Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.''  
    • I'm ready to reject Hermes offer and issue the letter before claim. I've registered on the MCOL website and filled in my claim with the below particulars.   Should I tick the box to send the particulars directly to the defendant?   Should I also tick the box for the right to claim interest. If so do what date would I put for when the money became owed,  what is daily rate of interest up to the date of judgment?    Thanks again      
  • 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

As the op of this thread is no loger posting I thought i would post a copy of a notice of seizure of goods and inventory for those who have never seen one

you can then make up your own mind if the goods listed can be removed on the same day after a notice of seizure has been left with the debtor

 

 

 

 

img007-1-1.jpg?t=1263728372

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

Thank you Martin you have probably spoken on behalf of a lot of caggers.

We appear to have people posting on here who have never started a thread, showing they wish to achieve nothing other then stir the soup. We have lost, through them ,caggers who have been able to contribute greatly in bringing the terminology of the legal profession to the laymans understanding ,one of who gave excellent advice, which having followed it gave me a positive result.

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post makes me laugh, it's spelling out exactly what the problem is with the bailiff industry.

 

Op asks for help in sorting out a car issue, and 2 apparant bailiffs are viewing ready to offer advice. Should be easy then. but no. If I was them, it would be a fairly long definitive concise answer, in fact I would be able to end the thread. But no, because the truth is, neither High school or Twonames can really give the definitive answers required because they don't really know, (by their own admission)

 

Here we have High school, searching this forum day and night for tips, hints and legal advice on how to carry out his day to day job, but in truth, he hasn't pis*ed off enough people during the day so he has to find an additional vent.

 

..hoping that his gravy train career isn't about to come to an abrupt halt when the MOJ change the rules, hoping that some case against a bailiff isn't about to set a precedent, and clinging on to what he thinks is right or wrong but is unsure and lacks confidence, but in essence, as we all know, most of what he does is loosely made up on the day, to fit. Exactly the reason SHERBROOK visits here. (aka Clare Sandbrook, ceo of sherforce)

 

High school. I still ask what the hell are you doing on here?

 

You must have a sick, twisted perversion to 'advise' those you unlawfully prey on. How freckin weird.. Akin to the guilty man 'assisting' the authorities in their enquiries before he himself is arrested and found guilty of the crime.

Edited by danboy381

Link to post
Share on other sites

This Post is quickly heading for closure but as there are some interesting points made by the original poster it is best that clarification is provided on some points and I will try to do that now.

 

Is the amount charged by the bailiff correct?

 

Personally, I do not think so and for clarification it is worth reading the Judgment of District Judge Avent in the Detailed Assessment ruling in the case of Anthony Culligan v Marston. This is an excellent Judgement that can be relied upon if you wish to file a small claims writ ( which is what I would personally suggest).

 

I can e-mail a full copy of the Judgment to you if you wish.

 

Should a bailiff remove goods straight away.

 

Interesting point and my view would be this: The goods have been seized and are therefore in the eyes of the law "the property of the bailiff" until such time as the debt has been paid (the goods can be sold after 5 days). If the bailiff has already "seized and effectively secured" the vehicle District Judge Avent confirms that the bailiff should allow a "reaonable period" before removal to allow the debtor time to arange payment.

 

 

By removing STRAIGHT AWAY...he has financially incurred the debtor in significant additional fees which are wholly unecessary and would appear to be solely a means of gaining fees for him and his company.

 

Does the bailiff have to provide a copy of the warrant?

YES!!. With the enforcement of PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES the actual Warrant of Execution states upon it the following:

 

"If your goods are seized you will be left a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory together with a copy of this Warrant of Execution"

 

Can I claim my vehicle is exempt from seizure.

 

There is case law that provides that the vehicle "must be" for "your use solely in the course of business or vocation" HCE & Two Names are more or less correct in their interpreation of this provision but it is worth pointing out that I have known cases to go to court where the Judge has AGREED that a general builders"white van" was "clearly exempt" because the insureance was in the debtors sole name ( self employed builder) but crucially...the vehicle was signed to advertise the debtors business and contact details.

 

I have also known of many cases where the court have agreed that a "black cab" was exempt.....but of interest is a recent case where it was decided that the cab was NOT EXEMPT....because although the debtor owned the vehicle, he used it for taxi work during the day time....and his brother in law used it in the evenings!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
...but of interest is a recent case where it was decided that the cab was NOT EXEMPT....because although the debtor owned the vehicle, he used it for taxi work during the day time....and his brother in law used it in the evenings!!!

 

Very interested in that last bit tomtubby. Brother-in-law or not, he would have been paying the cabs owner for use of the vehicle either on a 50/50 basis or a set weekly sum. Therefore the cab would very much have remained a central part of the owners business as it was clearly a tool to provide turnover irrespective of driver. This is very common in the taxi industry and I can imagine some alarm bells ringing! I'd be surprised if it wasn't appealed against. That said, of course, I only know the details qouted...

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interested in that last bit tomtubby. Brother-in-law or not, he would have been paying the cabs owner for use of the vehicle either on a 50/50 basis or a set weekly sum. Therefore the cab would very much have remained a central part of the owners business as it was clearly a tool to provide turnover irrespective of driver. This is very common in the taxi industry and I can imagine some alarm bells ringing! I'd be surprised if it wasn't appealed against. That said, of course, I only know the details qouted...

Rae.

 

it might also be worth noting.

it does not matter if he was the pope or elvis presley, a black cab or any taxi have to be plated by the local council. to drive a black cab or a taxi the driver has to be badged by the local council. dvla log book will clearly state it is a black cab or taxi. the insurance is purely designed for black cabs and taxi's. joe bloggs can not legally drive a black cab or taxi, it is against the law.

 

just another pointer aswell.

i have my own taxi firm and iam having problems with my creditor, but back to the pointer, one of my freinds have there own taxi company aswell and the repo agents came to collect, but the repo agents did not know we now have a local pcso who is pretty clued up on repo, so when the agents got a bit flirty with my freind he called the local bobby's and this pcso turned up with a full timer, the officers said sorry but it is a civil matter we can only observe for a breach of the peace. agent sniggers jumps in the taxi, turns the key, drove it forward 2 feet and the pcso stopped him, can i see your insurance and your authority to drive this vehicle please. full timer said you cant do that, pcso "ermm" yes we can. agent gets out of the taxi shows full timer the paperwork from creditor to repo the vehicle and the repo company insurance docs. ok that looks fine by me. pcso "ermm" no it is not you are not licenced or insured to drive a taxi. the agent got £100 fine and 3 penalty points.

 

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
Very interested in that last bit tomtubby. Brother-in-law or not, he would have been paying the cabs owner for use of the vehicle either on a 50/50 basis or a set weekly sum. Therefore the cab would very much have remained a central part of the owners business as it was clearly a tool to provide turnover irrespective of driver. This is very common in the taxi industry and I can imagine some alarm bells ringing! I'd be surprised if it wasn't appealed against. That said, of course, I only know the details qouted...

Rae.

 

The case law on this is SHERIFF OF BEDFORD & TOSELAND BUILDING SUPPLIES LTD v BISHOP (1993) CA (unreported). And this is a Court of Appeal case.

 

In order to qualify for exemption from seizure for either a vehicle or other assets in your business, you will need to prove that the item is for:

“You’re own use personally and exclusively”

 

In brief, a bailiff has seized a JCB digger at the premises of Toseland Building Supplies Ltd. In court, the appellant in this particular action confirmed to the court that the digger was owned and operated by him.

 

However, when questioned further on this, he confirmed to the court that on occasions other staff members had operated the digger. The court therefore ruled that by the appellant saying this, he could not demonstrate that this item was necessary for him “in use personally by him in his business”.

 

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, tomtubby and Cab1, thanks for that. I'll not further muddy someone elses thread. Whilst I had to give up my taxi practise due to ill health, it still piques my interest. Something to add to my bedtime reading...

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Hi All,

I am still here (original OP). Its been quite disappointing witnessing the bickering and lack of clarification on the issue - though i blame no one. The law is indeed confusing, and I am more enlightened and confused in equal measure since i posted on this thread.

What is quite clear is that the bailiff has acted illegally on a number of points (1) The bailiffs fee were excessive - PCN =£110, Bailiff Fess = £355, Removal Fee = £175, (2) I was not shown the warrant of execution at any time, even though i explicitly requested it, (3) The bailiff visited the property only once, requested full payment immediately, and seized the vehicle. Even though i offered part payment, he refused. (4) Before putting the Notice of Seizure through the door, he had cancelled out the part of the Notice which gives me 5 days to pay the debt, (5) I was informed the vehicle would immediately be going to the auction on the same day. This is quite clearly a fraudulent statement made to put pressure on the debtor.

 

I will be writing to the bailiff to see a full schedule of their fees. I will also be asking for confirmation of how many visits were made, and in addition, will be making a formal complaint regarding the bailiff to the ACEA, The Ministry of Justice, The Local Authority who employed the bailiff, the Magistrates Court that issued the enforcement order, the court that issued the bailiffs certification and the ESA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I will be writing to the bailiff to see a full schedule of their fees. I will also be asking for confirmation of how many visits were made, and in addition, will be making a formal complaint regarding the bailiff to the ACEA, The Ministry of Justice, The Local Authority who employed the bailiff, the Magistrates Court that issued the enforcement order, the court that issued the bailiffs certification and the ESA.

 

Apologies if this has been said previously but have not read all that goes before it.

 

Have you written to the Bailiffs and asked for a copy of your statement, to get a fuller picture you could send them a SAR instead - I say fuller but it may only include an extra sheet or two of paper.

 

Absolutely pointless writing to ACEA or ESA as these are self regulating bodies with no teeth.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...