Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • When I said Europe wouldn't be pleased to see David Frost back, I didn't expect that within about a week of being appointed he would unilaterally extend the grace periods for goods travelling to N Ireland and risk legal action and damage to the UK's reputation in the world. It's quite concerning to me, but clearly not to the government, what's being said over there by unionists and loyalists.   It's hard to believe he was our ambassador to Denmark when he behaves like a night club bouncer and only seems able to negotiate by confrontation.
    • Hi Scourge, No, no mentions of birdstrikes.  Their whole defence was blamed on fog which caused "uncontrollable" delays and cancellations and rearrangment of flights, spare aircraft ect.    All well and good but they failed spectacularly in transporting passengers as promised to these new arrangements.   Yes, the solicitors quoted £350 as cost of them preparing this defence.
    • Almost £100 a day for a courtesy car??? Sorry, but somebody has seen her coming and is treating her as an open cash till. Who recommended that?     If it seems muddled to you – then how do you think it feels to us when we are receiving this information third hand. I think that you want to get her to come here and to give us the story first hand and also as already suggested, I think that a carefully drawn diagram with a key as to whose who is essential. Having some kind of printed off map with Mr XXX and Mr ZZZ blah blah blah. On the basis of what we've been told, it appears to us that she was driving along minding our own business and then somebody who was parked on the same side but facing into the traffic pulled out directly in her line and she took avoiding action.   And this is shocking treatment as far as I'm concerned because apparently her own insurer is saying that they are stuck because they don't have evidence and so they are putting their hands up to another insurer/driver who presumably also doesn't have evidence. I think you are dealing with a lazy insurer that isn't really interested because they only involve the third party insurance – not comprehensive so that they know that they are going to take a particular loss so they're not bothered. Do we have any idea of what the other side story is? Or has that not been revealed to you? We can deal with this and we can help you challenge this and probably with a high chance of success – but we need better engagement. I understand that your sister is pregnant – but pregnancy isn't an illness – and I think that she would feel empowered if she got to grips with this directly. Certainly, what we need is better engagement and if it has to be you acting on her behalf – then the first thing you need to do is make sure you understand the story because if you don't then what snowflake's chance in hell do we have?
    • Just a moment of caution – have any of the papers at all which you have received referred to this mystery phone and phone line?
  • 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 4025 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

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.

ohhh my mistake, damn I could of cost some one a lot of money there :D:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

Listen carefully Danboy, I shall say this slowly for you...

 

1) If the ONLY ASSET AVAILABLE available is a £5M plane then this IS NOT considered as excessive levy.

 

2) Bailiffs ARE SENT FOR GOODS not money. However, commonsense dictates that this is a last resort and every bailiff would rather get paid than remove anything.

 

3) Pop in for a cup of tea when you're passing.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about a parking tickets

bailiffs collecting parking tickets are there to collect payment or to levy goods the levy gives the debtor 5 days to make payment or an arrangement to pay if the payment agreement is broken or no payment are made then goods previously levied can be removed and sold at auction

just as a bailiff cant under levy in this situation neither can he excessively levy

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is about a parking tickets

bailiffs collecting parking tickets are there to collect payment or to levy goods the levy gives the debtor 5 days to make payment or an arrangement to pay if the payment agreement is broken or no payment are made then goods previously levied can be removed and sold at auction

just as a bailiff cant under levy in this situation neither can he excessively levy

 

Thats always been my understanding too, I remain very suspicious of the bailiff involved in this one as he appears to misrepresent as previously visited to enable an immediate levy of the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

 

 

levying two planes would be excessive:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn.. High school, with the sort of cash you are raking in I would have thought you would have a bigger house by now.

 

anyway, you quote utter made-up-on-the-day-tosh, but then that's how you get by isn't - on a wing and a prayer

 

You really think levying on a plane valued at 5 mill for a 500 quid debt would be backed by a court?

 

No, don't answer that one, ignore it like the rest of the posts you choose to ignore when you have no reasonable answer.

 

You are paper thin, as is your advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yawn.. High school, with the sort of cash you are raking in I would have thought you would have a bigger house by now.

 

You really think I live in North London.... :rolleyes: How's CM6?

 

anyway, you quote utter made-up-on-the-day-tosh, but then that's how you get by isn't - on a wing and a prayer

 

Of course Danboy :rolleyes:

 

You really think levying on a plane valued at 5 mill for a 500 quid debt would be backed by a court?

 

Yes, if it's the ONLY ASSET available! :smile:

 

No, don't answer that one, ignore it like the rest of the posts you choose to ignore when you have no reasonable answer.

 

Yawn

 

You are paper thin, as is your advice.

 

Yes, Danboy... :rolleyes:

 

 

Caggers, please ignore the ramblings of this edit and concentrate on the facts of the matter in this case.

Edited by IdaInFife
removed personal insult
Link to post
Share on other sites
So by Danboys take on things, you can drive a ferrari around, get parking tickets and get away with it because your car is to expensive.

He was trying to make a point that taking something that is of far more value than the debt is classed as an excessive levy, nothing was mentioned to the fact that if you drive an expensive car that you get away with parking illegal.

And as far as the 5m plane being taken if there are no other assets I highly doubt that this would happen because if you have this sort of money in the first place you would have no trouble in paying the debt.

I think we need to stick to the reality here and not live in a world of dragons and witches.. no offence hallowitch;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
He was trying to make a point that taking something that is of far more value than the debt is classed as an excessive levy, nothing was mentioned to the fact that if you drive an expensive car that you get away with parking illegal.

And as far as the 5m plane being taken if there are no other assets I highly doubt that this would happen because if you have this sort of money in the first place you would have no trouble in paying the debt.

I think we need to stick to the reality here and not live in a world of dragons and witches.. no offence hallowitch;-)

 

 

The fact is, if someone cannot pay or are unwilling to pay for a fine ect, if a warrant is to be enforced and the only goods of value so happen to be a ferrari for arguements sake, then it is not an excessive levy as the ferrari is the only goods that could be levied, the outcome being the car would go to aution and the difference after debt has been paid would be passed to the debtor/ customer.

 

My point earlier being is,if you cannot seize something because it is out of proportion to the debt, then driving a ferrari would make you immune to parking fines, as the cars value far exceeds the parking fine.

 

If you where to seize a plasma tv and a car and an expensive piece of artwork, then this would be excessive as the plasma tv alone may have covered the debt

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to stick to the reality here and not live in a world of dragons and witches.. no offence hallowitch

no offence taken but could you make it dragons and goblins next time we know they don't exist :lol::lol::lol::lol:

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 .

 

 

I found this difference of opinions very interesting and decided to see if i could find a definitive answer,i wish i never started:(

I found out very quickly there was a case Field v Mitchell[1806].Then the fun started,it has taken me ages to find the case,and i have had to copy it from archive records.

On reading it it seems to back up what HCE is saying,that if it is the only asset,then it can be seized.I think the first two lines say it all,but i have shown the whole case out of interest.

Here is the case.I'm putting the kettle on for a cup of tea,anyone fancy a cuppa:D

 

 

 

fielvmitchellk.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Welsh1.

no one was disputing a levy is excessive if there are no other goods that can be seized, it was your exaggerated example, and as Hallowitch has already stated "This thread is about a parking ticket,

bailiffs collecting parking tickets are there to collect payment or to levy goods the levy gives the debtor 5 days to make payment or an arrangement to pay if the payment agreement is broken or no payment are made then goods previously levied can be removed and sold at auction

just as a bailiff cant under levy in this situation neither can he excessively levy"

Link to post
Share on other sites
no one was disputing a levy is excessive if there are no other goods that can be seized, it was your exaggerated example, and as Hallowitch has already stated "This thread is about a parking ticket,

bailiffs collecting parking tickets are there to collect payment or to levy goods the levy gives the debtor 5 days to make payment or an arrangement to pay if the payment agreement is broken or no payment are made then goods previously levied can be removed and sold at auction

just as a bailiff cant under levy in this situation neither can he excessively levy"

 

 

but you are confused with the term excessive levy, since when does a levy give someone 5 days to pay?

Link to post
Share on other sites
but you are confused with the term excessive levy, since when does a levy give someone 5 days to pay?

Nah Im not the one confused here try reading what I wrote again!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol... whatever vehicle you drive you should NEVER pay a ticket, there are too many ways NOT to pay and all entirely LEGAL.

 

Hce, you may want to use: www.torproject.org

 

This handy gizmo will secure anonominity online, it will prevent someone using a command prompt on you, the whois nick_name, or indeed the netstat command or similar. There are several ways to do it. I have detailed files.

Edited by danboy381

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTICE OF SEIZURE OF GOODS & INVENTORY

 

 

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT unless the said sum is paid together with expenses of this Distress within FIVE DAYS from the date hereof they will be sold according to law

Link to post
Share on other sites
NOTICE OF SEIZURE OF GOODS & INVENTORY

 

 

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT unless the said sum is paid together with expenses of this Distress within FIVE DAYS from the date hereof they will be sold according to law

 

 

I stand corrected you are quite right,

 

I was looking at it from more a laymans point of view,

 

Your car has been levied you have five days to pay then auction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if much of this is helping the OP :confused:

 

Think we should return to the issue of charges levied and whether they would be in any way considered proportionate.

 

Is it conceivably correct to levy a vehicle on first visit?

 

Is it correct that a levy can be altered/amended at first visit to enable a possible disposal of vehicle?

 

Has the Bailiff acted correctly are the charges open to challenge?

 

There is I presume recourse for the OP if the HCEO actions are flawed and this is the route we should be assisting with

 

I know a lot of people find HCE's views unpalatable (me included with some posts) but I think as a community spirited forum we should remember that life experiences imbed our views of others (both sides of the fence) and can stop us looking at practical advice or pointers which could be included within his and others posts.

 

 

If HCE doesnt mind taking another look perhaps he can offer some guidance on taking the Bailiff to task with regard to the fees.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if much of this is helping the OP :confused:

 

Think we should return to the issue of charges levied and whether they would be in any way considered proportionate.

 

Is it conceivably correct to levy a vehicle on first visit?

 

Is it correct that a levy can be altered/amended at first visit to enable a possible disposal of vehicle?

 

Has the Bailiff acted correctly are the charges open to challenge?

 

There is I presume recourse for the OP if the HCEO actions are flawed and this is the route we should be assisting with

 

I know a lot of people find HCE's views unpalatable (me included with some posts) but I think as a community spirited forum we should remember that life experiences imbed our views of others (both sides of the fence) and can stop us looking at practical advice or pointers which could be included within his and others posts.

 

 

If HCE doesnt mind taking another look perhaps he can offer some guidance on taking the Bailiff to task with regard to the fees.

 

Gez

some times we have to flatten a few trees to see the woods, if you get my drift.

Link to post
Share on other sites
some times we have to flatten a few trees to see the woods, if you get my drift.

 

Hehe....... don't worry, I've chopped a few down on here before - and been summarily Cagbooooooooted for a few transgressions in piling the firewood :D

 

I'm open to any pointers offered, I know some are downright ludicrous and clearly come from a position of the belief that they are correct but........ sometimes within a post you find a point where law appears to be on your side and by digging a little deeper will work it to your favour.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites
If HCE doesnt mind taking another look perhaps he can offer some guidance on taking the Bailiff to task with regard to the fees. Gez

 

My knowledge of fees in parking is from many years ago and it would appear others are more uptodate than me on this. I can give guidance (which I already have on earlier posts in this thread) but you'd be better asking someone else on this one...

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...