Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you!    It was bought on my debit card    
    • Hi. Welcome to CAG. How was the car purchased?  
    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Pseudo bailiffs, wannabes and downright liars on this forum


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5247 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

This really is one of the most idiotic hate filled posts to grace this forum...

 

I didn't think your post that 'hate filled' HCE! Think you might've meant 'thread' :grin:

 

But you highlight your own problem. Anyone in your industry, regardless of variation, is swimming against the current by posting here. As you know, so many people have been hurt by the Enforcement Agency business that the dislike for them is now quite palpable. I am not in the least surprised you attract malignant posts.

Any person in your trade who wishes to post on a self-help forum for the victims of your industry must, by definition be thick skinned. And, if they wish to give true unbiased advice, they need also to be an exceptional humanitarian by nature. A rare find indeed.

I would strongly recommend that you resist the urge to rise to the bait and, instead, understand and appreciate where this hatred is coming from and why.

I remain one of those who, despite adverse experiences, appreciate the view from 'the other side'. I just wish you wouldn't demean yourself with other postings...

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Copied from my previous post but its suits this thread better:-

 

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 freakin weird.. Akin to the guilty man 'assisting' the authorities in their enquiries before he himself is arrested and found guilty of the crime.

 

:lol::lol: DB :lol::lol:

Edited by High Court Enforcer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think your post that 'hate filled' HCE! Think you might've meant 'thread' :grin:

 

But you highlight your own problem. Anyone in your industry, regardless of variation, is swimming against the current by posting here. As you know, so many people have been hurt by the Enforcement Agency business that the dislike for them is now quite palpable. I am not in the least surprised you attract malignant posts.

Any person in your trade who wishes to post on a self-help forum for the victims of your industry must, by definition be thick skinned. And, if they wish to give true unbiased advice, they need also to be an exceptional humanitarian by nature. A rare find indeed.

I would strongly recommend that you resist the urge to rise to the bait and, instead, understand and appreciate where this hatred is coming from and why.

I remain one of those who, despite adverse experiences, appreciate the view from 'the other side'. I just wish you wouldn't demean yourself with other postings...

Rae.

 

Kelcou, you are one of few on this forum, site team now included it would appear, that feels this way.

 

I've said this before, but I started posting on ths site because so much rubbish was being posted about something I know a lot about.

 

Sorry if you feel I've let you down, but you've only got to read through this post to see the idiots you are associating yourself with.

 

Ian Huntley? Fluffy was right.

 

It just goes to show the kind of mentallity you are dealing with on here occasionally....

:rolleyes:

 

This isnt aimed at all. TT, PT and even HW are excluded.

Edited by High Court Enforcer
Link to post
Share on other sites

HCE, fortunately the 'Ian Huntley' comment was removed before I could see it. Having been a victim of that also I am quite relieved.

It's a difficult area - I have to bear in mind I'm relatively new here and do not know CAGs rich history - but I personally feel people like yourself have a point to put across and should be allowed to do so.

However, the problem is how you post. It needs to be clean, quick, clinical and factually illustrative. Personal observations are dangerous as they can be misconstrued. And then used against you. That, I'm afraid, is human nature.

I understand why you feel the need to have a dig back at those who snap at your heels - human nature again - but it does you no good. It simply tarnishes peoples view and gives more fuel to those who must attack irrespectively.

Whilst I appreciate true Christian values are a little thin on the ground these days [i say that, and I'm not a Christian per se. Doh!] but the advice of 'turn the other cheek' would serve you well...

Rae.

Edited by RaeUK
tie poo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since neither you or Fluffy have never started a thread on this site you obviously do not have a problem that needs advice from caggers neither of you have ever offered any advice from which a needy cagger could draw courage, all your posts have been negative so I ask the same questions of you that I asked fluffy and received no reply to.

What draws you to this site? What interest does it hold for you?

 

wd

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since neither you or Fluffy have never started a thread on this site you obviously do not have a problem that needs advice from caggers neither of you have ever offered any advice from which a needy cagger could draw courage, all your posts have been negative so I ask the same questions of you that I asked fluffy and received no reply to.

What draws you to this site? What interest does it hold for you?

 

wd

 

WD, you are wrong. Whilst I may not give posters pats on the back and love and hugs, when it comes to aspects of law I have given much advice in an industry I know.

 

Many posters on here have previously given so much incorrect advice regarding various methods of enforcement I felt a need to correct them.

 

I shall start a thread if it makes you happy, but it is not neccessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WD, you are wrong. Whilst I may not give posters pats on the back and love and hugs, when it comes to aspects of law I have given much advice in an industry I know.

 

Many posters on here have previously given so much incorrect advice regarding various methods of enforcement I felt a need to correct them.

 

I shall start a thread if it makes you happy, but it is not neccessary.

 

 

HCEO can you give examples of the incorrect advice and your take on the reality ?

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

This really is one of the most idiotic hate filled posts to grace this forum.

 

The main protaganists (sh, dpb, sm) cannot see past their immature hate filled eyes.

 

I would ask each and every one of you to read through my posts (if you can understand them) and take in the advice and knowledge that I have given this forum, especially in HCE.

 

Brilliantly laughable, all of you.

 

Love to all..... :-)

The main protagonists

 

 

Am I presuming that the 'SM' is myself. If so this is how I am going to respond to your 'name calling'.

firstly I have NEVER been disrespectful to any one on this forum. Yes I do have a personal hatred for the bailiff industry and rightly so, and if you have ever bothered reading my story of what happened to me by a bailiff who was 'certificated' certified :rolleyes: what ever, then you would understand why I dislike people like you because of the industry you work in, nothing personal im sure. And if it ever happened to your partner, daughter or mother then I know you would feel the same.

For your information in case you havnt read my story I will bring yo up to date.

I am of small stature, 5ft 3. Female, and in my early 40's I suffer with Multiple sclerosis 2nd stage. (thats relapse remitting) in case you didnt know. I also had a major stroke in my early 30's which has left me weakened down my left side, I have a heart condition and also suffer with TIA's (mini strokes).

I was getting over a relapse of my condition when a bailiff turned up, I was in bed when he knocked, so was in my dressing gown. He could quite clearly see that I was unwell, he was told I was disabled because he asked me what income i had coming in so that I could pay him, he took no notice of me when I told him I had no idea what he was talking about when he demanded that I pay him for a parking ticket that I was led to believe was being sorted out with the council, but instead of contacting them to find out whether I was telling the truth or not he forced his way into my home so that he could take my belongings for this debt, whilst doing so my hand and foot was injured, he grabbed me by the neck and pulled me trying to stop me from getting into my flat so that I could stop him. I saw no warrant, i saw no ID, and I had no idea of what was going on or even if he was who he said he was. I managed to stop him from getting into my flat by wedging myself between a door and wall, whilst he carried on pushing against it, and because I would not let him in he called the police stating I had assaulted him. when they came I was told I was going to be arrested even though I was bleeding from my hand and foot and shaking uncontrollably and started to have difficulty breathing. The bailiff then decided that he didnt want to press charges and that he would get in contact with the council in the morning. Funny how he found out that I was telling the truth and that the council HAD made a mistake. I was left with a 10 inch bruise to my thigh, bruising round my neck, two of my fingers badly cut and bruised and a gash on my foot where he had pushed the door open on it, I had to be taken to hospital.

This is the good bit, when it went to court he stood on the stand and admitted to the Judge that he did not see what the problem was as he had been taught that this is how he should carry out his warrants and no one had complained before about it. The Judge was shocked and was ready to take his certificate away from him. Now HCE this is how hateful I am, I told the Judge that I didnt want her to do this, I wanted him to keep his certificate and learn by this and hoped he did learn that what he was doing was wrong and that he could pass this on to other bailiffs who had been doing the same so that these warrants could be carried out in a correct manner.

The Judge made it quite clear to him that if he was bought before her again he would be stripped of his certificate. She did point out that when it was up for renewal that she may not renew it. I have sine found out that he had renewed his certificate in another court. I wonder why.:rolleyes:

Two years on and I am just getting over what happened. I have been a virtual prisoner in my home because of the anxiety that I suffer, being afraid to answer the door. I had to move to some where that could accommodate my disability because the stress of it all exasperated my condition. All this because of a mistake and a bailiff who had been taught incorrectly on how to execute a warrant. I DONT want this to happen to any one else, but it does happen and will keep on happening until some one decides it has to stop. Yes I do dislike the bailiffs who bully, threaten, lie and assault people. I have every right to. Am I bitter?? a little, but I will get over it. I will do my best in places like this to help people who are in the same position as me, I have been wrong and have been corrected, I have learnt a lot from this site and no doubt will carry on learning. I will stand up for myself as I wont be bullied or intimidated by the likes of you and sometimes I can be a little outspoken, so what, I am human and will speak out when it I feel the need to. Do your job HCE but do it correctly and while your at it why dont you start teaching the **** that do it wrong how to do it right, instead of coming in here and trying to defend them, because that is how you come across to me.

Edited by seanamarts
correction of spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which questions? There is nothing but hatred, stupidity and abuse in this thread.

 

And you have been apart of that with your 'stupid remarks' and name calling

You quite often fuel the fire on here with your bitching back biting remarks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which questions? There is nothing but hatred, stupidity and abuse in this thread.

 

 

Hatred doesn't come close to describing my feelings towards bailiffs, whilst there may well be members of your chosen profession who don't bully, lie, cheat, steal or intimidate the vulnerable. I have yet to meet one, so I base my opinion on those I have met and those that I have observed.

 

To be quite honest, I don't know you, have never met you, so cannot form an opinion of you as a person. However, on this forum and at this point in time The group that you claim to be a member of, represent a class of person that is entirely beneath contempt in my eyes.

 

This thread was started by me to ask the likes of you without interfering with anyone elses thread, why you continue to even bother coming onto this forum if all you do is divert and misinform posters with your pointless and pedantic comments, you are neither helpful, nor constructive, making comments such as "these fees look fair to me " in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. This would appear to be pretty "stupid" to me.

 

If this thread is "as stupid" as you state it is, or as full of "stupidity" as you claim it to be, why lower yourself to my standards. Simply fight the urge and don't post

 

Asking you (as an alleged bailiff) to explain why you appear in so many threads on this forum offering incorrect information or affirming that unlawful fees are in fact lawful because the bailiff says they are is somehow classed as abuse on your planet?

Edited by spamheed
Link to post
Share on other sites

seanamarts your post brought me to tears hun.. i wish you all the best xxxxx

Your very sweet to say that thank you. I was told by an inspector of the police force a few months later, and this really makes me cross, that if it was a normal person off the streets that had done something like this they would most certainly be looking at a prison sentence, and if it was a police officer who had done this the least he would get would be a suspension. what gives the right for a bailiff to do this and get away with it is far beyond me, but they do get away with it because they think they have been given powers to do this:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

HCE, fortunately the 'Ian Huntley' comment was removed before I could see it. Having been a victim of that also I am quite relieved.

It's a difficult area - I have to bear in mind I'm relatively new here and do not know CAGs rich history - but I personally feel people like yourself have a point to put across and should be allowed to do so.

However, the problem is how you post. It needs to be clean, quick, clinical and factually illustrative. Personal observations are dangerous as they can be misconstrued. And then used against you. That, I'm afraid, is human nature.

I understand why you feel the need to have a dig back at those who snap at your heels - human nature again - but it does you no good. It simply tarnishes peoples view and gives more fuel to those who must attack irrespectively.

Whilst I appreciate true Christian values are a little thin on the ground these days [i say that, and I'm not a Christian per se. Doh!] but the advice of 'turn the other cheek' would serve you well...

Rae.

 

 

 

HEAR HEAR,

 

Rae I will reply to you not to HCE as I read his comments and either think mmm he has a point or simpy ignore him I recommend others to do the same.

HCE cannot be of true value to this site until such a time that he realises it isnt good to antagonise others, Silence and no reply to him is the best route,unless he is both factual and not anagonistic I have asked many times for a meeting or answers to questions that could help many however these pointed questions are never ever answered.

 

IMO It is better to be clear and calm and to fight back with the full extent of the law

SF Beware I am still coming for you !!!!

 

Onlyme and many many more

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hatred doesn't come close to describing my feelings towards bailiffs, whilst there may well be members of your chosen profession who don't bully, lie, cheat, steal or intimidate the vulnerable. I have yet to meet one, so I base my opinion on those I have met and those that I have observed.

 

To be quite honest, I don't know you, have never met you, so cannot form an opinion of you as a person. However, on this forum and at this point in time The group that you claim to be a member of, represent a class of person that is entirely beneath contempt in my eyes.

 

This thread was started by me to ask the likes of you without interfering with anyone elses thread, why you continue to even bother coming onto this forum if all you do is divert and misinform posters with your pointless and pedantic comments, you are neither helpful, nor constructive, making comments such as "these fees look fair to me " in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. This would appear to be pretty "stupid" to me.

 

If this thread is "as stupid" as you state it is, or as full of "stupidity" as you claim it to be, why lower yourself to my standards. Simply fight the urge and don't post

 

Asking you (as an alleged bailiff) to explain why you appear in so many threads on this forum offering incorrect information or affirming that unlawful fees are in fact lawful because the bailiff says they are is somehow classed as abuse on your planet?

 

Sean I hadnt realised of your plight nor history I for one couldnt have turned the other cheek and allowed the bailiff to keep his certificate.

You are ofcourse quite right HCE does make stupid remarks and could certainly learn from your generosity to the other side

 

The answers never come back from HCE especially if he knows his industry are in a corner

 

Onlyme

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean I hadnt realised of your plight nor history I for one couldnt have turned the other cheek and allowed the bailiff to keep his certificate.

You are ofcourse quite right HCE does make stupid remarks and could certainly learn from your generosity to the other side

 

The answers never come back from HCE especially if he knows his industry are in a corner

 

Onlyme

to forgive is a release, to hate and bear a grudge is a bind.

I try and live by that motto as much as I can

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Lets put some sense back into this

 

1) CT is an UNFAIR TAX -- many problems it causes are because the amounts charged are NOT EARNINGS RELATED -- which means people earning 6,000 GBP a year or 600,000 GBP a year can in some circumstances pay the same amount of tax.

 

How that can EVER be described as FAIR by any political party in the UK is beyond me -- but until the law is changed we have to live with it.

 

2) Because of the nature of this tax people get into arrears etc -- it's NOT a crime to get into debt - especially if you get laid off, get divorced so a wage earner is no longer present, someone dies etc etc etc.

 

3) We all agree that there has to be some method of tax collection - but using "Overbloated Night club Bouncers" to go and attempt to hassle people in their own homes AND TO CHARGE EXTORTIONATE NOT PERMITTED FEES is TOTALLY wrong in the 21st century.

 

There must be ZILLIONS of better ways of enforcing tax collection -- certainly a reform of the whole Council Tax system including its collection is long overdue.

 

There is NO case in using basic Play ground Bully tactics to collect the tax.

 

It's time the whole Bailiff system was ended -- and if we must use it EVERY BAILIFF SHOULD CARRY WITH HIM A COPY OF THE PERMITTED FEES.

 

 

Hoping for an END to this inquitious system -- and I really hope "The High Court Enforcer" has to suffer at the hands of some of these ODIOUS and Miserable VERMIN.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Lets put some sense back into this

 

1) CT is an UNFAIR TAX -- many problems it causes are because the amounts charged are NOT EARNINGS RELATED -- which means people earning 6,000 GBP a year or 600,000 GBP a year can in some circumstances pay the same amount of tax. Irrespective of whether CT is fair or unfair, it is the law that this tax should be paid, it isn't the tax that's the problem, it's the method of enforcement and the blanket ignorance of the rules and fees which are applicable

 

How that can EVER be described as FAIR by any political party in the UK is beyond me -- but until the law is changed we have to live with it.

 

2) Because of the nature of this tax people get into arrears etc -- it's NOT a crime to get into debt - especially if you get laid off, get divorced so a wage earner is no longer present, someone dies etc etc etc. Again, it's the method of enforcement that is the problem

 

3) We all agree that there has to be some method of tax collection - but using "Overbloated Night club Bouncers" to go and attempt to hassle people in their own homes AND TO CHARGE EXTORTIONATE NOT PERMITTED FEES is TOTALLY wrong in the 21st century. "Nightclub Bouncers" are not Bailiffs, they do not attend anyones home, nor do they charge anyone for anything. they are paid a set rate by either the venue or the agency who employ them. There simply is no similarity between the two occupations.

There must be ZILLIONS of better ways of enforcing tax collection -- certainly a reform of the whole Council Tax system including its collection is long overdue. It isn't the tax, it's the method of enforcement

 

There is NO case in using basic Play ground Bully tactics to collect the tax.

 

It's time the whole Bailiff system was ended -- and if we must use it EVERY BAILIFF SHOULD CARRY WITH HIM A COPY OF THE PERMITTED FEES. Agreed

 

 

Hoping for an END to this inquitious system -- and I really hope "The High Court Enforcer" has to suffer at the hands of some of these ODIOUS and Miserable VERMIN.

 

Cheers

jimbo

 

 

This isn't about a matter of unfair taxation, it is about the supporting enforcement actions which cause many disputes. people enforcing the unenforceable and using methods and applying charges which are unlawful

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which questions? There is nothing but hatred, stupidity and abuse in this thread.

 

I work within the debt advice field for one of the biggest charities. Over the years I must have spoken to hundreds, if not thousands of clients who have had issues with bailiffs. Out of all those times I have only ever come across a handful of instances where a bailiff has acted in accordance to the various pieces of legislation and rules that they should be following.

 

Whilst I appreciate the need for bailiffs I really feel that there needs to be a massive overhaul of the entire bailiff process - and I'm talking Distress, Distraint and Execution. For too long bailiffs have been making the lives of ordinary folk an absolute missery via their fragrant breaches of the rules. I know that there are plans to revolutionise certain areas of debt enforcement, I just hope that it goes far enough to help the vulnerable folks who really need it.

 

I'm not going to dismiss the ideas of bailiffs, like it or not they are necessary. We need to try and work out the root cause of why they behave in the way that they do and get that sorted pronto.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to dismiss the ideas of bailiffs, like it or not they are necessary. We need to try and work out the root cause of why they behave in the way that they do and get that sorted pronto.

 

Until a better option is available, then society will always have a need for "big ugly blokes" and I do include myself in this description.

 

However, if there is no restriction as to what actions can and cannot be taken by big ugly blokes, then there are some who will abuse the system or take advantage of loopholes or areas which are not fully covered or legislated. one only needs to look at the recent MPs expenses to see a clear example of people taking advantage of a flawed system.

 

Having someone knocking on your door has long been recognised as an effective form of debt collection, however, when the person at the door is wearing body and dressed for conflict and is doing their level best to kick a hole through the door, and then tries to charge you a couple of hundred for the privilege of having him at your door, then it is time to redress the rules on what doorstep visitors are allowed and not allowed to do

Edited by spamheed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, best to ignore HCE, theres something clearly lacking if he is not getting enough kicks during the day. Cos of his continued appearance on here though it only makes me want to continue the fight harder, so I'll arrange for some more legal action shortly.

Look out, it coming.

Edited by danboy381

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...