Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. 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.
  • 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 
        • 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

Ex JBW and Philips bailiff makes an FOI request to Westminster about bailiff fees and ANPR operations!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4696 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

This could be embarrassing for Westminster !!

 

Jason Hillier was the JBW bailiff who used to be on TV with Mr Waller in the TV series called "Beat the Bailiff".

 

When Waller lost the Westminster contract to Philips, Jason Hillier left the company to work with Philips as their Bailiff Manager. Looks like he has left Philips and has concerns about the fees that Westminster were allowing Philips bailiffs to charge.

 

Looks like he is also asking questions about ANPR operations and the way in which Philips work with the police to stop vehicles for unpaid parking tickets.

May be he has some trade secrets neither Mr Waller nor Philips want to get out ?

 

Have a read here :

Philips Bailiff fee explanation and Met Police ANPR operations involving Philips Bailiffs - WhatDoTheyKnow

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This could be embarrassing for Westminster !!

 

Jason Hillier was the JBW bailiff who used to be on TV with Mr Waller in the TV series called "Beat the Bailiff".

 

When Waller lost the Westminster contract to Philips, Jason Hillier left the company to work with Philips as their Bailiff Manager. Looks like he has left Philips and has concerns about the fees that Westminster were allowing Philips bailiffs to charge.

 

Looks like he is also asking questions about ANPR operations and the way in which Philips work with the police to stop vehicles for unpaid parking tickets.

May be he has some trade secrets neither Mr Waller nor Philips want to get out ?

 

Have a read here :

Philips Bailiff fee explanation and Met Police ANPR operations involving Philips Bailiffs - WhatDoTheyKnow

 

 

 

Very INTERESTING website. Must put that one with my "favorites"...

 

This confirms rumours that I have heard recenly that Mr Hillier had left the industry...not just Philips.

 

 

I thought at first that he was only asking questions of Westminster but having had a look around the website he has also made FOI's to TfL, Camden and London Borough of Southwark.

 

[EDIT]. we have had serious concerns at the charges that Westminster permit Philips bailiff to charge for PCN enforcement.

 

Westminster maintained when they awarded this contract (which had previoulsy been with JBW) that the fees would be "capped".

 

I have read many Contracts and "my understanding" was that the "capped" fee would be for £200. This would be in ADDITION to the cost of the PCN at Warrant stage which would be £185.

 

This is made quite clear from the following clause:

 

"This means that it will not be unreasonable to demand payment IN FULL (where a manageable £95 fine can turn into an unaffordable debt in excess of £500. Philips forecasts that with the charging structure in place for this Contract there will therefore be a higher amount of warrants paid in full"

 

 

It now transpires that the "capped" fees are £200 for EACH visit and from the many complaints that we receive the amount demanded at the door by the bailiff is £668 ( a bit different from the "anaffordable" debt in excess of £500 !!!

 

Don't even get me started on the use of ANPR vehicles to stop motorists with unpaid parking tickets....more on this later......

 

PS: Must put a note in my diary for 19th July (which is the final date in which Westminster should repy to this FOI) !!

Edited by tomtubby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning,

 

It appears my name is mentioned again! I will use my right of reply on this forum to have my say.

 

Letsmakeamark you are correct that I did work for JBW as an ANPR Manager for several years and I am aware of your following of this firm over this time. You are also correct in saying that I left JBW to work for Philips when Westminster re awarded the contract in 2008.

 

My motivation in sending FOI requests to WCC and other LA`s is clear to me but perhaps not the public at this point. Let me explain further.....The increase in the use of ANPR by private Bailiff firms is revenue related clearly. No surprise there eh? No one can deny a firm the ability to make money. However, in 2005, ANPR was new and people didn`t know anything on the laws that in time would be broken. Now, some 5 years later, MOPs are more educated and with the advent of forums such as this, we are all able to learn more on the rights and wrongs of matters. This includes me also!

 

As has been mentioned earlier, I have now left the Bailiff industry and in the near future, more of my colleagues will also leave as the 80K a year earnings are being reduced hugely now. The industry is finished as a money earner for Bailiffs now. The only reason why Bailiffs do the job is because they want to make money. The less money they all make, the less motivation they have to carry on doing the job.

 

My FOI requests are intended to shed some light on some operational issues that I know are questionable and have not been brought to light before. Now that I have moved on, I am able to raise these issues. No hidden agenda. I parted relationships with JBW for business reasons and and I was dismissed from Philips for refusing to sign a revised contract that was to the detriment of my circumstances. Yes, this matter was upsetting to me but life continues. "When one door closes" bla bla bla!

 

I am happy to have left a now declining industry to move on elsewhere and I am interested to read the replies from my FOI requests as and when they come in (If at all). I know that the LA`s will be chatting to legal and the ACEA etc and I imagine the replies will be wolly to say the least. Of course this will be a huge mistake as I will further my enquiry if needs be.

 

At this point, I am aware that Bailiffs and their bosses are chatting and my name is mud but they all remain quiet. Odd? Not really as each and every one of them knows that if my FOI requests deliver bad news for ANPR operational protocol, it will cost them all money! And to simplify the matter, they are all quiet as they all know that the issues that I have raised are legal, correct and need addressing.

 

What are really the costs? Well......mark up the vans with "CCTV aware" or similar signs so MOPs know what the vans are (RIPA compliant). Ensure Bailiff back office (BOS) is secure and DPA compliant and ensure that security of DPA is intact when Bailiffs take the ANPR vans home. Not a huge amount to ask?

 

Mr K, I will address any matters that you may wish to raise with me but I have just seen another post to me from you and I remind you that I have left the industry now and I am trying to address matters. My "Rock" is a cool place today here in East London. How`s Kent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said we need more people from the industry to come forward and also to give everybody an insight into it. Previously people have come on and stayed for a while and then gone. Also people that stay from the industry always give out negative advice.

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As has been mentioned earlier, I have now left the Bailiff industry and in the near future, more of my colleagues will also leave as the 80K a year earnings are being reduced hugely now. The industry is finished as a money earner for Bailiffs now. The only reason why Bailiffs do the job is because they want to make money. The less money they all make, the less motivation they have to carry on doing the job.

 

 

I am happy to have left a now declining industry
.

my name is mud

 

Thank you for posting this Mud,:) not what i normally call you,:evil:

this makes very interesting reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no insults please

 

please keep posting tasmaniandevil

 

the reason people are being hostile is you had no quarms about screewing people when you worked in the baliff industry

 

sour grapes comes to mind but any info you can give is appreciated

 

ime being neutral

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are loads of peple in this forum wo have had jobs with banks, DCA's, as traffic wardens etec and who come here either because they need some help of because they are able to provide some help.

 

I think that they should all be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-reading your FOI request I noticed that you have also questioned the right of Westminster bailiffs to be involved in police operations using Section 44 of the Terrorist Act.

 

In light of the Home Secretary (Teresa May's) announcement on Thursday that the police had been stripped of their widely abused power to stop and search innocent people, I have written to Westminster to ask for confirmation that these "West End Operations" will cease immediately.

 

 

Keep posting TD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

more of my colleagues will also leave as the 80K a year earnings are being reduced hugely now. The industry is finished as a money earner for Bailiffs now.

 

An interesting comment. What happened that changed the industry? People still get PCN's, get fined, get unpaid council tax and biz rates bills etc. Is it because high profits natrually attract competition?

 

I knew someone who worked at Equita doing unpaid biz rates for Westminster and he said the money was very lucrative. We hear on these forums that bailiffs diversify as HCEO's and charge thousands in miscellaenous fees per case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ANPR vehicle cost= £24,000. If a Bailiff buys his own, he will want to work as a "Private ANPR" operative. Apart from the problems with his HMRC status as self employed is dubious, he will also want to sub contract for as many different Bailiff firms as possible. Most LA`s now demand that their Bailiff contractors do NOT use such private ANPR Bailiffs at all. So £24,000 is a wast of money now! The options:

 

Work for a Bailiff firm and hire an ANPR from them at £250 per week. Factor in £70 per week fuel and £40 per week Con charge=£360 costs before a Bailiff has made a penny. Factor in your Income Tax and NI contributions and it`s game over. The nice Bailiff firms even deduct £25 from each warrant collected before taking their share of the fees. Now that "Door knocker" Bailiffs no longer make a living at all, they are all moving over to ANPR vehicles. This means more ANPR looking for the same debtor`s vehicles. As the yanks say "You do the math".

 

As there is more light being shed on Bailiffs fees by MOP`s and Stat Decs rise, Bailiffs now chase their tails to make a living. I even know of some guys that are now even in debt themselves! Bailiff firms profits are dropping and they are squeezing their margins day to day and they are all worried now! "Shame" I hear you all cry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-reading your FOI request I noticed that you have also questioned the right of Westminster bailiffs to be involved in police operations using Section 44 of the Terrorist Act.

 

In light of the Home Secretary (Teresa May's) announcement on Thursday that the police had been stripped of their widely abused power to stop and search innocent people, I have written to Westminster to ask for confirmation that these "West End Operations" will cease immediately.

 

 

Keep posting TD.

 

Hi TT,

 

Whilst Sect 44 was used by MPS on certain road ops, it was mainly due to the particular unit we worked with (They were from Paddy Green nick) which is slightly different. Remember, Sect 44 covers all angles for plod as they can use it to stop MoPs who are on foot, not just in vehicles. What is normally used is The Road traffic Act that allows for any Constable in uniform to stop a moving vehicle. When the Police checks are done, the PC will introduce the motorist to the Bailiff. All of this is legal from a Police powers point of view.

 

It is the ethical use of Police time in general that is the question to ask. Bearing all this in mind, the joint ops are liked by the MPS as some generate overtime for the boys and girls in blue from LA budgets and others are used as "Street duty" training for new recruits.

 

I see no real problem with the ops if they were solely for the collection of HMCS criminal warrants but civil PCNs is a bit raw. It`s a bit like plod pulling me over, doing their checks and then introding me to my Bank Manager as I am beyong my overdraft! A PCN is a charge, not a fine remember!

 

Also, it`s not just WCC but other London LA`s such as Wandsworth and Islington that carry out these ops!

 

I hope the above helps a bit!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As there is more light being shed on Bailiffs fees by MOP`s and Stat Decs rise, Bailiffs now chase their tails to make a living. I even know of some guys that are now even in debt themselves! Bailiff firms profits are dropping and they are squeezing their margins day to day and they are all worried now! "Shame" I hear you all cry!

Maybe if the bailiffs were a little more helpful. a little more understanding and didnt lie, cheat and bully debtors into paying their debts (which rightly so should be paid) then may be a happy medium could be sought and the bailiff could earn a decent crust because more people would be willing to communicate with them. Their greed is their demise, and its been a long time coming. I feel bad for the bailiffs who do go by the book because its their fellow bailiffs that have put them in this situation in the first place.

Bailiffs have to do a job, we all can understand that, but you keep cocking that job up you end up paying the price, that goes for any jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if the bailiffs were a little more helpful. a little more understanding and didnt lie, cheat and bully debtors into paying their debts (which rightly so should be paid) then may be a happy medium could be sought and the bailiff could earn a decent crust because more people would be willing to communicate with them. Their greed is their demise, and its been a long time coming. I feel bad for the bailiffs who do go by the book because its their fellow bailiffs that have put them in this situation in the first place.

Bailiffs have to do a job, we all can understand that, but you keep cocking that job up you end up paying the price, that goes for any jobs.

 

Probably the most sensible post on here!!!

 

I was part of an ANPR team that prided ourselves on being firm but fair with MoPs. The £80k earnings I mentioned in an earlier post was down to long hours, 6 days a week and hard work and was only ever earnt the 1 year! The team had now parted and the guys are earning pennies now. Oddly, the more money you make on the circuit, the more flexible you are and you would be amazed on the number of times Bailiffs let people go due to various reasons. When times are tough as they are now, the gloves come off and Bailiffs behave badly as they are desperate. I don`t see matters improving!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the most sensible post on here!!!

 

I was part of an ANPR team that prided ourselves on being firm but fair with MoPs. The £80k earnings I mentioned in an earlier post was down to long hours, 6 days a week and hard work and was only ever earnt the 1 year! The team had now parted and the guys are earning pennies now. Oddly, the more money you make on the circuit, the more flexible you are and you would be amazed on the number of times Bailiffs let people go due to various reasons. When times are tough as they are now, the gloves come off and Bailiffs behave badly as they are desperate. I don`t see matters improving!

I have to say 'being desperate' is no excuse for many of the behavior that I have personally witnessed plus what I have read in here and seen on the news, and the police do not help with matters. There needs to be more education given out with regards to bailiffs, as most do not even know the regulations/ laws and that includes the police, councils and even the court system. The law seems archaic and needs to be bought up to the 21st century especially with our economic climate and the way it is heading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say 'being desperate' is no excuse for many of the behavior that I have personally witnessed plus what I have read in here and seen on the news, and the police do not help with matters. There needs to be more education given out with regards to bailiffs, as most do not even know the regulations/ laws and that includes the police, councils and even the court system. The law seems archaic and needs to be bought up to the 21st century especially with our economic climate and the way it is heading.

 

Agreed again. There is no excuse and bad behaviour is always wrong and in some cases illegal. The Police get about 1 hour of training on Bailiff matters and then normally only attend an incident to "Prevent a breach of the peace".

 

Yes the law does need reforming but the Govnt need the motivation to change laws that date back way before you and I were born. With the economic climate, the Govnt may turn a blind eye as they and local Govnt need the money. We will see in time perhaps.

 

On your point about training and Bailiffs knowing the law. Agreed also. However they are Bailiffs working for private firms and whilst they are in a classroom as rookies, they are not earning money for Bailiff bosses. In fact they cost money. They are sent out to deal with MOPs with little more than a weeks traning at best and told to "Get on with it". Targets are high and in most case, are now not realistic.

 

Those of us that have been in the job for a while learn the law as knowledge makes us money but our breed is now dead and as my friends in construction and the security industry will confirm, the next breed will be recruited from East Europe. I kid you not!

Link to post
Share on other sites

An Offence Occurs If The Police Are In Cahoots With The Baliff Company

 

1/ Plod With Baliff

2/ Baliff Anpr Has A Hit And Gets Plod To Stop The Vehicle

3/offence Has Occured As Pcn Etc Are A Civil Matter And The Baliff Has Committed An Offence Under The Dpa By Releasing The Data To Plod

 

The Police Have No Powers To Stop You On Instruction From A Baliff Anpr And Will Be Judged As An Abuse Of Power

Link to post
Share on other sites

An Offence Occurs If The Police Are In Cahoots With The Baliff Company

 

1/ Plod With Baliff

2/ Baliff Anpr Has A Hit And Gets Plod To Stop The Vehicle

3/offence Has Occured As Pcn Etc Are A Civil Matter And The Baliff Has Committed An Offence Under The Dpa By Releasing The Data To Plod

 

The Police Have No Powers To Stop You On Instruction From A Baliff Anpr And Will Be Judged As An Abuse Of Power

 

Agreed but your quotes are merely semantics...although correct. More than one way to skin a cat as this avenue will never achieve anything!

 

1/ Plod with BLF (So?)

2/ BLF Anpr has hit and plod stops vehicle (Legal)

3/Correct PCN is a civil matter but no offence under DPA as only the VRM is released on radio. No other data.

 

Just hang tight. More answers to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh thats gonna go down well with many people, not just the debtors either.

It will also open a whole new can of whoop ass!!

 

What do you mean? Either I give my educated opinion or maybe I should shut up! Maybe you prefer comments from "Walters and Wannabees" instead? Up to you mate. No skin of my nose................

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...