Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to converse with us Drays...   i will guess you have NOT received a claimform pack from northants bulk but merely a letter of claim from BW legal.   you respond by following Post 4 here: do NOT use their reply pack. but you MUST reply. follow Exactly as post 4 i would suggest the reason as: the alleged debt concerns a dispute for failure to provide a reliable service ( put nothing else at this stage)       JCI buy these old telecom debts up because sadly so many people wet themselves thinking they are owed and JCI have magical powers...when they don't. the debt is subject to a valid dispute.   there are number threads here regarding them.. https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=JC Talk talk&oq=JC Talk talk&gs_l=partner-generic.3...801398.805115.0.805375.12.12.0.0.0.0.121.799.10j2.12.0.csems%2Cnrl%3D13...0.3728j1478984j13...1.34.partner-generic..12.0.0.zyRD3vNgDww
    • Dear PIXeL_92 It has been explained to you in previous correspondence that the roof tiles that are the subject of your complaint, at the time of inspection were heavily covered in moss. It is in your agreed terms that the surveyor will not carry out an asbestos survey and is not required to scrape away moss if the surface below is obscured. The surveyor will carry out only a visual inspection and comment on defects visible at the time of inspection. Roofs can fail at any time particularly in periods of inclement weather. As stated in your report, the surveyor confirmed that the roof was in a satisfactory condition at the time of inspection therefore would not require replacement in the immediate future. The subject building is a utility building and is not a habitable room of the main property. As previously explained, tiles on an outbuilding of this nature would not affect the property value. You state you would have factored in the cost of removal/replacement into the purchase offer however as advised at the time of inspection the tiles were in a satisfactory condition and you have not sought to replace the tiles in the three years following the date of inspection. This confirms the comments provided by the surveyor. You have previously stated that the roof became damaged due to high winds and the roofing specialist you instructed to replace the broken tiles made you aware of the possibility that the tiles may contain asbestos. However, you have not yet had the tiles tested to confirm the presence of asbestos. Our surveyor revisited your property and confirmed that you have had the damaged roof tiles replaced. A roof that contains asbestos will only become a health and safety risk if it is disturbed and it therefore seems odd that the roofing contractor was happy to replace the tiles if in fact asbestos was present. We understand that raising a complaint and progressing to legal action as you have suggested you wish to do can be a lengthy drawn-out and expensive process with no guarantee of success. If necessary, we will notify our legal team to address this matter on our behalf however, we are happy to attempt to settle this matter in advance to avoid prolonged communications and extending this matter for many more months. In an effort to conclude this matter to the satisfaction of all parties, we shall increase our goodwill offer to £500 in full and final settlement of this matter. This offer will be available until Thursday 27 August 2020. There will be no further offers made after this date. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Walker Dunn MRICS   ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************   Dear Walker Dunn,   Apologies on the delayed reply unfortunately I had to attend to some personal matters that left me unable to reply to emails.   A few points I want to make regarding your previous letter.   You mention at the time of the inspection that the surface of the tiles was covered in moss and obscured the view of the tiles, we however have pictures from when we moved in showing this was not the case, whilst there is moss on the tiles it in no way obscured to the point that the material would have been assessed incorrectly and you can also see the curling of the edges to a large amount of the tiles and this is a characteristic of asbestos.   You state in the report that the roof was in satisfactory condition, however, if the roof was indeed slate that your report indicated this would have been correct however the curled edges of asbestos tiles indicate that they are fatigued and need replacing and that is not satisfactory condition, again the material was not identified correctly at the time of the report.   As for this point "You state you would have factored in the cost of removal/replacement into the purchase offer however as advised at the time of inspection the tiles were in a satisfactory condition and you have not sought to replace the tiles in the three years following the date of inspection. This confirms the comments provided by the surveyor."   We had put away money to have this done, at the time as it was deemed slate in your report we didn't prioritise this as a repair, as you know the roof of the main property was in an awful state and was leaking into the bedroom this took priority along with having all the plumbing in the bathroom replaced as we discovered it was stuffed with kitchen roll under the bath to hide a set of leaking pipes that eventually made its way into the kitchen. We then also had a passing in the family that took us away from the local area for around a month and then my partners dad became homeless due to a gas explosion that destroyed his property so we had to accommodate him for a year and half so most work we had planned got put on hold. This doesn't confirm your comments in your report, this just allows you to assume it did as it wasn't done straight away however this was not the case. We have all the paperwork and invoices to show the above work was done to the main property along with pictures along with all the details surrounding the gas explosion.   We don't agree that part of a building being a habitable room of the main property makes a difference in our case, of course any structure on a property would affect the properties overall value when offers are being made as you make your offer based on the overall property and if you wanted to use the outbuilding for a specific reason you would be more inclined to go for a property that dose have an outbuilding over one that doesn't or if you want another example one with a swimming pool selling for a higher amount as that is considered a premium.   You then say "You have previously stated that the roof became damaged due to high winds and the roofing specialist you instructed to replace the broken tiles made you aware of the possibility that the tiles may contain asbestos. However, you have not yet had the tiles tested to confirm the presence of asbestos."   We had the roofer come and take a look instructing him that we wanted two slate tiles replacing due to us believing at the time the roof was slate based on your report, he then mentioned from a simple visual inspection that they are in fact asbestos. He said he could replace them with two slate tiles but we would have dispose of the two slipped asbestos ones safely as he wasn't licensed to do so, they were removed in a safe manor to avoid cracking them due to how brittle they were.   We have at several times offered to have them tested for you if you would cover the costs of testing if they are in fact asbestos tiles but this simple question has still remained un answered, so for this reason we have now booked a test and this will be added to the costs we will be pursing if and when we are forced to go down the legal route along with all legal cost and the cost of disposal and replacement of the roof, as mentioned before I just wanted the disposal costs covered, but our solicitor has now advised us we should be entitled to have the full costs awarded so we are left in the same place financially along with the roof material matching the report.   Our next step would be to have the test results come back, and send those tests results if they come back as positive with the invoice and three quotes for removal of asbestos to yourselves to decide if you want to cover those costs or if you wish to continue with legal proceedings and as mentioned before if we have to issue legal proceedings we will be asking for all costs to be covered and a complaint to the RICS and Ombudsman will also be issued.   Unfortunately at this point we are rejecting your £500 settlement but if you decided you wanted to settle it without facing any potential legal action or complaint we would settle for the sum of £2000 and that will be the matter resolved, we believe this to be a fair amount as the testing has now cost us £150 and the mid range quote has come in at £1900.   Regards   Robert Atkins   ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************   Dear PIXeL_92 I refer to your email sent on 7th September. I am disappointed and dismayed that you have decided to not accept our very reasonable offer. We have now notified our legal team in preparation should you decide to proceed along the legal route. You have told us you are receiving legal advice, therefore I am sure that your solicitor will have explained to you that in matters of alleged negligence, if the court finds in your favour, they can only make an award on the basis of diminution of value and not the cost of repairs.   Therefore to quantify the diminution in value you would need to obtain a report from another surveying firm that identifies the value of your property three years ago with a slate roof to the outbuilding and the value of the property three years ago with an asbestos roof to the outbuilding. To do this effectively, the surveyor would have to identify comparable properties in the area with and without such roofs to be able to justify his findings. This would be no easy task.   To further complicate matters, the guidelines set out for the court are that they only award losses based upon diminution of value that exceed 5% of the property value, which is considered a reasonable margin of error for surveyor to work within. In this instance therefore, you would be required to identify a loss in excess of £6,000. This figure does not include your legal costs. Because this is a claim for alleged negligence and not for a debt, it is not a matter that can be dealt with by the Small Claims Court, it would have to be heard by a higher court. This would mean we would then be able to claim the costs of our barrister, solicitor and any experts for however many days the hearing lasts, plus you would have your own costs, if you were unable to prove your claim. Once you submit a claim, you are unable to then back out without incurring costs. I hope you find this advice helpful and I am sure that if you present this letter to your solicitor, he will be able to verify whether the above information is correct. We will await your response on how you intend to proceed. Yours sincerely, Colin Walker MRICS
    • Sorry for the text heavy post, we are getting nowhere with them, I need some help deciding our next steps, I have a couple more emails as PDFs that I need to attach below.   Dear PIXel_92, We confirmed in our previous email that our offer would be made available until Friday 14 August 2020. This offer was presented as a gesture of goodwill based on the information you have provided in support of your claim. Thus far, we have not had sight of a Specialist Report confirming the presence of Asbestos or quotations for the required works. Since you have not furnished us with any additional information we are unable to provide any further comments on the matter at this time. If you’re able to provide the requested information we will be happy to review the matter and discuss it further with you. Kind regards, Customer Relations ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Dear Walker Dunn,   I have on two occasions offered to have it tested further than a visual inspection but if it comes back as asbestos you cover the costs, you asked me for the costs involved in getting it tested and you neither agreed to nor declined to cover that cost if it came back as asbestos, again I am happy to have it tested but if it comes back as asbestos to have those costs covered.   I have sent communication from a roofer on headed paper confirming they belive it to be asbestos but they aren't registered to remove it.   I am happy to get three formal quotes written on paper and provide them, I have spoken to a roofer that deals in asbestos that was here to do another job at the time and he said just going off rough size it would be approximately £2000 to remove the roof and dispose of the asbestos. I will get some quotes over the next week and get back to you with them.   Regards ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Dear Walker Dunn,   Could I please get confirmation regarding if you are going to cover the cost of testing if it does come back as positive before I go ahead with it.   I now have 3 quotes for removal of the asbestos too.   My solicitors has also forwarded me this to read through, https://www.rics.org/uk/upholding-professional-standards/regulation/how-we-regulate/disciplinary-process/panel-hearings/disciplinary-panel-hearings/walker-dunn-limited-and-colin-walker/.   This will be our next step going to the RICS / property ombudsman as we seem to be getting nowhere and it has been going on for some time due to you not answering the above question.   If you don't answer it we can get it tested and look at legal action to recover the money at a later date if that's how you want to do it.   Regards **************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************  
    • So you did...should have gone to specsavers......so as this debt is in your name only only a restriction type K can be placed on your share of the equity.   You have still not explain why " you dont actually own any equity "...you can PM if you rather this was not divulged on the open topic....as this may be important and possibly stop any interim charge.....subject to your response.
    • unfortunately, under the statute of limitations Act, that has has been around for probably +100yrs, yes.
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 4 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3870 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

Hello All

My OH signed a WPA in August 2008 at our previous address. The bailiff didn't gain entry and levied on a hired car in the driveway. Nothing other than the car was levied. I have made a complaint to the council as the bailiff has been threatening to come and force entry using a locksmith. The head of revenues/collections at the council spoke to me and said the fact that a hired car was levied is "irrelevant" and that the WPA is valid because my OH signed it! Hallowitch has helped me a lot and I thought I knew my rights after all the reading I've done on this site and the help the caggers have given me. However, I was totally bamboozled by the Head of Revenue's statement that it was irrelevant what was levied as the debtor's signature is all that is needed for the WPA to be valid!! Is it just me or is that a load of b*****ks! I feel I'm going around in circles here.

 

Oh and another thing...I read somewhere (but can't remember where..or even if I flippin dreamt it) that a WPA is only valid for 6 months. Does anyone know if this is the case?

 

Also, the bailiff levied on a brand new car (hired) worth approx £13k for a debt of £400!! Surely it's illegal for a bailiff to levy upon goods which are obviously valued at an amount far in excess of the debt?

Thanks in advance for any replies

x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also point out that this same person accepted an offer of payment to be made weekly direct to the council using online banking and yet I STILL received the bailiffs letter threatening to remove goods tomorrow!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The head of revenues/collections at the council spoke to me and said the fact that a hired car was levied is "irrelevant" and that the WPA is valid because my OH signed it!

 

 

 

of course it its its a load of bull a bailiff can only levy goods belonging to the debtor a hired car does not belong to the debtor

It is very much relevant the reason that goods are levied is to secure goods against payment if the debt is not paid the goods are removed and sold

they cannot remove and sell this car as its a hired car

 

the fact that your OH was duped into signing it is also relevant (as his knowledge of written English is limited)

 

I would get back in touch with The head of revenues/collections and tell him you are not happy with his reply and you are escalating your complaint to the chief executive of the council and the local government ombudsman

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello All

My OH signed a WPA in August 2008 at our previous address. The bailiff didn't gain entry and levied on a hired car in the driveway. Nothing other than the car was levied. I have made a complaint to the council as the bailiff has been threatening to come and force entry using a locksmith. The head of revenues/collections at the council spoke to me and said the fact that a hired car was levied is "irrelevant" and that the WPA is valid because my OH signed it!

 

Of course it was signed under duress!

 

Hallowitch has helped me a lot and I thought I knew my rights after all the reading I've done on this site and the help the caggers have given me. However, I was totally bamboozled by the Head of Revenue's statement that it was irrelevant what was levied as the debtor's signature is all that is needed for the WPA to be valid!! Is it just me or is that a load of b*****ks!

 

Correct

 

I feel I'm going around in circles here.

 

Oh and another thing...I read somewhere (but can't remember where..or even if I flippin dreamt it) that a WPA is only valid for 6 months. Does anyone know if this is the case?

 

From a Post on another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by impecunious viewpost.gif

Just a quick thought - is there a time limit on WPOs being valid? 6 months?

 

If a walking possession has been issued and no payments made under it for a few months then the bailiff almost certainly would be seen to have abandoned the goods and it would therefore no longer be valid.

Also, the bailiff levied on a brand new car (hired) worth approx £13k for a debt of £400!! Surely it's illegal for a bailiff to levy upon goods which are obviously valued at an amount far in excess of the debt?

 

If it's the only thing available then it's held to be acceptable.

 

Thanks in advance for any replies

x

 

As the car was not yours they could never have seized it anyway so I agree with everyone else that the levy was therefore invalid and all charges for it should be removed. I think you may have to force the issue here by saying you now indeed are going to submit a claim into the County Court naming Bailiffs and Council as defendants. One way of doing this is to fill in Form N1 on the HMCS website, print it out, scan it and send a copy to both Council and Bailiffs. Then give them 7 days.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello All

My OH signed a WPA in August 2008 at our previous address.

 

- then the WPA is invalid at your new address.

 

The bailiff didn't gain entry and levied on a hired car in the driveway.

 

- hire car not yours - so its not a valid levy.

 

Nothing other than the car was levied. I have made a complaint to the council as the bailiff has been threatening to come and force entry using a locksmith.

 

- levy is invalid on 2 counts - he cant do that.

 

The head of revenues/collections at the council spoke to me and said the fact that a hired car was levied is "irrelevant" and that the WPA is valid because my OH signed it! Hallowitch has helped me a lot and I thought I knew my rights after all the reading I've done on this site and the help the caggers have given me. However, I was totally bamboozled by the Head of Revenue's statement that it was irrelevant what was levied as the debtor's signature is all that is needed for the WPA to be valid!! Is it just me or is that a load of b*****ks! I feel I'm going around in circles here.

 

Oh and another thing...I read somewhere (but can't remember where..or even if I flippin dreamt it) that a WPA is only valid for 6 months. Does anyone know if this is the case?

 

Also, the bailiff levied on a brand new car (hired) worth approx £13k for a debt of £400!! Surely it's illegal for a bailiff to levy upon goods which are obviously valued at an amount far in excess of the debt?

Thanks in advance for any replies

x

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I should also point out that this same person accepted an offer of payment to be made weekly direct to the council using online banking and yet I STILL received the bailiffs letter threatening to remove goods tomorrow!

 

- cause the bailiff wants his fees,

 

tough!!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
did The head of revenues/collections say anything about the 2nd levy for the same debt

 

 

Hey Hallowitch, No the Head of Revenues skirted that issue...kept changing the subject when I brought it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

time for a screen shot from the bailiff then!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dx

 

Hi dx, are you absolutely certain the levy/WPA is invalid at the new address?? I questioned this with the Head of Revenues & Collection at council and he said the address is "irrelevant" (really seems to like that word!) as my hubby signed the WPA it's "valid at any address where we reside"..now this sounds like another load of old you-know-what to me. Not only do the bailiffs misrepresent their powers but the council are at it as well/

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you had a reply to your complaint in writing

 

The main point is (regardless of the address on the WPO ) the bailiff has never been in your house both Levy's were done on goods outside your house he has no legal right to enter your property with or without a locksmith

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi dx, are you absolutely certain the levy/WPA is invalid at the new address?? I questioned this with the Head of Revenues & Collection at council and he said the address is "irrelevant" (really seems to like that word!) as my hubby signed the WPA it's "valid at any address where we reside"..now this sounds like another load of old you-know-what to me. Not only do the bailiffs misrepresent their powers but the council are at it as well/

 

This must be Enid Blytons Grandson then? he's certainly a chip of the old block,, he tells as good a fairy story as his grandma.

 

Head of Revenues & Collection well he should know what he is talking about but clearly doesn't. I would suggest you write to him and tell him his comments are b... s... and therefore "irrelevent"

 

WD

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites
have you had a reply to your complaint in writing

 

The main point is (regardless of the address on the WPO ) the bailiff has never been in your house both Levy's were done on goods outside your house he has no legal right to enter your property with or without a locksmith

 

Hi Hallowitch

I've had a response to my complaint but not to the letter you helped me with. THe Head of Revenues from the council rang me at home and asked "couldn't we sort this out on the phone instead of writing back and fore?"..I responded that although I was happy to talk I still require a WRITTEN response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hallowitch

I've had a response to my complaint but not to the letter you helped me with. The Head of Revenues from the council rang me at home and asked "couldn't we sort this out on the phone instead of writing back and fore?"..I responded that although I was happy to talk I still require a WRITTEN response.

 

 

good for you it will be a very interesting letter

did he say when you would receive it

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Hallowitch

I've had a response to my complaint but not to the letter you helped me with. The Head of Revenues from the council rang me at home and asked "couldn't we sort this out on the phone instead of writing back and fore?"..I responded that although I was happy to talk I still require a WRITTEN response.

 

 

good for you it will be a very interesting letter

did he say when you would receive it

 

 

 

 

No, he didn't. But I shall give him seven days and then write to CEO again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi eliza2705, of course the Head of Revenues would like to sort this out on the phone. No nasty written record of his/her incredible incompetence!

Did I see Hallowitch mention your OH's written English is poor? [From another thread I guess], then I suggest that the all knowledgeable one at the council will be familiar with and working to the National Standards of Enforcement Agents which clearly advises that a person might be deemed vulnerable where they have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.

I'd suggest hitting them with that as well, if not already done so...

Best wishes.

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the guy from the Council reiterates his mumblings ask him what case law he depending on for his comments and what part of any Statute says this. The chances are he is learning the Laws of Bailiffs from the Bailiff and we all know how straight in bed they lie.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
... The chances are he is learning the Laws of Bailiffs from the Bailiff and we all know how straight in bed they lie...

 

I've never been in bed with a bailiff! :eek:

 

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello All

My OH signed a WPA in August 2008 at our previous address. The bailiff didn't gain entry and levied on a hired car in the driveway. Nothing other than the car was levied. I have made a complaint to the council as the bailiff has been threatening to come and force entry using a locksmith. The head of revenues/collections at the council spoke to me and said the fact that a hired car was levied is "irrelevant" and that the WPA is valid because my OH signed it! Hallowitch has helped me a lot and I thought I knew my rights after all the reading I've done on this site and the help the caggers have given me. However, I was totally bamboozled by the Head of Revenue's statement that it was irrelevant what was levied as the debtor's signature is all that is needed for the WPA to be valid!! Is it just me or is that a load of b*****ks! I feel I'm going around in circles here.

 

Oh and another thing...I read somewhere (but can't remember where..or even if I flippin dreamt it) that a WPA is only valid for 6 months. Does anyone know if this is the case?

 

Also, the bailiff levied on a brand new car (hired) worth approx £13k for a debt of £400!! Surely it's illegal for a bailiff to levy upon goods which are obviously valued at an amount far in excess of the debt?

Thanks in advance for any replies

x

 

Having just been thru all this, and ended up making myself insolvent, I have a few gems from the Insolvency services website for you.

 

1) Only property BELONGING to the debtor can be removed by a Bailiff, in the event that it is under a Hire Purchase agreement, ownership has to be established afterwards by the HP company.

 

Which does NOT apply in this case, it is a HIRED car, borrowed for "the day", so it is the same as them taking next doors car because they couldn't find your car.

 

As for £400 VS £13k , no they are allowed to levy up to 10 times the value of the court order to allow for auction sale values, which would be £4k and a MUCH older car.

 

2B honest, I'd let them take the hire car and tell the hire company, while laughing as the Bailiffs get bogged down in court actions.

 

But Bailiffs will tell you anything to get what they want, they assume we are all idiots and think they can run off with our possessions, but after talking to a Court officer they have VERY, VERY limited powers indeed... But they will say anything they can to convince you otherwise

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for £400 VS £13k , no they are allowed to levy up to 10 times the value of the court order to allow for auction sale values, which would be £4k and a MUCH older car.

very interestring you wouldnt happen to know where this is written, as im sure it would be useful for future reference:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your support and advice. I'll keep you updated as to what happens next. No bailiffs have shown up so far, despite their threat to come with a van in 24 hours. Can't help thinking that this is all so unnecessary...terrorising people for a few quid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for £400 VS £13k , no they are allowed to levy up to 10 times the value of the court order to allow for auction sale values, which would be £4k and a MUCH older car.

 

 

 

very interestring you wouldnt happen to know where this is written, as im sure it would be useful for future reference:)

 

Sorry have to disagree on this see below:

the bailiff has levied excessively.

This means that the value of the goods seized from you is more than the amount of the debt, or that you have paid an excessive amount to the bailiff. If more money is raised at auction than the debt, (this includes the fees, the cost or removing your goods and the cost of selling them), the balance should be returned to you. A levy is not excessive if there are no other goods that can be seized.

Taken from a list of Complaints that may be filed for a Form 4 under Grounds for Complaint

 

Bailiffs: Complaint about Certified Bailiff - Consumer Wiki

 

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...