Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The reason that I have indicated that it is the seller who should bring an action against Hermes is not because they are the seller – but because they are the person who suffered the loss. If you haven't suffered a loss then you probably don't have the status – locus standi – to bring a court action. Of course there is a slight problem that you didn't enter into the contract with Hermes – the purchaser did. Until 1999 this would have been a problem and would have prevented you from bringing any kind of action at all – at least on the basis of contract. However, since 1999, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act gives the beneficiary of any contract full third party rights as if they were a contracting party. The only exception to this is that if the contract specifically excluded non-contracting parties – and I'm not aware that Hermes has yet amended their contract to try and prevent this. Of course as usual, Hermes will make a big point about the fact that no insurance was purchased. Hopefully you have been reading around the threads on this sub- forum and you have seen that our view is that it is completely unfair and in fact it is absurd to require a customer to pay money to protect Hermes or any other service provider from the consequences of their own negligence or the criminality of their own employees. Every time this point has been raised with Hermes in mediation, Hermes have settled and we consider that it is because they want to avoid going to court to get a definitive judgement that their insurance scam – is precisely that – a scam. On the basis of what I understand here, this is more than just negligence there is criminality and your bike has been stolen. You've already begun a complaint and you have been knocked back and so I think there's no point in mucking around and I think that you should simply issue a letter of claim to Hermes giving them 14 days to settle in full or else you will begin a court action. Make sure that you have read around the forum about taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very easy but you need to be aware of the steps. If you send the letter of claim, then don't expect that they are suddenly going to refund you your money. They won't. They will force you to issue the court papers and who will then force you to pay the hearing fee. At this point, they will opt for mediation and they will try to knock you down and get your compromise in your claim. You should stand your ground and refused to compromise even a single penny. We will help you all the way. You seem to be a seller and a purchaser here who are getting on very well together and so as you are motivated by a common purpose, you may want to get an agreement where you decide to share the fees of court action – which won't be very much. I haven't checked the court fees for this value claim – but I expect that the whole thing will be only about £120. Of course you will get that back when you win – but bear in mind there is a is a slight risk factor and that means that £120 would be the extent of your risk and would be the maximum that you would lose. It is inconceivable that you would lose. You should be claiming the cost of the bike, the cost of delivery, plus interest which is presently 8% – a very good rate in today's economic climate. Of course you will also claim back your court fees. If you want to proceed then please let us know and let us know also that you have read around the stories and also the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court and that you understand what you are doing. If you do your basic reading over the next couple of days then we can help you draft a letter of claim on Sunday and you can send it off on Monday. I would recommend that you post your draft letter of claim on this forum so we can check it. Keep it short and to the point.
    • That's what keeps divorce lawyers and mediators in work, I suppose. You think he's being unreasonable and he thinks you are.   My gut feeling is that it would be better to have this agreed in writing so it can't be challenged later, but that's just my opinion. Here's more information from the CAB in case it covers something you haven't already considered.   HB
    • Biden doesn't seem bothered about negotiating a trade treaty to suit the UK government's timetable. I don't suppose they saw this coming, not that the amount of trade involved makes up for what's being lost with Europe anyway.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-usa-trade-deal-b1807616.html
    • No we haven’t mentioned divorce yet The fair split is I give him half the equity and anything he wants to take from the house  I just feel he is now being unreasonable because I won’t change my mind and take him back 
    • Hi.   Have you spoken to a divorce lawyer or has your husband? Trying to look at this from the outside, it sounds as if it would be better to agree a fair split according to divorce law rather than deciding between you.   Sadly, once money becomes involved things can become more complicated, but I'd have thought a divorce lawyer would be able to advise.   ETA: Here's some advice from the government.   HB
  • 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 4018 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

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

 

yes but bailiffs don't levy on a 1st visit as this is a parking ticket the bailiff can charge for a maximum 3 visits

after a bailiff has Levy no visit fees can be charged

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

no a levy is done on a form 7 (notice of seizure of goods & inventory ) and gives the debtor 5 days to pay so goods cant be removed the same day

removal of goods is done with a form 9( i think) form 9 removal expenses

 

Has the Bailiff acted correctly

in my opinion no

are the charges open to challenge?

in my opinion yes

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

if the bailiff had a notice of seizure this should have been left on the premises at the time of the levy giving him 5 days to pay

I had not received anything before, and he had not visited the premises before,

the bailiff company should have sent him a letter in the first instance

any visits that the bailiff makes that incur a charge notice of this should be left on the premises at the time of the visit

The PCN was £110, Bailiff feed £355,

letter fee & 3 visit fees + vat approx £250/£260

 

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

HCEO do not collect parking tickets only a certificated bailiff can do this

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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...

 

Hi HCE

 

Your candor is appreciated.

 

Please continue to offer your guidance but please remember this is a self help forum where sometimes the OP and those responding have had many years of systemical abuse and tempers run high so be prepared to be shot down in flames from time to time.

 

Cheers

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it conceivably correct to levy a vehicle on first visit?

 

yes but bailiffs don't levy on a 1st visit as this is a parking ticket the bailiff can charge for a maximum 3 visits

after a bailiff has Levy no visit fees can be charged

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

no a levy is done on a form 7 (notice of seizure of goods & inventory ) and gives the debtor 5 days to pay so goods cant be removed the same day

removal of goods is done with a form 9( i think) form 9 removal expenses

 

Has the Bailiff acted correctly

in my opinion no

are the charges open to challenge?

in my opinion yes

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

if the bailiff had a notice of seizure this should have been left on the premises at the time of the levy giving him 5 days to pay

I had not received anything before, and he had not visited the premises before,

the bailiff company should have sent him a letter in the first instance

any visits that the bailiff makes that incur a charge notice of this should be left on the premises at the time of the visit

The PCN was £110, Bailiff feed £355,

letter fee & 3 visit fees + vat approx £250/£260

 

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

HCEO do not collect parking tickets only a certificated bailiff can do this

 

Thanks HW

 

Now all we need is a means for the OP to present dispute without the encumbrance of possible adverse costs.

 

HCE touched on this in an earlier post (can't remember which one) a page or 2 back, does anybody know what if any costs are involved?

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it conceivably correct to levy a vehicle on first visit?

 

yes but bailiffs don't levy on a 1st visit as this is a parking ticket the bailiff can charge for a maximum 3 visits

after a bailiff has Levy no visit fees can be charged

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

no a levy is done on a form 7 (notice of seizure of goods & inventory ) and gives the debtor 5 days to pay so goods cant be removed the same day

removal of goods is done with a form 9( i think) form 9 removal expenses

 

Has the Bailiff acted correctly

in my opinion no

are the charges open to challenge?

in my opinion yes

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

if the bailiff had a notice of seizure this should have been left on the premises at the time of the levy giving him 5 days to pay

I had not received anything before, and he had not visited the premises before,

the bailiff company should have sent him a letter in the first instance

any visits that the bailiff makes that incur a charge notice of this should be left on the premises at the time of the visit

The PCN was £110, Bailiff feed £355,

letter fee & 3 visit fees + vat approx £250/£260

 

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

HCEO do not collect parking tickets only a certificated bailiff can do this

 

 

Why can the goods not be removed on the same day

Link to post
Share on other sites

A post by tomubby

Before you complain to to the court

It must be remembered that a bailiff enforcing a debt for council tax, National Non Domestic Rates (NNDR) or an unpaid parking ticket is working as a agent for the local authority.

 

In this, the local authority cannot simply abdicate responsibility for the actions of their contractor as ultimately, it is the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that a levy is carried out in a lawful manner and that the fees charged by their agents are in accordance with statutory regulations.

 

Following a discussion with the Local Government Ombudsman's Office (LGO) they have advised that if you have a Compliant for the Council about their bailiff's then you MUST do the following:

 

.

 

You must ENSURE that you mark your letter to the local authority: FORMAL COMPLAINT.

 

Your letter should be addressed to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE and should be COPIED to the COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT ( this will ensure that it is registered as a formal complaint).

 

If you are unsatisfied with your response from the local authority then you can take your complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman but they will want to see that you have gone through the councils COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE first and that you have allowed the local authority a maximum period of 12 weeks to respond.

 

The Local Government Ombudsman's office will need to satisy themselves that you have made it CLEAR to the Local Authority that you are making a FORMAL COMPLAINT.

 

 

 

How To Complain About A Certificated Bailiff

The following is a brief guide on how to complain to the court about a certificated bailiff. However, since the launch by the Ministry of Justice of the on line certificated bailiff register it is important that anyone considering making such a complaint should read the notes at the bottom of this page. This is very important!!

 

 

 

COMPLAINING TO THE COURT ABOUT A CERTIFICATED BAILIFF:

 

If you have a complaint about a Certificated Bailiff, there is a procedure that you can use which is refered to as a FORM 4 COMPLAINT. However, it is important to be aware that this is an application to the Court and as such is a form of Litigation and a hearing will take place in the County Court in front of a District Judge.

 

The Statutory Regulations relating to Certificated Bailiff's are found in the Distress for Rent Act 1988 ( as amended) and this provides for complaints about the conduct of Certificated Bailiff’s to be made to the County Court (where the bailiff obtained his certificate) using a very simple court form called a FORM 4.

 

A copy of your complaint must be sent to the court and they in turn will forward a copy to the bailiff and his employer. They have just 14 days to respond. If the judge is satisfied with the response, no further action is taken. If the bailiff fails to deliver a reply or, if upon reading the reply, the Judge is unsatisfied with the response. the bailiff will be summoned to court to "show good cause as to why his Certificate should not be cancelled". You should ensure that you attend the hearing.

 

THE GROUNDS FOR MAKING A COMPLAINT TO THE COURT:

 

The court will hear any complaint that you may have, but the following are the most common:

 

• The fees charged are EXCESSIVE and are not in keeping with Statutory Regulations.However, the court are commonly dismissing such complaints on this ground on the basis that the correct procedure should be to make an application to the Court for Detailed Assessment which will involve a Costs Judge examining the fees charged against those provided for in the statutory regulations.

 

• The bailiff's behavior has been AGGRESSIVE, RUDE or THREATENING. A bailiff has no right to force his/her way into your premises in order to gain entry to enforce the collection of Council Tax arrears, unpaid Parking Charge Notices, etc

 

• The bailiff has levied ILLEGALLY. This means that the bailiff has levied on goods which cannot be seized; (ie: goods that are not yours)

 

• The bailiff has levied IRREGULARLY. This means that the correct goods have been seized, but the events following the seizure are not correct e.g. the bailiff sells your goods after you have paid the debt or sells them for an undervalue.

 

• The bailiff has levied EXCESSIVELY. This means that the value of the goods seized from you is significantly more than the amount of the debt. However, it is important to be aware that auction values will apply and your goods will only realise approx 10% of their value.

 

 

NOTES ON COMPLETING THE FORM:

 

 

As explained earlier, a Form 4 Complaint is a form of litigation. The Judge reading the complaint will only be interested in facts. If the complaint concerns the behaviour of the bailiff and there were witnesses, it is wise to provide statements from them when submitting the complaint.

 

 

A Form 4 Complaint can have very serious implications for the bailiff in that he could have his certificate removed by the Court and this will lead to him losing his employment. For this reason, it is always the case that if you have a complaint about a certificated bailiff that your complaint should first be sent to the bailiff company to address and the Form 4 Complaint to the County Court should always be seen as a last resort. By ensuring that you have allowed the bailiff company sufficient opportunity to deal with your complaint, you will avoid being criticised by the Court and being accused of wasting court time.

 

If you have received a response from the bailiff company to your complaint and you are unhappy with the reply you may consider sending a draft copy of the Form 4 Complaint to the company and stating that unless the matter is resolved to your satisfaction within 21 days that you will consider submitting the Form 4 Complaint to the Court without any further reference to them.

 

In all cases, as the bailiff is working as an agent for the local authority, a copy of your complaint should be sent to the council as well and you need to ensure that you ask that it is recorded as a "formal complaint" and addresses for the attention of the Chief Executive.

 

 

WHAT THE JUDGE CAN DO:

 

At the hearing, the Judge may take the following action:-

 

• Order compensation to be paid to you. This means that the Judge can award you a sum of money from the “Bailiff Bond”. (see note below)

 

• Cancel the bailiff's certificate. This will lead to the bailiff immediately losing his employment and will naturally mean that he will not be allowed to work as a bailiff for any other enforcement company.

 

• Dismiss your complaint. At the hearing the Judge has to consider whether the complaint about the bailff is serious enough for him to cancel the bailiffs certificate (which will ultimately lead to the loss of his employment). From experience, when the court dismiss a Form 4 Complaint this is commonly because the complaint concerns the amount of fees charged and the correct procedure should an application for Detailed Assessment. The court will also dismiss complaints where it is clear that the complaint is not serious enough and where the debtor had submitted a Form 4 Complaint to the court before allowing the bailiff company the opportunity to resolve the complaint.

 

Note: In order to be Certificated, all bailiffs must obtain a £10,000 Bailiff Bond. Although some bonds are provided by an insurance company, the vast majority are provided and underwritten by either ACEA or ESA who are both Trade Associations for Bailiff Companies.

 

 

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:

 

 

The Bailiff and Sheriff section of the Consumer Action Group forum is extremely popular ( I am reliably informed that approx 1.9 million posts have been viewed since this part of the website started !!) and since the launch earlier this year of the on line bailiff register, thousands of Consumer Action Group visitors have used the search facility with a similar number of viewers reading this additional thread as well.

 

With the severe effects of the recession affecting so many people there has been a significant increase in Form 4 Complaints being made to the County Courts and as a result, bailiff companies are now routinely instructing solicitors or even barristers to represent their bailiff's at a Form 4 hearing and sadly there are many reports where Judges have been know to impose costs orders against the person making the complaint if the court dismiss the complaint at an eventual hearing. This will naturally have a devastating effect on debtors, many of whom may already be in vulnerable circumstances.

 

 

The Form 4 Complaint issued by the Ministry of Justice does not provide any guidance notes and neither does it warn the debtor that they could be liable for costs in the event that the Judge dismisses the complaint. As mentioned above, the filing of a Form 4 Complaint should be a last resort and the court will expect that you have first provided the bailiff company with an opportunity to address your complaint.

 

As a large proportion of Form 4 Complaints concern the amount of fees charged by a bailiff you may consider instead filing a simple N1 Small Claims application in the County Court. The small claims limit is £5,000 and it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that you could be liable for the defendants costs if you were to lose your case.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can the goods not be removed on the same day

 

because the notice of seizure of goods & inventory gives the debtor 5 days to pay so goods cant be removed the same day

as the Notice of seizure is served on the debtor

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can the goods not be removed on the same day

 

 

because the notice of seizure of goods & inventory gives the debtor 5 days to pay so goods cant be removed the same day

as the Notice of seizure is served on the debtor

 

Thats what I thought, if it were true that levy could be applied at 1st visit there'd never (logically) be a need for a 2nd, 3rd etc etc visit fee to be applied.

 

Gez

Edited by gezwee
Link to post
Share on other sites

gezwee another bit of info regarding visit fees and levy fees that might interest you

 

a bailiff cant charge visit fee on the same day as a walking possession fee and levy fee

 

:) just in case you didn't know

Link to post
Share on other sites
gezwee another bit of info regarding visit fees and levy fees that might interest you

 

a bailiff cant charge visit fee on the same day as a walking possession fee and levy fee

 

:) just in case you didn't know

 

I'm learning....... slowly ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have 5 days to pay, it doe not mean your vehicle cannot be taken to a storage depo/ aution house, if you have signed a walking possession and made an arrangement different case,

 

your vehicle will be kept for 5 days and sold on the 6th day, unless the law has changed since I last done parking fines?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it conceivably correct to levy a vehicle on first visit?

yes but bailiffs don't levy on a 1st visit as this is a parking ticket the bailiff can charge for a maximum 3 visits

after a bailiff has Levy no visit fees can be charged

A bailiff will levy on a first visit if an asset is available

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

no a levy is done on a form 7 (notice of seizure of goods & inventory ) and gives the debtor 5 days to pay so goods cant be removed the same day

A bailiff can take goods the same day but can only sell after 5 days (as twonames has said)

removal of goods is done with a form 9( i think) form 9 removal expenses

The Form 9 only details additional fees incured for attending to remove. The levy (and inventory) is on the Notice of Seizure.

Has the Bailiff acted correctly

in my opinion no

Why?

are the charges open to challenge?

in my opinion yes

Why?

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

if the bailiff had a notice of seizure this should have been left on the premises at the time of the levy giving him 5 days to pay

This is incorrect as already pointed out by twonames

I had not received anything before, and he had not visited the premises before,

the bailiff company should have sent him a letter in the first instance any visits that the bailiff makes that incur a charge notice of this should be left on the premises at the time of the visit

Corrrect. Letters are sent by Royal Mail and are deemed served when sent. Didnt the OP say his wife saw a van visiting previously? But yes, letters would have been hand delivered by the Bailiff on his first visit.

The PCN was £110, Bailiff feed £355,

letter fee & 3 visit fees + vat approx £250/£260

Sounds about right to me based on my previous experience.

 

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

HCEO do not collect parking tickets only a certificated bailiff can do this

Correct

 

Hallowitch, I know you mean well but once again the advice being given to the OP is incorrect. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So once again we have two alleged bailiffs giving "advice" to someone who has a parking ticket and vehicle seized as a result of this ticket. then proceed to frustrate and obstruct any discussion on the matter by a pedantic approach to any post that disagrees with them.

 

You seem to be going around and around when it is clear that a bailiff will thieve and extort at every opportunity.

 

Now that we've stated the obvious, How about, Instead of all of the Waffle waffle waffle, why don't you give clear, concise and constructive advice to the ORIGINAL POSTER.

 

I have never yet, seen either of the "alleged bailiffs" appearing on this thread offer up a suggestion as to what fees are unlawful and how a poster can complain about a bailiffs application of these unlawfulo fees and charges and then gain a successful prosecution for same.

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
why don't you give clear, concise and constructive advice to the ORIGINAL POSTER.

 

Not interested in your pedantry Two Heeds,

 

Oh and thank you for proving my point

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a very reasonable request spamheed but I fear the OP may well look for advice elsewhere if the stags on here won't stop their rutting.

 

Please stop bickering & answer the questions truthfully & without bias since this is a self-help forum, not a stage for posturing like cage fighters.

If the bailiffs.HCEO's on here are not going to help then, with respect, leave the threads for those who can offer assistance.

 

Rant over :evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats a very reasonable request spamheed but I fear the OP may well look for advice elsewhere if the stags on here won't stop their rutting.

 

Please stop bickering & answer the questions truthfully & without bias since this is a self-help forum, not a stage for posturing like cage fighters.

If the bailiffs.HCEO's on here are not going to help then, with respect, leave the threads for those who can offer assistance.

 

Rant over :evil:

 

If spamheed has bothered to read the posts then she would have seen that both I and twonames have contributed in a positive manor, detailing to the OP some of his options and guidelines on the law that others have advised incorrctly.

 

Spamheed would be better keeping his edited out of the post full stop and your rant assists nobody either.

Edited by IdaInFife
removed personal insult
Link to post
Share on other sites
If spamheed has bothered to read the posts then she would have seen that both I and twonames have contributed in a positive manor, detailing to the OP some of his options and guidelines on the law that others have advised incorrctly.

 

Spamheed would be better keeping his edited out of the post full stop and your rant assists nobody either.

 

The purpose of posting my rant was to remind caggers that the OP has still not been given a definitive set of answers to the questions posed to enable them to take the appropriate actions they feel is required so if these answers were to now be given, I would say that the rant has served its purpose but I suspect the squabbling will go on a while longer sadly.

Edited by IdaInFife
edited re quoted post
Link to post
Share on other sites
The purpose of posting my rant was to remind caggers that the OP has still not been given a definitive set of answers to the questions posed to enable them to take the appropriate actions they feel is required so if these answers were to now be given, I would say that the rant has served its purpose but I suspect the squabbling will go on a while longer sadly.

 

 

I am sorry to make this post as it does not assist the OP ,but i find it so annoying that mkb is making comments about people giving information.

MKB read through this thread again,you have made five posts,none of these have given any help or information to anyone never mind the OP.

 

I know how everyone feels about bailiffs,and it has been said in other threads that they should expect people to have a go at them,but it seems that some posters cannot see when they are giving information,or correcting information that has been given that has been wrong.

 

Before you post,take a look at what information you have contributed to the thread,then consider if you are being hypocritical.

 

I will not post on this thread again,and will not answer any posts directed to me about this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot answer the OP's questions & have been looking for answers for my own gripe with bailiffs fees. I know you are aware of my gripes since I have seen you looking at my thread. 2 of my (now 6) posts were direct questions to 'Certificated Bailiff', the others are observations and opinions.

 

Answers can be found by asking questions as well as making observations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't and comes down to interpretation.

 

Over the years I have been challenged regarding vehicles and the claims of tools of the trade. On every occasion the judge has sided with me.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

1) A van used by a builder. The judge stated that the builders tools were his tools of the trade and not the vehicle used to transport them. not qualified to comment

 

2) A car used by a salesman. The judge stated that the salesman could use public transport to see his customers. not qualified to comment

 

3) A minicab. The car was also used by the defendants wife to pick the kids up and go shopping and she was on the insurance. The judge stated that as it was not for the sole personal use of the defendant it did not fall under section 138 3a. now this is a bag of crap.

to be a minicab the vehicle has to be plated via your local council and is subject to council byelaws. a minicab is subject to specialist liability insurance and specialist cover insurance. also for a person to be on a minicab insurance policy they would have to be a badged/licensed taxi driver via your local council. so if his wife was on the insurance she must have been badged/licensed to drive the minicab by there local council to do so. also the council byelaws, her majestys revenue and customs, and insurance cover minicabs have to adhere to, clearly states minicabs have a legal right/claim to 15000 (thousand) miles per year for personal use. so the wife had a legal right/claim to pick up the kids or go shopping when ever she needed to.

 

4) A courier van. As the van was not taxed, it was not deemed roadworthy and the judge stated it could not be a tool of the trade for this reason. not qualified to comment

 

Hope this gives some guidance.

 

and on that subject iam qualified to comment on.

just another quick one, if the minicab firm is PLC, LTD, BBC, OR EVEN ITV it is at all times whilst it is a plated minicab a TOOL of his/her trade.

 

cab

Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is my last post on this thread, no one was bickering until spamheed started posting
You two were despoiling and bickering long before I posted. From post #2 onwards you offer no help to the OP at all, my first post isn't until post #138 long after the really useful discussion about the £5million asset.

 

If spamheed has bothered to read the posts then she would have seen that both I and twoheeds have contributed in a positive manor, detailing to the OP some of his options and guidelines on the law that others have advised incorrectly.Yeah, that'd be right :roll:

 

Spamheed would be better keeping his edited out of the post full stop and your rant assists nobody either.

 

Whilst I appreciate the advice :-D, I will politely decline the command/instruction from High School Musical and will instead continue to keep putting my edited wherever I choose (I'm funny like that)

 

You two edited's pop up like persistent little pimples, you cause nothing but irritation when you do appear and then ramble on, adding nothing of a positive nor constructive nature to any of the threads you infest

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread is heading for closure.

I have spelled out the position already as regards our tolerance of trolls inuendos, and diversions.

Some of the posters are going to need to take heed.

CAG is here for genuine people,for consumers,and for those people who have come here in desperation.

I have no interests nor concerns for any bailiffs enforcement officers or the likes,who are here to learn,understand,or falsely claim to be assisting our members...and you know what ?

neither has the rest of us.

So do us all a favour and go and post elsewhere.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...