Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. ( Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM   1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack  Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached   2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00.  The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month.   3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement,   Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us.   Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement   9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate   4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:-   a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement number 756050. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     Thw total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by Firrst class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges ]= 5.  A the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or  alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage.   Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs.   Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024   What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • 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
        • Like
      • 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 4597 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

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello you have said that the bailiff never came into your home, can you tell me what did he levy on then. In order to charge you the levy fee he must have conducted a levy.The Bailiff is only allowed to levy on one case, howevr if you have settled one of the case's he can then re-lvey for the second case. If this is not the case then I suggest you submit a form four complaint to the court that issed the bailiffs certificate, you can find this out by asking the company for the information or you can ask the bailiff, either way they must give you that information. The aborted removal fee, did they attempt to remove as they can only remove the goods that the original bailiff levied on (thats if the bailiff did a levy) do you have any copies. If your not happy with the actions of the bailiff you could always make a complaint to ACEA Google the association of civil enforcement agencies, they will conduct an investigation, if they rule in your favor you will get the costs back, try it you have nothing to loose, you may get some of the fees back. Let me know if the bailiff did a removal and if the goods destrained against was the same goods that he attempted to remove. On a finishing note the law states that the fees must be resoniable and not excessive, if you have two account the bailiff can only levy once on the goods, if he then re-levies on the same goods for the second liability that is unlawfull, most councils will only allow the bailiff to do one levy, so ring the council and ask if they are happy that the bailiff is doing this and complain. Good luck

I had two outstanding council tax arrears, never paid a bailiff and never let them into the house. I paid the council direct until the accounts were cleared. The Bailiffs continued to call so i sent them a letter asking for a breakdown of their fees i have no problem with paying what is due but only if they are charging what is rightfully due.

 

Here is the breakdown of fees:

 

remember these are for two accounts they hold liability orders for and they are attending one address.

 

15/01/2010

 

24.50 ---ATL Feee first visit

36.00 levy fee

24.50 redemption fee(head H)

 

24.50 --ATL first visit

39.00 levy fee

 

 

30/03/2011

 

180.00 Van abortive removal fees.

 

does anyone have any advice on whether these fees are appropriate or not ? can they charge twice for the first visit and levy twice at the same address, on the same day , because they hold two liability orders?

 

 

many thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello you have said that the bailiff never came into your home, can you tell me what did he levy on then. In order to charge you the levy fee he must have conducted a levy.The Bailiff is only allowed to levy on one case, howevr if you have settled one of the case's he can then re-lvey for the second case. If this is not the case then I suggest you submit a form four complaint to the court that issed the bailiffs certificate, you can find this out by asking the company for the information or you can ask the bailiff, either way they must give you that information. The aborted removal fee, did they attempt to remove as they can only remove the goods that the original bailiff levied on (thats if the bailiff did a levy) do you have any copies. If your not happy with the actions of the bailiff you could always make a complaint to ACEA Google the association of civil enforcement agencies, they will conduct an investigation, if they rule in your favor you will get the costs back, try it you have nothing to loose, you may get some of the fees back. Let me know if the bailiff did a removal and if the goods destrained against was the same goods that he attempted to remove. On a finishing note the law states that the fees must be resoniable and not excessive, if you have two account the bailiff can only levy once on the goods, if he then re-levies on the same goods for the second liability that is unlawfull, most councils will only allow the bailiff to do one levy, so ring the council and ask if they are happy that the bailiff is doing this and complain. Good luck

 

 

Hi Most of the answers to your questions i have already posted:

 

I have no idea what he levied.

 

I asked B&S for a breakdown and all they sent was a list of charges and dates.

 

I have sent a SAR

 

I rang the council and they said they are happy with the fees chearged but they couldnt tell me what the charges were for. so I have complained to the council enforcement department.

 

 

I had a look at the ACEA website ,but it seems that Bristow & sutor are not members of the ACEA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try complaining to ESA Enforcement Services Association, you can download from the web site a complaints form, did the Bailiff start the removal process, if so what did he attempt to remove, Lots of Bailiffs write up a Phanton levy just so they can apply the fees. Your first visit fee would be £24,50 if they then re visit and dont levy they should charge you a furhter £18.00. However if they re-visit and do a levy, lets say on a car or some garden cahirs/ table /lawn-mower, then the £18.00 would not be charged, instead the charge would be a % of the original debt (the levy fee)

If as you say they charged you a removal fee of £180 then this is there charge which would have been submitted to the council when they tendered for the contract, the council would have approved the charge at the time.

The Bailiff would have had to return to your property to conduct a removal and the abandon it to charge you, but this must done to make the charge, if you find that this was not done then form 4 complaint would be the best, he should have his cerificate removed by a Judge. The Judge will also return any fees that should not have been charged and in some cases give you compo !!

You should push Bristow & Sutor for your information and ask what the bailiff attempted to remove, you could also try and discuss this with your local councillor AND GET HIM ON SIDE, he is there to serve you as a local Charge Payer. Good Luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely pointless making any complaints to ACEA or ESA. These are trade bodies paid for by subscription from the companies in the enforcement industry. They will not find against their own.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You now send them a copy of the finance agreement with a short letter in which you insist that the levy fee is removed and all associated charges. Tell them they have 7 days to reply and that if they fail to do so you will submit Regulation 46 complaint to the Magistrates Court. Also send a copy of the bailiff letter and finance agreement to the Council for their records. Both to be sent email backed up with hard copy sent signed for snail mail.

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

You now send them a copy of the finance agreement with a short letter in which you insist that the levy fee is removed and all associated charges. Tell them they have 7 days to reply and that if they fail to do so you will submit Regulation 46 complaint to the Magistrates Court. Also send a copy of the bailiff letter and finance agreement to the Council for their records. Both to be sent email backed up with hard copy sent signed for snail mail.

 

WD

 

 

Many Thanks will get on it straight away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update;

 

all levy fees and all associated charges are now dropped, but for your information the council still states that:

 

 

As per legislation, B&S are able to their charge fees per liability order and as a levy was made on 15th January 2010 in respect of two liability orders, a levy fee was added per order. This action was correct.

 

 

I am now totally satisfied with my result which is only due to the help i received on this forum. so thanks again you guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. with regards the Redemption fee Head H ( which by the way has also been dropped) the council state:

 

 

With regards to the Redemption Fee, this fee is charged in accordance with Head H in Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations and is payable for the release of the listed goods back into the debtor's control. Although it is added to the case at the time goods are seized (this does not mean physically removed but seized from the debtor's ownership), the payment of this fee is not taken until all other fees and liability have been paid. If the debt is not paid, or B&S remove and sell goods, the Redemption fee is removed. However, in light of the levy being abandoned on the vehicle that the Redemption Fee was charged against, this fee has also been waived.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a good result for you.

 

If the Fees are as per all the Regs then why did they decide to drop them? Apparently it seems it is OK to levy on the same goods for more than one debt? Maybe their legal department should look closer at what is being spouted. Sounds like B&S writing letters for the Council again.

 

Now you can enjoy the weekend in peace but still be wary as sometimes these people have a habit of pleading ignorance.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a good result for you.

 

If the Fees are as per all the Regs then why did they decide to drop them? Apparently it seems it is OK to levy on the same goods for more than one debt? Maybe their legal department should look closer at what is being spouted. Sounds like B&S writing letters for the Council again.

 

Now you can enjoy the weekend in peace but still be wary as sometimes these people have a habit of pleading ignorance.

 

PT

 

 

They dropped them because the car they levied on 18 months ago was on Hire Purchase. I had no idea what the levy was on because i was never given a notice of sizure otherwise i would have told them 18 months ago it was on finance.

 

Niether did the council, the council never had a clue what was levied, all they would say is the fees are legal and in line with legislation.

 

They still are inisting it was legal up until the time i contested it. I sent a SAR and the notice of seizure has on it "confirmed by neighbour at number -- " the council guy says thats fine their allowed to do that. the nieghbour hasnt a clue and swears she hasnt spoken to anyone about the car as no one has ever asked.

 

The guy from the council literally just endorses anything the Bailiffs tell him. It was only by getting a SAR that i got rid of the fees. The council was quite willing to tell me i must pay fees that they couldnt tell me anything about.

 

 

And that about levying twice is weird they levy a car for one account charge you then levy the car again and charge you again and then section head H charge you in case you do pay off the debt later. heres what the council say:

 

"With regards to your comments concerning a second levy, no second levy actually took place. As per legislation, B&S are able to their charge fees per liability order and as a levy was made on 15th January 2010 in respect of two liability orders, a levy fee was added per order. This action was correct."

so no second levy took place but a fee is in order? Its crazy!!!!!!!

 

 

 

And paying the council direct doesnt work unless the council plays ball and stops the LO the bailiff fees are tacked on to the debt so even if you have no council tax liability they can still pursue you for their fees on the original liability order.

Edited by agb657
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been watching this particular query with GREAT INTEREST.

 

Personally, I would not let this matter drop. This because, for a long time you have been asking the question as to WHAT was levied upon and it has taken all of this time to FINALLY let you know. I am suspicious that a levy may therefore NOT have been made at the time. I would be asking for a copy of the SCREEN SHOT of the account.

 

I have to rush so cant post any more but the response from the council........

 

IS WRONG

 

A bailiff CANNOT charge Multiple fees for enforcing MORE that one Liability Order and THANKFULLY this has been CONFIRMED by a recent LGO REPORT !!!!! I am hoping to start a NEW STICKY with full details !!!!

 

The HEAD H fee is also WRONG.......and once again, I will be posting details.....

 

 

WATCH THIS SPACE>>>>>>>>>

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that the Council have fallen for Bristow & Sutors dodgy actions hook line and sinker, time they were made yo realise THEY are liable jointly and severally for any wrongdoing

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been watching this particular query with GREAT INTEREST.

 

Personally, I would not let this matter drop. This because, for a long time you have been asking the question as to WHAT was levied upon and it has taken all of this time to FINALLY let you know. I am suspicious that a levy may therefore NOT have been made at the time. I would be asking for a copy of the SCREEN SHOT of the account.

 

I have to rush so cant post any more but the response from the council........

 

IS WRONG

 

A bailiff CANNOT charge Multiple fees for enforcing MORE that one Liability Order and THANKFULLY this has been CONFIRMED by a recent LGO REPORT !!!!! I am hoping to start a NEW STICKY with full details !!!!

 

The HEAD H fee is also WRONG.......and once again, I will be posting details.....

 

 

WATCH THIS SPACE>>>>>>>>>

 

IS WRONG

 

A bailiff CANNOT charge Multiple fees for enforcing MORE that one Liability Order and THANKFULLY this has been CONFIRMED by a recent LGO REPORT !!!!! I am hoping to start a NEW STICKY with full details !!!!

 

The HEAD H fee is also WRONG.......and once again, I will be posting details.....

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cant wait for some evidence of this. The council keeps refering to legislation, and endorsing the actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that the Council have fallen for Bristow & Sutors dodgy actions hook line and sinker, time they were made yo realise THEY are liable jointly and severally for any wrongdoing

 

 

My opinion is the council automatically treat you as some kind of criminal and will take whatever B&S says as gospel, Now i dont beleive a word Bailiffs say.

 

But i beleive that many, many people would accept the word of the Head of Revenues at their local council at their word. I didnt, and it saved me quite a few quid. but how many others would think a person in such a responsible position would be so wrong or negligent in what the bailifs are actually charging you for.

 

 

 

I have now got all fees down to first and second visits only and thats it. But really i would so love for the Council head Of Revenues to be wrong in his spouting of whats correct under legislation.

Edited by agb657
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Council employees whether the lowest of the low or those at the top have very little knowledge of the CT or NNDR Regs and in particular their meaning.To save time and money they rely on the Bailiff company employed, as we know the Bailiffs are only out for one thing - MONEY - and because the Council knows no better they believe everything the Company tells them because they are the "experts". How many of them on here have we all beaten at their own game, I for one believe it is time for an example to be made of the Bailiff, the Company that employs him & the Council that employs them. Only then may they realise that this archaic system they have is corrupt.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

can anyone decipher this? its from the printout i got from my SAR; This is the date they levied on the car according to the notice of seizure i got with the SAR.

 

03/02/10 cwebauto information recieved by client web

correspondece still to be looked intp

15/01/10cwebauto bailiff advises

call completed at 13:19 on 15/01/10. - ------ attd ( my address) levied outside -met debtor (male) ( no wp) levy value e200. atr fee: e0.00

(mid terrace with white door and cylinder lock) no bvai

15/01/10 cwebauto bailiff advises

call completed at 12:59 on 15/01/10 - ------ attd ( my address) refused access-met debtor (male). (mid terrace with white door and cylinder lock) best time to meet : not known. form left: none. bvai completed.

 

 

 

The notice of seizure states ;

 

i have this day seized,disrained and impounded the goods and chattels listed on the attached inventory.

the amount which must be paid is as follows;

 

council tax/domestic rates and court costs------Blank

 

Attendence to levy fees ----------------------------Blank

 

Levy fee-----------------------------------------------Blank

 

walking possesion fee--------------------------------Blank

 

redemption of goods fee (head H)-----------------Blank

 

total ( see attached memorandum) ---------------£963.98

 

 

TOTAL the attached memorandum describes our car and a scribled not saying ----conf by nbr @ 66

Edited by agb657
Link to post
Share on other sites

They are supposed to give you a key to decipher their shorthand if you are not likely to understand it. The chances are they may use this as a delaying tactic and hope you will just give up. Therefore you should write back to them and ask them for an explanation, if they then refuse they are in breach of the DPA guidelines and could be reported to the ICO or you could file an action through the County Court for compliance.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are supposed to give you a key to decipher their shorthand if you are not likely to understand it. The chances are they may use this as a delaying tactic and hope you will just give up. Therefore you should write back to them and ask them for an explanation, if they then refuse they are in breach of the DPA guidelines and could be reported to the ICO or you could file an action through the County Court for compliance.

 

PT

 

 

Thank you

 

Thats my next move then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council dont seem to like me sending copies of my complaints to them:

 

 

If you wish to query Bristow & Sutor's actions or how theyhave obtained

their information, this is something you must take up with themdirect. As a lot

of the comments made in your latest email relate to theconduct of individual

bailiffs, you must address any complaint regarding thisto Bristow &

Sutor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have explained the Council's position regarding the actionstaken by

Bristow & Sutor, and I do not feel we are able to help youfurther. As

mentioned above, any further queries regarding this matter should nowbe

addressed to Bristow & Sutor direct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

letter from B&S extract;

 

"There was no second levy, our records show that we levied once on 15/01/2001 however the legislation states that we can charge fees per liability order."

 

 

"With regards the redemption fee this is charged in aacordance with Head H in Section 5 of the council tax regulations and is payable for the release of the goods back into your control. Although it is added to the case at the time we seize the goods , the payment of this fee is not taken till the very end. if the debt is not paid or we instead remove and sell goods then the redemption fee is credited"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

letter from B&S extract;

 

"There was no second levy, our records show that we levied once on 15/01/2001 however the legislation states that we can charge fees per liability order."

 

 

"With regards the redemption fee this is charged in aacordance with Head H in Section 5 of the council tax regulations and is payable for the release of the goods back into your control. Although it is added to the case at the time we seize the goods , the payment of this fee is not taken till the very end. if the debt is not paid or we instead remove and sell goods then the redemption fee is credited"

 

 

Not if they levy for them at the same time imho, others will know more

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...