Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • why waste money on scammers? all you need in law is to prove something was sent. use a 2nd class stamp and get free proof of posting from any po counter. dx  
    • Tracked is NOT necessary. 1st or 2nd class will suffice. Just make sure you obtain free proof of posting and KEEP IT SOMEWHERE SAFE...
    • I've given it a try, I expect alot of work required so will give my eyes and brain a rest as I'm getting word blind.. and I'll come back later following your initial bashings Thanks IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;   I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. 4. The Claimant claims a Notice of Assignment was served on the 22/02/2022. This is denied. 5. The Claimant claims a Default Notice was served on the defendant. This is denied. 6. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 7. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. 8. Point 3 is noted and denied. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 9. Point 5 is noted and disputed. 10. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked *** The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 11. Point 11 is noted and disputed. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. 12. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** (dates are wrong) 13. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 14. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. Conclusion 15. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 16. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 17. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter into settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter into such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment. Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • 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

What fees can a High Court Enforcement Officer charge if they are unable to levy on goods?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5015 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

FI and Dan

The police are looking at fraud very seriously, It took a few letters and thanks to Happy contrails and nintendo pu and some persisitance on my part, the the template letters worked!!

 

The press will hear about it soon enough

 

The actual enforcing officer is potentially in a lot of trouble especially as 2 visits were charged for and only one made!!!

Also there have been admissions of "mistakes being made" but no apologies or reimbursemment to me with a fight

 

I was hoping that our local hce and fair and balanced could comment

 

I am not letting this go!!!

 

onlyme

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

@ohitsonlyme:

 

I would need to be given (by PM) a detailed breakdown of your case. When the visits were made, details of paperwork left, and the full fee breakdown that you were given (DO NOT INCLUDE YOUR PERSONAL DETAILS OR ANY REFERENCE NUMBERS). I'll take a look at the case.

 

@forkit : I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about your dealings with the HCEO's you have used. You seem disappointed and suspicious.

 

@danboy381 - Innocent until proven guilty. You don't have a full understanding of the case. Please don't brand everyone with the same iron in the HCE Industry. I would like to demonstrate over time that the majority are very fair.

Provider of case history to encourage adherence of the High Court Enforcement Regulations 2004.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

F&B, I am a buy-to-let landord trading the low-income and social housing market, most of my properties are flats, some our houses and multi-occupancy properties. Its common to have tenants abscond without paying their rent and I used to use the county court system for debt recovery with bailiff enforcement. court bailiffs only visit a judgment address and return the case goneaway or no goods. the High Court officers want upfront fees before visit the debtor, then I hear nothing for months until the HCEO returns asking for more fees, tracing costs etc. it accomplishes nothing. Now I just sell the debts at 50% and re-let the property.

 

I am also on the receiving end of bailiffs, many have seized my chattels out of a buy to let property. I just replace the goods, re-let the property and charge the work to the council. Everytime the case progresses litigation, the council defends resulting in judgement, the council then charges it on to the bailiff company. Its usually council tax and parking, and a lesser extent court fines.

Professional property investor and conveyancer

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to demonstrate over time that the majority are very fair.

 

Im sure you can, but the majority of cases dont end up here, only the most serious cases get exposed on internet forums and advice groups.

Professional property investor and conveyancer

Link to post
Share on other sites

F&B, I am a buy-to-let landord trading the low-income and social housing market

 

This would be why HCEO's and Bailiffs have little luck in your circumstance. The defendants lack of assets provides no leverage to secure payment. Tracing does cost money, yes, but is also a cost to us in pursuing the defendant. That is why you have more success in selling the debt - they will take their costs out of the debt for tracing and have no impact on you.

 

Your client status is the reason why Bailiff / HCEO action has failed. They have nothing to lose by non-payment. Have you considered credit-checking your clients or offering 12 month lets?

Edited by Fair&Balanced
Grammatical error

Provider of case history to encourage adherence of the High Court Enforcement Regulations 2004.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are all clean, until they start paying rent. All new lets are temporary tenancies.

 

the problem tenants arent the ones who get bailiffed because I can approach the guarantor. the vetting process is comprehensive and any questionable tenants who cant put forward a security are refused.

Professional property investor and conveyancer

Link to post
Share on other sites

the answer is f*ck all only me, you should have called the Police and they should have arrested the hceo for fraud and theft, and the court should have had him locked up. for a long time.

 

In addition, the Police should have turned his domestic residence upside down looking for, and seizing all goods in connection with the proceeds of crime act, because there would be a possibility that he has done this time and time again. This is what should happen to all hceos/bailiffs that can't help but steal.

 

Brilliant Dan. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police are looking at fraud very seriously.

 

The press will hear about it soon enough

 

The actual enforcing officer is potentially in a lot of trouble

 

Also there have been admissions of "mistakes being made" but no apologies or reimbursemment to me with a fight.

 

I was hoping that our local hce and fair and balanced could comment

 

I am not letting this go!!!

 

onlyme

 

Onlyme, you, danboy and letfightbailiffs have been spouting this tripe for ages.

 

Ooooh the Police..... Oooh the press..... And nothing.

 

Just face the fact that you got caught avoiding paying a debt you owed. What about the creditor you sticthed up, ever had a thought for them....

 

OK, so you won some money back on a technicality. Well done.

 

Now please, stop giving it the holyer than thou cobblers and wake up.

 

You and your apparent many many friends...... yawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a buy-to-let landord trading the low-income and social housing market

 

Fork It, I sympathise with your experience. But I must advise that you're debtors are nearly impossible to collect from. If anybody can, it will be the HCEO, but I would be surpirised if they collected from 1 in 10.

 

HCEO's have been flooded with debts like this over the last few years. A common one is college fees for foriegn students. Try getting £8k from a student sharing a tenth floor flat in Camden with 5 others. A waste of everybodies time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HCE - I welcome your contributions to this forum, but as for your contempt for ohitsonlyme & co...

 

... they may have the last laugh.

 

This is asymmetric warfare. The big guy (you lot - supported by the system) can win and win, but ultimately the underdog, like the terrorist, only has to win once. Any success on their (our) part can act as a template, propagated across the internet - just like a modern day guerrilla campaign.

 

Watch this space....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Onlyme, you, danboy and letfightbailiffs have been spouting this tripe for ages.

 

Ooooh the Police..... Oooh the press..... And nothing.

I haven spokne to the press yet and if your were to ask your friend you will know the investigation is still ongoing

 

Just face the fact that you got caught avoiding paying a debt you owed. What about the creditor you sticthed up, ever had a thought for them....

I didnt stitch them up I simply couldnt pay them at the time and they wouldnt wait any longer

 

OK, so you won some money back on a technicality. Well done.

 

Now please, stop giving it the holyer than thou cobblers and wake up.

 

You and your apparent many many friends...... yawn.

 

Hce I really have touched a nerve havent I ???

 

Soo sorry I should have taken my own advice and ignored you and the drivel that you come out with

I didnt win some money back on a technicality unless of course disallowed fees and visits is counted as a technicality and a master in the high court felt sorry for me oh and A DI in the economic crime unit is just humouring me.

I am sure crafty Bodger will have told you he is still recieving calls from the police

You know as well as I do that overcharging is rife in your industry, I had given many an opportunity for SF to put matters right but they havent so they will have to be forced to do so. It was them trying to stitich me up.

 

You never give any advice to support your unbiassed opinion all you can do is snipe at people and use your own version of holier than thou

 

All that you do is take the threads away from the original theme in this case What are the fees that can be charged when a levy didnt take place?

 

This is a serious question that you havent bothered answerring.

 

I will follow my own advice and ignore you again in future.

 

Onlyme

Link to post
Share on other sites

HCE - I welcome your contributions to this forum, but as for your contempt for ohitsonlyme & co...

 

... they may have the last laugh.

 

This is asymmetric warfare. The big guy (you lot - supported by the system) can win and win, but ultimately the underdog, like the terrorist, only has to win once. Any success on their (our) part can act as a template, propagated across the internet - just like a modern day guerrilla campaign.

 

Watch this space....

 

Debtors / Defendants are not heroes. The money outstanding is at cost to someone else. You celebrate a victory while forgetting the broken lives of those you owe.

 

Just remember those to which money is owed that have lost their livelihoods, businesses, own houses , and have suffered severe family consequences because they were owed so much money. I see it every day.

 

I don't support unfair operating practices by bailiffs or HCEO's. However we have a role to play in the Justice system of this country, and indeed there would be anarchy without us. We reintroduce over £30 million into the economy each year in collected debt.

 

"They may have the last laugh" - ironic that you seek knowledge from those you so detest. I am here to help, but please don't insult. Without us you would have very little technical help.

Provider of case history to encourage adherence of the High Court Enforcement Regulations 2004.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debtors / Defendants are not heroes. The money outstanding is at cost to someone else. You celebrate a victory while forgetting the broken lives of those you owe.

 

Just remember those to which money is owed that have lost their livelihoods, businesses, own houses , and have suffered severe family consequences because they were owed so much money. I see it every day.

 

I don't support unfair operating practices by bailiffs or HCEO's. However we have a role to play in the Justice system of this country, and indeed there would be anarchy without us. We reintroduce over £30 million into the economy each year in collected debt.

 

"They may have the last laugh" - ironic that you seek knowledge from those you so detest. I am here to help, but please don't insult. Without us you would have very little technical help.

 

Fair and Balanced in name and opinion.

 

Well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair and balanced

 

I don't recall insulting anyone, and avoidance of debt is not my 'game'.

 

I strongly believe in the principal that people who operate under the title of Court Officer and approved by a judge, should behave in a manner beyond reproach.

 

In reality i have found that at least half of the bailiffs i have had contact with are no more than doorstep fraudsters - with a badge.

 

Worse still, local authorities, the police and courts couldn't care less.

 

If you believe in (and even uphold) the rule of law, how could you tolerate the current situation?

 

( fair do's - you're here helping)

 

For the record, i don't avoid paying anyone. I've had a few debts (mainly rates) in 12 years of a small manufacturing business peddling against the flow of imports. The other 80% of contact with bailiffs was for a joint tenant of my premises who did a 'runner' for about £150,000!!

 

That was an education i tell you!

 

People who haven't payed me because of bereavement, loss of job / business - i wouldn't dream of setting the dogs on them.

 

Just had to get that off my chest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest DebtWeary
Debtors / Defendants are not heroes. The money outstanding is at cost to someone else. You celebrate a victory while forgetting the broken lives of those you owe.

 

Just remember those to which money is owed that have lost their livelihoods, businesses, own houses , and have suffered severe family consequences because they were owed so much money. I see it every day.

 

I think the majority of those who seek help here dealing with HCEOs are those whose debt is with larger organisations. As someone who has been self-employed, I know the difficulties of getting payment from debtors. Unfortunately, the worst payers are usually the big outfits - the same kind of companies and organisations that tend to employ HCEOs. I don't see them suffering any form of hardship.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to portray debtors as heroes. The reasons for getting into debt are many and varied. Unless you've been there, you cannot know the effect it has - on every aspect of your life. I find the judgemental and sanctimonious comments in this thread highly offensive and they do nothing to clarify the rights of those who are being fleeced by greedy, bullying HCEO outfits who abuse their position and exploit debtors through fear. There wouldn't be so many posts here about unscrupulous HCEOs if they acted properly, within the rules laid down for their behaviour. The fact is, some don't, they deliberately flout these rules, encouraged apparently by the judiciary in some cases.

 

Being in debt is not a crime, even though this government is trying very hard to criminalise it. The law on enforcement should target the "won't pays", not the "can't pays" who are represented on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest DebtWeary
Enforcement should target the "havent paid".

 

That so typifies the HCEO attitude, tar everyone with the same brush and assume that they are deliberately withholding payment that is due. The truth is, many simply can't pay, and their problem is compounded by the addition of outrageous HCEO fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hce I really have touched a nerve havent I ???

 

Soo sorry I should have taken my own advice and ignored you and the drivel that you come out with

I didnt win some money back on a technicality unless of course disallowed fees and visits is counted as a technicality and a master in the high court felt sorry for me oh and A DI in the economic crime unit is just humouring me.

I am sure crafty Bodger will have told you he is still recieving calls from the police

You know as well as I do that overcharging is rife in your industry, I had given many an opportunity for SF to put matters right but they havent so they will have to be forced to do so. It was them trying to stitich me up.

 

You never give any advice to support your unbiassed opinion all you can do is snipe at people and use your own version of holier than thou

 

All that you do is take the threads away from the original theme in this case What are the fees that can be charged when a levy didnt take place?

 

This is a serious question that you havent bothered answerring.

 

I will follow my own advice and ignore you again in future.

 

Onlyme

 

Spot on

 

The chages laid on OnlyMe, myself and many others are nothing more than legitamised robbery

 

F and B, I think you are actually being reasonable in your approach, but from what I've seen on here (and heard in the "real world") those HCEO's charging reasonable fees are in a minority

 

HCEO's are abusing Section 12 of HCEO Regs 2004 to charge absolutely unjustifiable amounts, fact

 

As for HCE, it baffles me that he is still given access to this forum - if fees are questioned he just falls back on Reg 12, time and again

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

wont be long everyone i will publish this fools address and we can all pop round his for a cuppa and ask him face to face - i'm sure a few people knocking on his door will be fun - he pushes things too far on here...

 

ncf - he cant answer this posts question because he doesn't know. Come on, you're asking someone to look into the future on a job that hasn't happened, as we all know HCE makes it all up on the day - show me one that doesnt.

Edited by danboy381

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DB,

 

the comment on HCE was more general on his overall posts, but yes, make it all up I would agree

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...