Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • As you have made this so black and white, I have just realised I have probably made a total mess up here 😕   Yes, the original RBS mortgage from 1999 changed in 2009 to a buy-to-let with a different mortgage company, for the same property.   As I thought I had to have a life assurance, this would be ok, even though it was a much smaller amount.   It states the policy holder as myself and the property address and says 'in return for the payment of agreed premiums the company will pay the benefits in accordance to the policy conditions' it doenst really specify who would be paid. I have actual document here.   Something to mention, when I bought this property it was uninhabitable and I have never actually lived there. It was empty for ten years until 2009 when I got some additional borrowing, renovated it and let it out.   In 2011 therefore when it changed to Aviva, that mortgage had been paid off 2 years before.   I have a feeling you are going to say it was my responsibility to have cancelled the policy in 2009 with RSA or with Aviva?     As I had been advised by RBS, I thought I had to life insurance/assurance of some kind as I had a mortgage.      
    • I'm on a Covid run all this week, for some reason I thought it would be quite easy, starts in St Andrews then Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld then Glasgow over 200 miles. I drop of empty Test boxes and collect the ones that are ready to go to the Labs for results.   Every Testing Station today said they had not been very busy over the weekend, it was quite nice weather over the weekend which is more than likely the reason for the lack of numbers.
    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4021 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

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, back on track.

 

You have every right to challenge the bailiffs fees via taxation (detailed assessment) in court. If you believe his actions are illegaly you can also issue a Form 4 compalint against the individuals certificate.

 

In my honest opinion and given what information you have provided the fees do not seem that unreasonable and his actions were legal. You must remember the bailiff is there for goods not money. He could have taken the car immediately and not waited the 3 hours in the hope of payment.

 

The car may be taken straight to the auction but would not be sold for at least 5 days.

 

A copy of his Notice of Seizure (may include inventory detailing the vehicle) and the warrant should have been left with you.

 

Many Bailiffs are self employed so dont be surprised if he does not work directly for the company.

 

With regards to the DPA, your details were on the warrant issued by Northampton Bilk Centre. Nothing illegal about that.

 

Good luck all the same.

 

PS - Gezwee, this is nothing to do with HCEO fees, this is Certificated Bailiff work. Fees are the same for Self Employed or Employed Bailiffs...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bailiff arrived early one morning showed me a Notice of Seizure, and demanded payment

 

was this a notice of seizure & inventory levying the car did you receive a copy of this at the time of the levy

Link to post
Share on other sites
I originally came here because I had received several template letters that were being offered by a poster on this forum.

 

It became very clear that much of what was being advised was incorrect.

 

I personally know of several cases where the comments and suggestions of certain posters actually cost consumers money.

 

Since then, I have been fairly active on here and whilst some 'haters' will disagree, I have given a lot of informative advice, especially regarding High Court Enforcement, a subject that many people are confused by.

 

Not everybody likes it, some just want a slanging match but the fact remains that I have educated many of your posters with my knowledge.

 

But yes, if 'Certificated Bailiff' wants to contribute, then they need to contribute and show some knowledge of the business not just direct people to the CAB....

 

 

Exactly my point about "CERTIFICATED BAILIFF"

 

Whats wrong with peole in the enforcement indusrty looking to forums such as this, to improve their Knowledge.

 

I have learnt many things from this forum, from the likes of HCE, TOMTUBBY, Nintendo and many others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, back on track.

 

You have every right to challenge the bailiffs fees via taxation (detailed assessment) in court. If you believe his actions are illegaly you can also issue a Form 4 compalint against the individuals certificate.

 

In my honest opinion and given what information you have provided the fees do not seem that unreasonable and his actions were legal. You must remember the bailiff is there for goods not money. He could have taken the car immediately and not waited the 3 hours in the hope of payment.

 

The car may be taken straight to the auction but would not be sold for at least 5 days.

 

A copy of his Notice of Seizure (may include inventory detailing the vehicle) and the warrant should have been left with you.

 

Many Bailiffs are self employed so dont be surprised if he does not work directly for the company.

 

With regards to the DPA, your details were on the warrant issued by Northampton Bilk Centre. Nothing illegal about that.

 

Good luck all the same.

 

PS - Gezwee, this is nothing to do with HCEO fees, this is Certificated Bailiff work. Fees are the same for Self Employed or Employed Bailiffs...

 

The only issue wich is suspect is the previous visits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only issue wich is suspect is the previous visits.

 

Fair point. Ask the bailiff company for the dates and times of all visits. Also ask if the vehicle used has a tracker and demand to see the information.

 

You cannot use a Subject Access Request as you are a company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The bailiff arrived early one morning showed me a Notice of Seizure, and demanded payment

 

was this a notice of seizure & inventory levying the car did you receive a copy of this at the time of the levy

 

When i resisted him clamping the vehicle, he went back into his van, and filled out the SAME notice of seizure he initially showed me (I did not take it from him) to reflect his fees, the vehicle details, and the removal costs.

At no time did he show us the warrant, and when we asked, he went back to his van, fiddled about for a while, and came out, saying he would give it to us after the vehicle had been towed away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair point. Ask the bailiff company for the dates and times of all visits. Also ask if the vehicle used has a tracker and demand to see the information.

 

You cannot use a Subject Access Request as you are a company.

 

 

Most companies use trackers incoporated in the agents phone, such as blackberry's ect, as companies hire vehicles and is easier to manage

Link to post
Share on other sites
When i resisted him clamping the vehicle, he went back into his van, and filled out the SAME notice of seizure he initially showed me (I did not take it from him) to reflect his fees, the vehicle details, and the removal costs.

At no time did he show us the warrant, and when we asked, he went back to his van, fiddled about for a while, and came out, saying he would give it to us after the vehicle had been towed away.

 

 

Sounds like he was inexperienced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When i resisted him clamping the vehicle, he went back into his van, and filled out the SAME notice of seizure he initially showed me (I did not take it from him) to reflect his fees, the vehicle details, and the removal costs.

At no time did he show us the warrant, and when we asked, he went back to his van, fiddled about for a while, and came out, saying he would give it to us after the vehicle had been towed away.

Professionalism and conduct of the enforcement agent

 

Enforcement agents should always produce relevant identification on request, such as a badge or ID card, together with a written authorisation to act on behalf of the creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods impounded in satisfaction of the judgement is proportional to the value of the debt and charges owed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet a shelf filler at poundland gets more training than 2 days.

 

Given the responsibilities and duties a bailiff will go on to undertake,2 days is a scandal.

But probably goes some way in explaining the injustices and bad practices that we read about so much on these forums.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet a shelf filler at poundland gets more training than 2 days.

 

Given the responsibilities and duties a bailiff will go on to undertake,2 days is a scandal.

But probably goes some way in explaining the injustices and bad practices that we read about so much on these forums.

 

I wa joking MARTIN, most companies do the training over a long weekend

Link to post
Share on other sites

A long weekend ?

So 3 days then-still not enough.

 

Anyway now I must go.....I need to check my windows and move the snowman :)

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wa joking MARTIN, most companies do the training over a long weekend

 

I am appalled to read this post...a long weekend to train someone..is it any wonder the industry is in such a mess..it takes me $ weeks to train staff to use the till in our shops and its not that they are thick its because my standards are very high..

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites
When i resisted him clamping the vehicle, he went back into his van, and filled out the SAME notice of seizure he initially showed me (I did not take it from him) to reflect his fees, the vehicle details, and the removal costs.

At no time did he show us the warrant, and when we asked, he went back to his van, fiddled about for a while, and came out, saying he would give it to us after the vehicle had been towed away.

something else for you to read that may help

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345_web_0809.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wa joking MARTIN, most companies do the training over a long weekend

Under the Distress for Rent rules it states;

 

Granting of Certificates

5.—(1) The Judge or Registrar shall not grant a certificate to any applicant, (a) who fails to satisfy the Judge or Registrar, as the case may be, that

(i) he is a fit and proper person to hold a certificate, and

(ii) he possesses a sufficient knowledge of the law of distress;

 

How can anyone learn enough what needs to be known in just a weekend?

And for any Judge to grant a certificate on these basics should NOT be giving out these certificates willy nilly, without finding out first by either a written test submitted to the court or being tested there and then that the bailiff does indeed have sufficient knowledge of the law of distress;.

If the bailiff IS tested then its NOT ENOUGH. The whole systen should be looked at again, thoroughly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods impounded in satisfaction of the judgement is proportional to the value of the debt and charges owed.

 

FYI, if the only asset available is an aeroplane worth £5M then the bailiff could seize that for a £500 debt.

 

Also, the OP has given no details of the value of the car at present. If the vehicle is removed without keys and documents then even if the private resale value is £3000, at auction in early January I'd be surprised if it made more than £1500. Then you can take off £300 auctioneers fees so £1200 would be the realised value.

 

Therefore this could end up costing the OP £3k rather than the original £550 the bailiff was looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI, if the only asset available is an aeroplane worth £5M then the bailiff could seize that for a £500 debt.

 

 

 

Wrong advice. Whatda loada cobblers.... This could be challenged in the court as an 'excessive levy'. Challenged one myself this way and won. 5 million pound plane for 500 quid. Dream on son.

 

Whilst i'm on it HCE you also say that the bailiff is there for goods not money. Again, knowing a few bailiffs they would all disagree, taking goods is the last option, taking cash is far easier, quicker, and cost effective. You're telling me you would rather load and unload vans all day or take a wad of notes. Bit of a no brainer really isn't it.

 

Lastly, you may want to remove yourself from 192.com, as your home address is listed on there, if you search through occupation, 'certificated bailiffs', strangely enough, all the bailiffs are listed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI, if the only asset available is an aeroplane worth £5M then the bailiff could seize that for a £500 debt.

 

Also, the OP has given no details of the value of the car at present. If the vehicle is removed without keys and documents then even if the private resale value is £3000, at auction in early January I'd be surprised if it made more than £1500. Then you can take off £300 auctioneers fees so £1200 would be the realised value.

 

Therefore this could end up costing the OP £3k rather than the original £550 the bailiff was looking for.

You obviously Dont follow what is set out by the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. It clearly states;

 

"Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods impounded in satisfaction of the judgement is proportional to the value of the debt and charges owed. "

 

I doubt the OP had an old banger for a company car, but I am sure he will clear this up when he returns to post.

And as for a bailiff taken a 3 million pound plane, thats just verging on the insanity, I could make a joke about that but I will hold back...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No seanamarts,

 

it was a FIVE million pound plane, not 3, (its in the regs that they can't touch a 3 million pound plane for 500 quid debt), it HAS to be 5 million.

 

off to work now - oh dear gotta go thorugh North London again today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...