement agents must withdraw from domestic premises if the only person present is, or appears to be, under the age of 18; they can ask when the debtor will be home - if appropriate.
  • Enforcement agents must withdraw without making enquiries if the only persons present are children who appear to be under the age of 12.
  • Wherever possible, enforcement agents should have arrangements in place for rapidly accessing translation services when these are needed, and provide on request information in large print or in Braille for debtors with impaired sight.
  • Those who might be potentially vulnerable include:
    • the elderly;
    • people with a disability;
    • the seriously ill;
    • the recently bereaved;
    • single parent families;
    • pregnant women;
    • unemployed people; and,
    • those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure I have seen somewhere that depression is classed as vunerable I am trying t fnd a letter I have seen for you to send to the council. In the mean time I am sure someone will tell me if I am wrong regarding the depression/vunerable bit.

 

Carry on paying if you can , what you can online at the concils website. They cannot refuse this, even if they say they can ! AND it will look good if it did go back to court :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Council Tax (Enforcements) Department

Invincible Borough Council

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

 

[DATE]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [YOUR NAME & ANY REF]: Visit by your bailiff

 

I write further to your visit by your bailiff and confirm I have been medically declared by a doctor to be a vulnerable person for the purposes of civil enforcement in the meaning of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents directives.

 

Where a debtor falling into a vulnerable persons category is discovered by an enforcement agent, the matter shall be referred back to the court and no seizure of goods may proceed. I therefore ask this case be taken back into council administration within seven (7) days of the date of this letter and confirm in writing to me at the above address.

 

This document is delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It is your responsibility and in your best interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not 100% sure but am pretty sure I have seen on here that Depression is a reason to be declared Vunerable. I was hoping someone would come along and confirm this or tell me im talking pants ! Hold fire before sending that letter Im sure someone clever will be along shortly x

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it gives that option i would rather pay them then the bailiffs, im not unwilling to pay just want to pay what can afford without the detriment to my childrens health, i did actually send rossendales a goverment guidline info sheet on basically what we are expected to live on and guess what they have not responded

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

 

You got to keep smiling , becuase these XXXX cant actually do a lot to you , they thrive on being in a little bit of power but mostly what they tell u is poop.

 

My outstanding CT bill was over 3.5k so yors isnt too scarey ! Try not to panic and enjoy your children x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you getting any benefits at all, going by what your income is with 5 children Im sure you would qualify for working tax credits plus help with your housing and council tax.. just a thought here...

have a chat with these people

Supporting Vulnerable Households | Z2K Zacchaeus 2000 Trust

you can contact them via phone just click on the contact link here

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive just checked the hmrc records and the bailiff who signed mine (dont no if i can name him) so ill just say there are two with the same surname and initial but different first names ive also just noticed on wpo that he has listed 2 tvs i thought u couldnt take a 2nd tv so does this make this wpo void lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...