Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This was my first (and last!) experience using Hermes to deliver a parcel. I learnt the hard way...    I posted a valuable item (my precious & perfect guitar) with Hermes that was delivered damaged. I paid for insurance and after an absolute nightmare getting in touch with them, then waiting 28 days, they said it is not covered.   However the recipient stated there is signs of rough handling to the package, therefore Hermes are still at fault. When I responded with this to them they replied:   ..."I assure you that any damage is not a lack of care from our couriers; they take great care of all our parcels in transit. Any damage done to parcels within our delivery process will have occurred whilst being sorted by the automated, heavy machinery within one of our large depots."   Surely this does not absolve them of liability?!   I sold my guitar on ebay for £265 and have had to refund this plus the £20 postage I paid in good faith that my guitar would reach the buyer intact.   I now am out of pocket and with my once pristine guitar damaged.   I am heartbroken about it, plus the stress it's caused, was only even selling due to being a new mum and not currently working, I could cry (well I have several times). Anyway was just looking for any advice re: attempting to take further cheers.
    • Pleased we can at least agree on that.  
    • I will await the final confirmation tomorrow I also attach the Draft Order, please can these be checked Andyorch and BankFodder before I submit these online tomorrow I of course will amend the details to add the names etc before I send this. In the Leicester county court Claim No. ... Before District Judge ……… Dated 23//10 20… Claimant/s Mrs XXXXXXX   and Defendant Goosedale Draft Order     IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. . Pursuant to CPR 19.4.1 and CPR 19.2.2 (a) it is requested that a second claimant Mrs xxxxxx be added to this claim. It is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings. 2. The proposed amended particulars of claim be reserved Pursuant to Practice Direction 19 ( 2.1 ) ###### End of Order ######     Amended Particulars of claim for N1.   The claimant and second claimant joinder seek reimbursement of £7700 paid to the defendant on XXX date 2019 in respect of a frustrated contract for a wedding venue booked for the XX date 2020 and which was cancelled by the defendant as a result of implementing government restrictions in respect of Covid 19 Legislation.The principle claimant makes this claim pursuant to Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The defendant has refused to refund the contract price. The claimant seeks £7700 plus interest plus costs.     N244_web_0818 COMPE.pdf
    • The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is again urging consumers struggling financially during the pandemic to seek help - after discovering that 12 million people have "low financial resilience" View the full article
    • https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WrcF2oEOydGXCZYwhZcYB7QmnP_9jNaQ/view?usp=sharing I think I have figured it out. Sorry   
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3746 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I have an ongoing arguement with Rossendales about their fees.

Basically, I dont want to pay them if I can get away with it.

The original problem was council tax which has now been paid in full direct to the council, but Rossendales obviously dont like this, so they are chasing their fees.

The first and second visit fees have been paid (£24.50 and £18.00) ages ago. They have already refunded me nearly £100 because they got their fees wrong nearly 2 years ago.

So...a couple of questions.

I read in a thread a while back that no-one is obliged to pay bailiff fees....is this right?

They are chasing van attendance £110 and levy £46. Is a levy valid if a walking pos. is not signed by me? And is the type of vehicle they use a factor, because they certainly didnt visit with a van.

Thanks,jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not 100% sure and someone more knowledgeable than me will be along but I think the levy is valid if someone "responsible" signs the walking possession agreement.

 

hb

Edited by honey b
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the bailiff fees generally:

 

For me TT dictated a letter, which said that if one tenders the amount of a Warrant of Execution before seizure, then the bailiff's right to distrain on goods ceases, citing Bennett v Bayes (1860) -- ie the bailiff cannot then use the warrant to pursue their fees.

 

But that specifically cited that payment had been made before levy, which would appear to be different from your case, where it is alleged that a levy had indeed been made.

 

More learned heads probably need to chip in on this....

 

 

On the "attendance to remove" fee

-- which I am assuming relates to the same bailiff visit as the claimed levy -- I think you have a good case to recover this, but I would expect Rossendales to fight it to within 24 hours of any court date, and indeed they probably do have an arguable case in court, though not necessarily one that would succeed.

 

At the heart of things is the wording of the SI which establishes the fee scale for bailiffs collecting council tax. The critical line comes from Schedule 5 of SI 773 of 1993, a table of charges for each of the various activities:

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1993

 

"For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed): Reasonable costs and fees incurred".

 

(The prescribed fee scales have been amended by various subsequent legislation, but this line remains).

 

The question is what it means.

 

The National Consumer Debtline glosses it:

"For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to recover goods after the levy has been made under this heading"

 

wording which our own TT repeats, on her own site, which apparently the system won't let me link to, at

"Bailiff Advice Online"/admin.php?action=access&f id=53

clarifying the detailed wording of the schedule as

D. For one attendance only with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (but only after a levy has been made (ie: where Walking Possession has been signed.

 

This view also naturally follows if one parses the bracketed clause, quite naturally, to mean "where the goods were not removed at the conclusion of the levy".

 

It is also the view taken in the London clamping case, Culligan v Simkin and Marston's. That was for Enforcement of road traffic debt, rather than council tax debt. The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debt regs do not contain this phrase. However the judge based one strand of his opinion on a council tax case, and took the view that similar principles apply to bailiff action for all types of debt -- specifically, that "removal" and "levying" were different stages of bailiff action, so that the meter could not start running for actions connected with removal until a valid levy was in place.

 

This also makes logical sense. Bailiffs can only charge "reasonable" costs (being both actual and necessary costs). Since they were already there to levy, for which their fees are fixed and have been paid, then there is nothing they have done subsequently that has incurred any additional cost that needs to be defrayed. Therefore there should be nothing chargeable.

 

This should dispose of their charge. But if that is not enough, you can also argue, in alternative, that since they did not come in a van, this shows that they had no serious intention to remove, so on those grounds additionally any claim to have been attending to remove is spurious.

 

The proper use of an "attendance to remove" charge is when they have genuinely made a new attendance to remove, but, through no fault of their own, have been unable to gain access to the property.

 

 

However, lawsuits are crapshoots. Anything can happen. Given even half a suggestion, judges can go way offline into inexplicable pastures of their own. And since "attending to remove" is so much more profitable to Rossendales that "levying", you can expect them to throw everything at it.

 

You should therefore also be sure to demand Rossendales explain how their charge is "reasonable". Be prepared, with counter-argument and counter-evidence, to knock down their figures; and if they don't offer any rationale, seek for their charge to be dismissed on those grounds alone.

 

Anyway, that's how it seems to me; but I'm interested to see what more seasoned heads, who've been around these issues longer, have to contribute.

Edited by JH101
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not 100% sure and someone more knowledgeable than me will be along but I think the levy is valid if someone "responsible" signs the walking possession agreement.

 

hb

 

Thanks for your reply.

No one has signed a WP.

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are chasing van attendance £110 and levy £46. Is a levy valid if a walking pos. is not signed by me? And is the type of vehicle they use a factor, because they certainly didnt visit with a van.

Thanks,jed

 

Just because you haven't signed a Walking Possession does not invalidate a levy - it only means they can't charge the WP fee of £12. You state a levy fee - what goods did they levy on - it may be the goods could be exempt from seizure in which case the ATR Fee & Levy fee can be removed in total.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ploddertom and tomtubby for your replies.

The bailiff levied on goods while we were out, but the only goods levied on were garden furniture that he could see from outside the garden and are probably not worth half the amount they are wanting. They have not been in the house and have not levied on anything else.

Thanks again

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...