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

OHs unpaid Parking Ticket Fine and Swift Bailiffs Fees


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5149 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

EX345 - HMCS clearly states this below

 

Fees charged by Bailiffs/Enforcement Officers

 

Civilian enforcement officers (CEO’S) Magistrates’ Courts — are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined. However, additional costs for removing and selling goods may be added to the amount you owe.

 

BUT IT ALSO STATES THIS

There is no statutory scale of fees for bailiffs enforcing magistrates’ courts fines. You can contact the magistrates’ court direct and ask for the agreed scale of fees that bailiffs can charge.

 

I assume the fee's referred to in the above statement are for the removal and selling of goods, not the visit, seizure or letters ?

 

Have you spoke to the court and found out the agreed scale of fee's the baliff can charge, if there is not an agreed fee for seizure then they cant charge, if there is an agreed fee for seizing goods then they can charge. How come they charged you £50 for a letter when it is not on their fee advice sheet they gave you ? You need to check and see if the court agree's that £50 can be charged for a letter as well....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

iirc £50 was the old letter fee, which would seem correct for the time of correspondence. I believe it's now gone up to £75. The reason I comment is simply that I fail to see how anyone can justify fifty quid for writing a letter let alone the increase!

Best wishes

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had a look at the Seizure Notice I would make the following comments:

 

Under the Items noted I assume 1 is a Jaguar car and line 2 had the details for it - were they correct?

On 5, 6, 8 & 9 it lists various items of furniture - namely seating, I assume if these had been taken you would have been left with nothing to sit on + how many in your household?

10 lists a microwave - did you have any alternative means of cooking?

 

In the main the arguing points will be about your seating, if there is no where left to sit after these items may have been removed then that would render your Seizure invalid and therefore the charges for the seizure would also have to be removed.

 

I may have missed this bit - have you already paid this off? It will probably be a bit of letter tennis but think you have more than a strong case for further action.

 

PT

Thanks for your comments and information.

 

The Jaguar - yes the details were correct. I blanked out the registration number.

 

With regard to seating, there are four of us in the family : myself, my wife and two children aged 22 and 20. The 22 year old was staying with us at the time; the 20 year old is at a local Univercity and tends to drop back in at weekends and occassionally in the week (as well as staying with us outside term time).

 

In addition to the room where the bailiff levied on furniture, we also have a small sitting room (which the bailiff did not see or enter). It has a 2 seater sofa and two small chairs. We rarely use this room and cannot comfortably sit there as a family. It tends to be used by our 2 children when they have friends visiting them.

 

As for the microwave. yes we do have alternative cooking facilities.

 

With regard to the fees - yes I did pay them. After the bailiff tricked his way in, he then said that he could not take payment later. Since we had no cash or access to quick cash, we were forced to call an elderly relative and ask him to pay using his card.

Edited by gramtrad2
missed something
Link to post
Share on other sites

EX345 - HMCS clearly states this below

 

Fees charged by Bailiffs/Enforcement Officers

 

Civilian enforcement officers (CEO’S) Magistrates’ Courts — are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined. However, additional costs for removing and selling goods may be added to the amount you owe.

 

BUT IT ALSO STATES THIS

There is no statutory scale of fees for bailiffs enforcing magistrates’ courts fines. You can contact the magistrates’ court direct and ask for the agreed scale of fees that bailiffs can charge.

 

I assume the fee's referred to in the above statement are for the removal and selling of goods, not the visit, seizure or letters ?

 

Have you spoke to the court and found out the agreed scale of fee's the baliff can charge, if there is not an agreed fee for seizure then they cant charge, if there is an agreed fee for seizing goods then they can charge. How come they charged you £50 for a letter when it is not on their fee advice sheet they gave you ? You need to check and see if the court agree's that £50 can be charged for a letter as well....

 

Thanks, this is an angle that I missed. I will call them on Tuesday and post the details here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

iirc £50 was the old letter fee, which would seem correct for the time of correspondence. I believe it's now gone up to £75. The reason I comment is simply that I fail to see how anyone can justify fifty quid for writing a letter let alone the increase!

Best wishes

Rae.

Agreed. It is outrageous.

 

Since the time of the incident, Swift now quote £85 admin fee! I guess that this is easier for them to justify than a fee for sending a letter!

 

I am taking a closer look at fees as a result of advice in another post. I will be telephoning the court on Tuesday in an attempt to clarify what fees Swift can charge and in what exact circumstances. In my case, they made a charge for seizure but did not remove any goods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. It is outrageous.

 

Since the time of the incident, Swift now quote £85 admin fee! I guess that this is easier for them to justify than a fee for sending a letter!

 

I am taking a closer look at fees as a result of advice in another post. I will be telephoning the court on Tuesday in an attempt to clarify what fees Swift can charge and in what exact circumstances. In my case, they made a charge for seizure but did not remove any goods.

 

 

Quick update : Have asked Courts for a breakdown of agreed charges. They came back to me today and said that they would seek them out and supply the same on Monday afternoon.

 

I will up date this thread just as soon as I have that information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EX345 - HMCS clearly states this below

 

Fees charged by Bailiffs/Enforcement Officers

 

Civilian enforcement officers (CEO’S) Magistrates’ Courts — are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined. However, additional costs for removing and selling goods may be added to the amount you owe.

 

BUT IT ALSO STATES THIS

There is no statutory scale of fees for bailiffs enforcing magistrates’ courts fines. You can contact the magistrates’ court direct and ask for the agreed scale of fees that bailiffs can charge.

 

I assume the fee's referred to in the above statement are for the removal and selling of goods, not the visit, seizure or letters ?

 

Have you spoke to the court and found out the agreed scale of fee's the baliff can charge, if there is not an agreed fee for seizure then they cant charge, if there is an agreed fee for seizing goods then they can charge. How come they charged you £50 for a letter when it is not on their fee advice sheet they gave you ? You need to check and see if the court agree's that £50 can be charged for a letter as well....

 

I asked the court to supply a copy of the agreed fees and have uploaded the same.

 

It states that there is a fee of £210 for seizure and also a letter fee of £50, which is exactly what I am disputing.

 

Since, technically they did seize the goods, my guess is that I may now be blown out on this one.

 

The only possibility, from recent comments, is an incorrect seizure, which I have commented on in an earlier post, and that looks a bit tenuous.

 

Is my case now dead? I am thinking so, but an expert opinion would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks.

scan of bailiff charges supplied by the court.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fees being charged by Swift are CORRECT.

 

HMCS agreed new contracts with Swift, Marston Group, Philips and Excel Enforcement that took effect on 1st December and this provided for increased bailiff fees.

 

Clearly, you live in an area of the country where the local authority have not yet applied for decriminalised parking enforcement and getting a parking ticket is still a criminal matter and that is why the Magistrates Court can apply for a Distress Warrant.

 

If your wife had not received the original parking ticket it would have been a VERY SIMPLE MATTER of completing a statutory declaration and this would cancel the ticket and all bailiff fees are automatically removed.

 

Thanks for that information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion it looks like an excessive levy

 

do you know the approximate value of the jag

 

I don't understand why the bailiff would need to levy goods (some of which are exempt) in the home when he has levied on a vehicle

surly the jag would have covered all bailiff fees and the fine

also there is the question of removal if the goods were removed would they (are they allowed to ) charge for 2 different types of transport

you cant remove a car in a van and you cant remove furniture in a low loader

Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion it looks like an excessive levy

 

do you know the approximate value of the jag

 

I don't understand why the bailiff would need to levy goods (some of which are exempt) in the home when he has levied on a vehicle

surly the jag would have covered all bailiff fees and the fine

also there is the question of removal if the goods were removed would they (are they allowed to ) charge for 2 different types of transport

you cant remove a car in a van and you cant remove furniture in a low loader

 

Thanks, Hallowitch.

 

The Jag was worth some £35k, however, it was on finance which would have consumed that cost. However, the bailiff did not know that and I did not tell him.

 

It does look like an excessive levy in the circumstances and clearly they levied on some exempt goods also!

 

The charges for seizure are clear - £210 and that is what I was charged. If it went to removal of vehicle they could have hit me for £75 clamping charge and a £100 removal fee (according to the agreed costs sent to me my the court).

 

Removal of "non vehicle" items, to use their terminology would have cost £150 an hour!

 

All, in all, I guess the only thing that I may be able to go back on is the possibility that the levy was illegal since they levied on some exempt items.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Have you contacted Happy Contrails for further advice on the way forward? If not, then you really ought to.

 

He provided the advise in the first instance and he will know the format for the writ and will also be able to advise you as to whether other cases using the same argument have been sucessful.

 

Sorry,

 

I know that this scale of fees has been provided by the Court but it is WRONG.

 

The fees charges have been agreed by a Contract between HMCS and Swift and the new fee scale took effect on 1st December 2009.

 

The admin fee is now £95 and an attendance fee which covers all visits made and "actions taken" is £195.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you contacted Happy Contrails for further advice on the way forward? If not, then you really ought to.

 

He provided the advise in the first instance and he will know the format for the writ and will also be able to advise you as to whether other cases using the same argument have been sucessful.

 

Thanks.

 

Yes he did advise me in the first place and I was going along with his line. However, he dropped out of the thread and the argument seemed to move towards faulting them on the legality of the levy. I will try and PM him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,

 

I know that this scale of fees has been provided by the Court but it is WRONG.

 

The fees charges have been agreed by a Contract between HMCS and Swift and the new fee scale took effect on 1st December 2009.

 

The admin fee is now £95 and an attendance fee which covers all visits made and "actions taken" is £195.

 

Fees relate to Oct 2009, so they are correct, I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you contacted Happy Contrails for further advice on the way forward? If not, then you really ought to.

 

He provided the advise in the first instance and he will know the format for the writ and will also be able to advise you as to whether other cases using the same argument have been sucessful.

 

Tried Happy Contrails; he did not respond to my PM.

 

I guess he may be away for some reason; let me see if he comes back in the next few days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

Yes he did advise me in the first place and I was going along with his line. However, he dropped out of the thread and the argument seemed to move towards faulting them on the legality of the levy. I will try and PM him.

 

HC was posting on CAG just a week ago. Have you sent a PM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails

I have received your PM, I have been busy lately and unable to comment thus far.

 

I dont record specific results, but from the numerous replies I received from persons using the above template, they always recover the bailiffs fees on court fines without further ado and without needing to go to court. I cant see any reason why litigation should fail because a Judge would otherwise have to contradict official HMCS advice and would work against his service record by having his judgment appealed. In any event, the "contractual charges" are only binding on those who contractually agree to pay them.

 

You PM says your dispute about an invalid levy. If the goods are jointly owned then the co-owner can disregard the levy because he is not liable for the fine. In any event there is nothing contractually or legislated AFAIK that sets the fee or obligates the debtor to pay it unless the Bailiff has a court order requiring you to pay his fee invoice. See Section 40(c/d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I discontinued my input due to this thread being trolled with the following comments

 

Happy Contrails' claptrap.

 

I thought that it was only cats that have claws !!!

 

Looks like these two guys have locked horns

 

In view of these comments I now suggest you go with their advice, drop your case against the bailiffs, cut your losses and chalk it down to experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

After an long break from CAG (enforced by Windows Vista - AAAAARRRGGHHH!!! NEVER use it!!!!)

 

I must (while my ***** of a computer allows me) add my pennies worth to this situation.

 

Time and time again i have noticed heated argument break out on the forum where one contributor (HC in this case ) quotes the law, and another effectively calls it 'claptrap'.

 

The reality is that both of you are probably right, the reason being that the law says one thing but the courts couldn't care less!

 

Example: In my case, where a semi literate 10 year old armed with google could correctly advise that charging £350+ to attend and remove on the FIRST visit (everyone agrees we were not in at the time) was unlawful.

 

However his 'Honor' Judge 'genius' decided that it was OK!

 

In short, its luck of the draw. If the judge has a prejudice against debtors you will lose, if he or she is sympathetic you might win.

 

Generally, people complaining as an aggrieved debtor cannot afford to bump these things up to the high court, and the judge knows it.

 

The more i learn about the law it seems to have more in common with the workings of a casino than the rigid 'machine' we expect it to behave like.

 

Conclusion - Slap on the wrist for both of you!

 

Ostritch - Some people get offended when accused of 'claptrap', OK, NOT the harshest put down I've ever heard, but HC is here to help. You could just say 'not true in my experience' or something.

 

HC - Why let a flippent comment from someone (who is not the OP) harm your resolve to help Gramtrad2 ?

 

If we are so easily divided we will be less effective.

 

Solidarity and heated debate will progress our cause. Squabbling will bring a smile to the face of any bailiff watching.

 

Sorry if i sound condracending but I watched 'fairandbalanced' a knowledgeable 'insider' leave the forum in a situation like this.

 

I hope you ALL continue to post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails

HC - Why let a flippent comment from someone (who is not the OP) harm your resolve to help Gramtrad2 ?

 

There is no harm caused to the OP, my original posts are still there for all to see. My absence from this forum is nothing to do with this comment, its one of many made by the same posters and appear to be orchestrated.

 

Following a complaint from my nephew who was also active on this forum, that a moderator is interfering with his posts, it was decided our support for this forum be discontinued. I am still active in helping the vulnerable, but my efforts are now donated to a charitable trust, whereas this forum is the property of somebody’s commercial enterprise established for private gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received your PM, I have been busy lately and unable to comment thus far.

 

I dont record specific results, but from the numerous replies I received from persons using the above template, they always recover the bailiffs fees on court fines without further ado and without needing to go to court. I cant see any reason why litigation should fail because a Judge would otherwise have to contradict official HMCS advice and would work against his service record by having his judgment appealed. In any event, the "contractual charges" are only binding on those who contractually agree to pay them.

 

You PM says your dispute about an invalid levy. If the goods are jointly owned then the co-owner can disregard the levy because he is not liable for the fine. In any event there is nothing contractually or legislated AFAIK that sets the fee or obligates the debtor to pay it unless the Bailiff has a court order requiring you to pay his fee invoice. See Section 40(c/d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I discontinued my input due to this thread being trolled with the following comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In view of these comments I now suggest you go with their advice, drop your case against the bailiffs, cut your losses and chalk it down to experience.

 

 

 

HI HC

 

You have quoted above a comment that I had made many months ago when I said that "I thought that only cats had claws".

 

HOWEVER..... I had NOT made this comment to you at all. I had made it to another poster with the name of Nintendo PU!!!

 

In any event, the comment was merely a simple one because Nintendo Pu had made a "catty remark" to another poster. It was that SIMPLE. How he or she could have seen it as anything other than that is beyond me.

 

Unfortunatly, Nintendo Pu then started the dreadful comments such as "flame wars". I did not even know what this was.

 

I am now confused because I had not made this comment to you at all....and never would do !!!!

 

 

OOPS....HC This post would appear to have crossed with your reply. Sorry....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you review your decision.

 

I don't care if this site is a front for Kim Jong Ill.

 

It is the first and only place many people who are worried sick can get help.

 

I notice that others on here critisize your posts because they are closer to 'legal theory' than what your critics see play out in reality. This is for the reasons i stated earlier.

 

Your critics do not realize that the 'reality' they despise, will only change if the legal theory is tested and tested until it succeeds.

 

1000 judges could swat your arguments aside, but it only takes one to go our way and it could be the start of something....

 

I hope you reconsider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that OP's (gramtrad2) and visitors observing these disagreements may come to the conclusion that no one on this site knows what they are talking about.

 

People should understand that, as i have said, the law is more like a casino than a machine. It's not the case that entering A+B will always produce answer 'c'. More like A+B = ' a probability somewhere between B & D'

 

Contributors have radically different approaches and methods that can all work in their own way.

 

If Joe average tried HC's approach, a bailiff firm would fall over laughing - they know that someone who can't pay £300 council tax cannot hire Mike Mansfield QC to test legal argument at the High Court.

 

Alternatively, if they realized they had crossed swords with someone who had wealthy backers, they would probably back down for fear of detrimental legal precedent.

 

'Horses for courses' as they say!

 

Bailiffs should note: that the poor man they picked on could come back with money and a grudge.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails
HI HC

 

You have quoted above a comment that I had made many months ago when I said that "I thought that only cats had claws".

 

HOWEVER..... I had NOT made this comment to you at all. I had made it to another poster with the name of Nintendo PU!!!

 

In any event, the comment was merely a simple one because Nintendo Pu had made a "catty remark" to another poster. It was that SIMPLE. How he or she could have seen it as anything other than that is beyond me...

 

Im probably losing some marbles in my old age! but this is the actual comment. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/228745-swify-credit-services-have.html#post2539922

 

Nintendo Pu was nowhere near this thread nor seen any catty remarks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im probably losing some marbles in my old age! but this is the actual comment. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/228745-swify-credit-services-have.html#post2539922

 

Nintendo Pu was nowhere near this thread nor seen any catty remarks.

 

From what I have read, I had made this simple comment to Ostrich and once again this is not directed at you.

 

Still confused as to how this affected you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received your PM, I have been busy lately and unable to comment thus far.

 

I dont record specific results, but from the numerous replies I received from persons using the above template, they always recover the bailiffs fees on court fines without further ado and without needing to go to court. I cant see any reason why litigation should fail because a Judge would otherwise have to contradict official HMCS advice and would work against his service record by having his judgment appealed. In any event, the "contractual charges" are only binding on those who contractually agree to pay them.

 

You PM says your dispute about an invalid levy. If the goods are jointly owned then the co-owner can disregard the levy because he is not liable for the fine. In any event there is nothing contractually or legislated AFAIK that sets the fee or obligates the debtor to pay it unless the Bailiff has a court order requiring you to pay his fee invoice. See Section 40(c/d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I discontinued my input due to this thread being trolled with the following comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In view of these comments I now suggest you go with their advice, drop your case against the bailiffs, cut your losses and chalk it down to experience.

 

Thanks for your input which is appreciated.

 

I am reluctant to let Swift off the hook, and if possible I would like to come back at them. However, the conflicting opinions in this thread have left me uncertain.

 

I have to see my solicitor about another matter, and will attempt to canvass his views on this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...