Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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 4940 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 there,:???:

Does anyone know if Jacobs still 'work' for Durham County Council? I had problems with them last year and all three of the bailiffs have left Jacobs (according to the register). Rumour has it that Jacobs have also lost their contract with DDC, but they might have just left of their own accord. The reason I would like to know is because my case is currently being investigated and it seems strange that 3 people have jumped ship and the council seem to have changed their preferred firm of bullies..oops, I mean bailiffs. I'd feel a lot better if I knew that this firm had been given the boot!

DDC put the tender out in January this year but there is no further info available. Is there somewhere I could find out which bailiffs are employed by local authorities? Any info would be great.

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks hallowich and wonkeydonkey,

 

Will try and find out. Might send the council an email to remind them that we are still after them. I expect the chap from the complaints department who claimed they had done nothing wrong might have joined the amazing disappearing bailiffs. They should be in the circus, although it would be a bit frightening for the kiddies!

Will update any info once I have any.

Tallulah

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Bailiffs cannot act illegally and are covered by law if you feel they have done something wrong, you should first contact the bailiff or contact the council. You can also get independent advice if the bailiff is involved with collecting money from you, free confidential advice is available from your local Citizens Advice Bureau. If you need any more advice please contact the council."

 

Taken from Durham County Council website

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Believe me PT, I have campaigned relentlessly to bring the council to book over this. I have shed loads of emails and letters. They even admitted themselves at one point that the bailiffs may have acted wrongly, but they have refused to do anything about it (apart from maybe sack them?). The case is with the LGO so everything is on ice at the moment. I may sound like a delusional idealist, but I believe we will get them in the end. I have a lot of patience (quite surprisingly, considering this involves those bar stewards Jacobs).

Tallulah

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Yes, I haven't posted for a while as I am still waiting to see what the LGO are going to do. I was also a bit suspicious about giving too much information as I know bailiffs use forums like this. The fact that all three bailiffs who closed down my husband's business (including one who could never be traced on the register) have now 'left' Jacobs has cheered me up no end.

Tallulah

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Tne vilest of the three has no employer listing, but is still registered, the one who claimed to be in charge is working for Phoenix Commercial Collections Ltd. and the other numpty, who tried to hide his car number plate, has never been traced on the register, although I have an email from Jacobs claiming he was a registered bailiff.

Tallulah

Edited by tallulah59
mistake
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they claim he was registered they have to supply the details if you requested them. Did you ever receive a breakdown of the charges applied? Did you ever SAR both Bailiffs and Council?

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Tne vilest of the three has no employer listing, but is still registered,

a lot of councils have it written into the contract that there bailiffs firms cant sub contract out work

 

 

the one who claimed to be in charge is working for Phoenix Commercial Collections Ltd.

every possibility that that his bailiff certificate was void if he hadn't informed the court he had changed employers

 

 

and the other numpty, who tried to hide his car number plate, has never been traced on the register, although I have an email from Jacobs claiming he was a registered bailiff

 

Tallulah

 

did you phone the Ministry of justice to confirm his bailiff status

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

just tried to reply to PT's question but was distracted and got logged out!

Yes. I have a breakdown of costs. They are as follows:

Rates due: £443.12

Visit Fee: £24.50

Schedule 5 Header Charge: £24.50

Removal Fees: £150.00

Attendance/Van: £150.00

Walking Possession: £12.00

Levy Fee: £39.00

Quickfit Removals, low loader for oven: £220.00

Eden Transport, for other goods: £70.00

Electrician, disconnection of the oven: £75.00

Bailiff Waiting Fees: £439.55

Total: £1,647.67

 

Now for the bad news. The reason I was distracted was because I have just received the LGO's response (uncanny, since I have tried not to think about this situation for over a year and as soon as I mention it in a forum I get a result). It's not a good one but at least it is provisional so I can challenge it. Basically, they are using the old chestnut that another remedy was available, i.e. we should have paid the whole amount and then challenged the fees in the Magistrate's Court. British justice, eh? How can you be charged removal fees for someone NOT to remove your goods? Will battle on though, as a lot of lies appear to have been told. Haven't confirmed the bailiffs status with ministry of justice but I need to dig up some info on the one who wasn't on the register.

Tallulah

Link to post
Share on other sites

I note one or two there that could be argued - particularly the Waiting Fee. I appreciate you state Visit Fee, Levy Fee & Removal Fee - were these all done on the same day or different? I have to go out but will be back tonight - hopefully I'll get time to some reading!!

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not just the bailiff who you couldn't find on the register you should be checking out

 

send the council a letter/e-mail under a freedom of information request ask for a copy of there service level agreement with the bailiff company

this will tell you if they are allowed to employ subcontractors

 

bailiff 2 if he was still certificated to another firm his bond may have been cancelled (bailiffs cant work without this bond being registered with the court )

 

perhaps none of these bailiffs should have been collecting this debt

 

I would subject access request the council (they don't charge for this ) and the firm of bailiffs (£10cost) if you haven't done this already

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Thanks PT and Hallowitch,

I'm about to leave for work so won't be back online til around 7.30. Will take all your good advice on board and act on it (emailed the council this morning under the FIA to find out which firm of bailiffs got the tender which they advertised in January 2010. Couldn't help chuckling when I noticed that the new contract started on April Fool's day). All of the fees were done on the same day. They simply turned up and handed my husband a bill for £1,647.67. He offered to pay the original amount plus the attendance fees which came to around £700 but the council refused to accept this.

Tallulah

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was posted by tomtubby it gives you an idea of what to expect in a screenshot but you will need to subject access Jacobs

 

 

 

A Screen Shot is a VITAL document because it is the COMPUTER RECORD of you ENTIRE account and it will show the following:

Amount of Liability Order

Date received

Details of any telephone callslink3.gif made to to bailiff co.

Details of messages etc from the local authority

Brief description of your house (colour of door etc)

Name of any bailiff who has visited your home.

Details of whether a person was at home or not.

Details of any "levylink3.gif" made on goods to include a number plate of vehicle.

Full details of charges put onto your account and by which bailiff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Thanks for that, I will SAR Jacobs and the council a.s.a.p. The reply from the LGO is full of inaccuracies (They claim that Jacobs took the goods immediately because my husband had told them he was closing the business and they 'feared' they wouldn't get paid, which is an outright lie). The LGO also mention the fact that it would have been better if the bailiffs had contacted the DVLA before illegally seizing my mother-in-laws vehicle, which was parked outside the factory, but the decision to release the car and waive the fees 'appears reasonable in the circumstances'! They only did this because I bombarded them with emails and threatened them with legal action and no uplift fees were waived, only the 'fees' for the return of the vehicle which the ignorant b******s tried to get ME to pay. Have received a reply to my foi from the council saying that they will contact me within 20 days to comply with my recent request.

Tallulah

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Yes I have, and it's very interesting! I am planning to use some of this info in my reply to the LGO. I have emails from the council saying that I should 'contact the bailiffs and arrange to pick up the vehicle'. I told them to get stuffed (politely, of course) and get their henchmen to return the vehicle to my mother-in-law at THEIR cost. They did so, but feebly claimed that it was only as 'a gesture of goodwill'. Both the council and the LGO do not appear to have a clue about illegal levying of goods. No wonder the criminal bailiffs run rings around them. They even manage to make these slimy maggots look slightly more intelligent than themselves (only slightly, though!).

Tallulah

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a post on here somewhere and tomtubby explains why a bailiff cant be employed by one firm and work for another its about the bailiffs bond being cancelled when they move firms (i will post it up when i find it)

 

do you know its the distress for rent rules 1988 that covers the legislation for bailiff certification

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/contents/made

 

sent you a PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Thanks. Have added link to my favourites and will have a good look at it. Of the three who attended, number one showed ID, number two skulked around trying to hide his face as I filmed on my mobile He was not on register, and isn't on now unless he has changed his name, number three, who was truly the most obnoxious piece of s**t I have ever come across in my life, claimed that he wasn't even a bailiff and had his own limited company (I have some of this on film). He was on the register and his employers was named as Jacobs. He is still on the register now, but his employer field is blank.

Tallulah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...