Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do. The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66." Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66. He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help. What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcemnet Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'. Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in. Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.                  
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Another Atos Mess

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3708 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

My appointment was originally booked for right now. On the 21st I rang up to ask if i could postpone it till september. Was told that they could only book up to a fortnight hence and that otherwise the file gets sent back to the dwp (where the claim gets suspended).

I was given a new appointment of the 6/8 despite not asking for it by a rather rude operator. I then complained to a supervisor and the original appointment was reinstated (i have the letter confirming that).

I then ring on Monday (26/7) to ask if i could come in that day as it would be easier for me financially and to get it over with as all the waiting is stressing me out.

I subsequently learn the appointment has been withdrawn because i said i wasn't going to be around till september. I explained that i didn't want that to happen because i was told that if i wasn't going to be available till september the claim would return to the DWP (where the claim gets suspended). They assured me that my benefits wouldn't be affected and that not to worry i would be contaced for a new appointment in september.

Dubious I rung back ten mins later and got confirmation of exactly this, almost verbatim from another operator who even went and spoke to her manager (apparently) to confirm this.

Still dubious I ring the DWP today to check the status of my ESA claim only to find it's been suspended since monday pending a medical assessment. THis is in direct contradiction to what ATOS promised me - not only that I specifically told them not to cancel the appointment for today (the original appointment) if i couldn't change to September.

I'm now waiting for the ESA processing people (once again) to call me back to discuss this mess. I've spoken to ATOS and a line manager who refused to accept any responsibility for his staff causing a problem other than there being a misunderstanding, despite there being some evidence (the recorded phone conversations notwithstanding) to corroborate my story (why would they make an appointment for the 6/8 and subsequently reinstatet the original one if i had cancelled it till september) to the contrary. Of course ATOS' staff are highly trained and professional. Not only that he said they couldn't book appointment for more than 4 weeks hence, not 2 weeks. I raised that point but unsurprisingly no resolution.

What a joke. I can only hope this mess gets resolved by tuesday which is when my next ESA payment would be issued. Now I have to go through the whole process of waiting for my medical all over again where it would be over by now. Disgusting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wishface,

Talk to this guy about this farce. its a start. you are not having much luck with that shower keep your chin up.


My advice is based on my opinion and my experience. It is not to be taken as legal advice as I am not legally qualified

If my advice has been helpful, please take a moment to click on the scales

on the bottom left hand side of my profile :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm too busy trying to write two complaints: one to ATOS and one to the dwp decision makers to get them to unsuspend my esa - this alone could potentially take weeks (the last piece of correspondence i sent them, a medical note, apparently never arrived).


i'm just thankful this isn't more serious as it is for some.


really i can only go by what these people tell me and when two members of staff corroborate the same emphatic piece of information what else can i do.


The government have got to put a stop to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

rang Atos today to see if they have addressed my complaint, sent by email. They said they were going to 'action' it friday afternoon. This translates as send me a letter telling me it's going to take 20 working days (ie a month) to resolve. That's 20 days potentially (ie unless the DWP take charge) where I have no income and have to subsist on the £150 i have in the bank. After that...


The DWP are not much better. I have written a letter which, if it's anything like my last sick note, may well never arrive. The only point of contact for ESA claimants is their hopeless and jobsworthian switchboard that are no help at all. I'm supposed to be getting a callback from their processing team, but that was 48 hours from Thursday noon. Whether they will reinstate it or even contact Atos to verify what the F'k is happening is another matter entirely.


Yet another Atos shambles. They have created this mess and not surprisingly they refuse to take responsibility for it hiding behind rules and regulation (of their own making) refusing to expedite matters in any way. My next benefit payment would go out tomorrow, but that's not likley.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...