Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So a bit of an update as I haven’t posted for a while   I have received a court date of the 14th of Feb 2020 (maybe they will take me for a nice meal afterwards?) so I am starting to prepare my witness statement.    today I have received a letter from BW legal in response to my CPR letter yet again ignoring the fact that their T&Cs do not cover double parking. They are also now starting to hint that I was parked out of the bay yet the images provided on their evidence of the three tickets they are claiming for don’t evidence this as they are such bad quality.  stapled to the back of this is another letter. As a “gesture of good will”, the client is offering an out of court settlement figure of £500 payable in the next 5 days. Me thinks they are starting to realise they may not have a leg to stand on here!
    • firstly , they are not a Debt collector [never confuse the two - a DCA chasing consumer credit debt is totally powerless and have ZERO legal powers to do or take anything - they have no more legal powers than you or I do ] these will be bailiffs and do they have legal powers.   However, the good bit is that unlike what you might have seen on TV, for a council CTAX liability order [please confirm there is or NOT a CCJ registered check your creit file] there is NO right of forced entry. The bottom line is, bar all the arm waving, is, that if you simply totally ignore them, they will eventually go away.   Now what they can do is two fold on CTAX. basically add fees to a set limit.   the first is a notice of enforcement letter. this comes with a fee of £75 and gives you 7 days to set up some sort of payment plan.   the second is an actual visit, where by a further fee of £235, whereby the fees are now £310 , the maximum they can ever add to the CTAX bill. this is typically accompanied by a threat to removed goods, it's cleverly worded or 'explained' to make you 'think' they can waltz in any take anything they like. THEY CANNOT unless YOU let them in. which you don't, nor leave doors unlocked as they can then enter through what is called 'peaceful entry'.   in real term, the seizure of goods is limited to stuff outside like cars YOU might own that are not behind locked gates.   so i'm not too sure what stage you are at  so please clarify. the name of the bailiff company. how much you now owe the county council the CTAX is owed too.   if you have any/all paperwork please scan it to PDF  after redaction - read our upload guide]   one last point. they don't keep coming around they don't keep ringing. neither of those gander them anymore money so they don't bother.   dx      
    • Hi Everybody I moved into my parents house quite recently. My mam is aged and extremely ill (it's just me and her living in the house) and I moved from the North to the South of England to take care of her.   Now I've got a CCJ against me for unpaid Council tax from when I was living in the North and a debt collector has just showed up at the door. Now I don't have the money to pay the entire amount straight away. But I'm willing to try and enter in some kind of payment plan and gradually pay down the debt. However my main concern is that they don't keep coming around and phoning the house threatening and harassing my mam over her sons debt.   However the guy at the door was threatening to seize goods and have them sold at public auction. Getting bailiffs to break in etc.   When I told him that I've nothing of any real value he said he could just take whatever was in the house. Something about if she couldn't prove whatever was hers then they could just take whatever (I'm not 100% this but I think something to this affect).   He left me a "Notification of Enforcement agent visit" sheet of paper.   From the first paragraph it says:   "As an enforcement agent I've attended your premises today with the intention of taking control of your goods in accordance with the taking control of goods (fees) regulations 2014. At this time your goods are bound. You cannot remove, sell or otherwise dispose of them"   Thus I'd appreciate any advice that readers my be able to offer. Does anyone know the law regarding "seizing assets" when the debtor is not the homeowner/tenant?   tia Bear
    • I should add I only got the CCA response last week after waiting nearly a month over the prescribed time limits to respond. PM
    • Thanks, I thought that might be the case.  J
  • Our picks

lafey

Balance of probabilities ??

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3662 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

have just sent my defence for a case i have coming up and have been looking around the forum to see how othere cases have been going .. Have been seeing more and more that Judges in CCA trials are determining outcomes based on Balance of Probabilities .. From what i can read it seems like a real let off for the Claimants .. They dont have to prove they did things right .. its enough to say " well we have done a few of these correctly so we probably did do on this occassion to " . have read of instances of Judges ignoring things like the fact that Cca is unenforceable just because they feel that on the balance of probabilities it would have been correct . Doesnt this go against what i thought to be the way it should work ... If you sue me you prove i owe you the money and that you did everything correct and i will pay you !!... just wondering what others think ... Has this always been the case ( i am fairly new to it ) .. Just doesnt seem a very precise way of doing things to me !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wino

I am quite disalusioned at what is going on.

 

A judge granted the Funding Corporation a charging order on my house even though they didn't have a CCA and would not produce a statement as to a breakdown of the ridiculous amount they alleged I owed.

 

I thought the law was there to protect us from unscrupious practices:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow !! that sounds reallyt unfair wino .. what reason did the judge give ??? ... i am thinking that the judges are using "balance of probabilty " as basically a way out and then see who can be bothered or indeed afford to appeal !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wino

He said that there obviously must of been a CCA or the Funding Corporation would not of financed the loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats exactly what is dangerous ... a lot of our action here is dependant on picking holes in what the banks have done and exposing what they havent done properly ... just for the judges to say ... " well they probably did it " !!!

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...