Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • 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 5146 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...