Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you very much for your letter in regard to the above mentioned shipment.  Due to the high volume of parcels coursing through the courier network each day, undergoing continuous processing and handling, certain packages may experience delays or even can get lost in the course of this journey. Please note that due to the time that has passed, this shipment has been declared as lost.  I have today processed the claim and made offers to the value of £75 as a goodwill gesture without prejudice. I do acknowledge that you have mentioned in your letter that the value was higher, however, you did not take out any protection to that amount. The protection for this shipment was £20 and we will not be increasing our goodwill offer any further.    Please log into your account online in order to accept our offer. Once accepted, our accounts department will process the claim accordingly. The claim payment will be processed and received within 7 working days.                                  In addition, a refund of the carriage fee will be processed as a separate payment and will be received within 3 working days.  If I can further assist, please feel free to contact me.   I have also just noticed that yesterday afternoon they sent me an email stating that "after my request" they have refunded the cost of shipping. I did not request the refund so will mention that in my letter as well.
    • Hi I had to leave Dubai back in 2011, during the financial crisis. And only now have I received a letter from IDRWW. Is this anything to worry about about as I have 2 years left until it’s been 15 years(statute barred in Dubai). Worried as just got a mortgage 2 years ago. Could they force me in to bankruptcy? Red lots of different threads on here. And unsure what true and what isn’t. 
    • Not that TOR will see this now he's thrown in the hand grenade. Rayner has plenty of female supporters on X, for a start. As for the council and HMRC, fair enough and I thought Rayner was already in touch with them. That's where it should be dealt with, not the police force. @tobyjugg2 Daniel Finkelstein thinks the same as you about tax. The Fiver theory. How the Fiver Theory explains this election campaign ARCHIVE.PH archived 28 May 2024 17:36:51 UTC  
    • Often with the Likes of Lowells/ Overdales that 'proof' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.   Think about it like a game of poker, they want to intimidate you into folding and giving up as soon as possible, and just get you to pay up and roll over, that is their business model, make you think your cards are rubbish. What they don't expect, and their business isn't set up for it, is for a defendant to find this place and to learn that they have an amazing set of cards to play. Overdales don't have an infinite number of lawyers, paralegals etc, and the time / money to spend on expensive court cases, that they are highly likely to lose, hence how hard they will try to get you to roll over.  Even to the extent of faking documents, which they need to do because the debts that they purchased were so cheap, in the first place. Nevertheless it works in most cases, most people chicken out, when they are so close to winning, and a holding defence is like slowly showing Overdales your first card, and a marker of intention that this could get tricky for them. In fact it may be,  although by no means guaranteed that it won't even go any further than that.  Even if it does, what they send you back will almost certainly have more holes than Swiss Cheese, and if with the help you receive here, you can identify those weaknesses and get the whole thing tossed in the bin.
    • So Rayner who is don’t forget still being investigated by the local council and HMRC  is now begging to save her seat Not a WOMAN in sight in this video other than Rayner  Farage is utterly correct this country’s values are non existent in her seat   Rayner Pleads With Muslim Voters as Pressure From Galloway Grows – Guido Fawkes ORDER-ORDER.COM Guido has obtained a leaked tape from inside a meeting between Angela Rayner and Muslim voters in Ashton-under-Lyne...  
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5133 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

hi all, i have recently been visited by a bailiff to collect on council tax arears, what i need to know is, on the first visit i let him in to the house, anyway on the fees i can see he has charged me a first visit fee and also a levy fee both on the same visit(first visit.) is this correct as as far as i can see he shouldnt be charging me the first visit fee as he has charged the levy fee, is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all, i have recently been visited by a bailiff to collect on council tax arears, what i need to know is, on the first visit i let him in to the house, anyway on the fees i can see he has charged me a first visit fee and also a levy fee both on the same visit(first visit.) is this correct as as far as i can see he shouldnt be charging me the first visit fee as he has charged the levy fee, is this correct?

 

If he has been in and done a levy on your goods it may pat to list on here what he has seized as some of the items on your list may be exempt in which case the levy will be invalid and the charges should be removed.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the prompt replies, here is some more detail,

called on 11/3/20010 to collect council tax arrears, i let him in the house,

original sum owed to council £338.55,

1st visit fee £22.50,

levi fee(against my car) £33.00,

walking possession £11.00,

total now due £405.05.

 

is it right to charge me the 1st visit fee and the levi fee on the same visit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cant charge a visit fee the same day as a levy /walking possession fee

 

please check to see if this bailiff is certificated the fees he is charging went out out with the ark a visit fee is now £24.50 and a walking possession fee is £12

 

 

 

www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/CertificatedBailiffs/

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cant charge a visit fee the same day as a levy /walking possession fee

 

please check to see if this bailiff is certificated the fees he is charging went out out with the ark a visit fee is now £24.50 and a walking possession fee is £12

 

 

 

www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/CertificatedBailiffs/

 

Thanks for the reply, i have checked his cetificate and it is valid, is this definetly the case for the 1st visit fee and the levi fee being charged on the same visit because if so i am about to file a form 4 complaint to the county court that issued his certificate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't file a form 4 yet you must go through the council and the baillifs complaints procedure first to give them the opportunity to correct there mistake

 

For making a visit to premises with a view to

Levying distress (where no levy is made) - (i) where the visit is the first or only such visit): £24.50

 

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/docs/Enforcement_Agent_Charges.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't file a form 4 yet you must go through the council and the baillifs complaints procedure first to give them the opportunity to correct there mistake

 

For making a visit to premises with a view to

Levying distress (where no levy is made) - (i) where the visit is the first or only such visit): £24.50

 

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/docs/Enforcement_Agent_Charges.pdf

 

Thank you very very much hallowitch, just contacted the bailiffs office, stated the facts to them and they denied it all the way, then stated to them some of the information you just provided me with and told them if it wasnt resolved i will be filling a form 4 complaint, put me on hold and surprise surprise they came back on the phone full of appologies saying were really sorry the bailiff has made an error and we will remove the first visit fee immediately. give me so much pleasure as the bailiff was so cocky and arrogant when he attended, ha!!!.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done bet that wiped the smile of his face :lol::lol:

 

have you made an arrangement to pay this must be done in writing and stuck to as they have a levy they will be looking for a way to charge you a van fee

 

Yes an arrangement has been made and will be stuck to, don't want to give them any excuses to come back.

 

And thanks again for all your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes an arrangement has been made and will be stuck to, don't want to give them any excuses to come back.

 

And thanks again for all your help.

 

Good to hear that this is resolved. UNLESS you now keep to the payment plan the bailiff can return to your property and charge an "attending to remove" fee to your account. The key is therefore to ensure that your payments are made BEFORE the due date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

hi again all, the very same bailiff has just returned today to collect on an old council tax bill (seperate from the one above) but the exact same circumstances but this time i was out. he left a letter, first visit fee £22.50, levi fee £30,

this is his first visit in relation to this account so for a start the first visit fee is unlawfull again! but he has again levied against my car but the thing is he has already levied against my car on the first account which is still in place- can he do this?

what should i do about this as i have already spoken to them and had the charges removed from the first account, but the very same bailiff has done it again which leads me to believe that they are doing this to every account that gets passed to them and making a fortune unlawfully. what can i do?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you already know and have successfully argued they cannot have a levy and a vist fee at the same time. If the previous levy on your vehicle is still current then he cannot levy on the same goods again. In this case the levy fee + associated charges should be replaced by a 1st Visit fee of £24-50. I would also advise the Council they have done this.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you already know and have successfully argued they cannot have a levy and a vist fee at the same time. If the previous levy on your vehicle is still current then he cannot levy on the same goods again. In this case the levy fee + associated charges should be replaced by a 1st Visit fee of £24-50. I would also advise the Council they have done this.

 

PT

hi pt thanks for the reply, that is what i thought i will be on the phone to the bailiff's office and the council first thing monday morning.

will let you know how i get on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

interestingly enough the £24.50 1st, £18.00 2nd, and £12.00 wp etc are the maximium charges applicible to fees regarding each case/visit.

so, a bailiff company could in theory charge less than the usual max charges most companies use. so the fees could be correct. apart from adding the visit and levy at the same time.

could the company have visited before and this is why the 1st visit has been added on? or perhaps the company could have sent a letter through the post and claimed a visit took place? (i know for a fact this is how equita work)

it may be worth asking your local council when the liability orders were passed over to the bailiff company as well, because in some council areas if there are multiple files the company are only allowed to charge a visit fee on 1 account, but if the bailiffs visit on a different day with a different liability order they can add seperate fees, so, if they were given to the bailiff company on the same day, the visits that were seperate should of been done together, and therefore the bailiff company are trying their luck by adding 2 seperate fees.

also i think you would be wasting your time by putting a form 4 complaint against the bailiff, he could claim it is a mistake and it wouldnt go anywhere, you are best off just sticking to the payment plan set.

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

spoken to them today and they are adamant that they can levy against the same goods twice, even though the first levi is still current and valid.

any ideas?

 

rubbish

 

once goods are Levyed (your car) they do not belong to you they belong to local authority who instructed to bailiff to take walking possession of them

 

 

 

read your notice of seizure on it near the bottom there should be a Walking possession agreement somewhere on this part there should be words to the effect of

 

 

I will inform any person who may seek to levy any other distress or execution that you are

already in possession of the property distrained upon and I will inform you of any such visit;

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto

 

I've seen several bailiffs turn round, walk out, never to be seen again when shown a walking possession agreement from a previous bailiff visit - for the very reason HW states.

I understand what your saying guys, i know this as do you, but how can i enforce it when they blatently deny it? any help appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...