Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello there!  an update and a further question for you please..    Letter was sent back to Drydens Fairfax within  the 30 days disputing the claim due to student loans deferring the loans each year.     Received a letter from Drydens on 11/12 acknowledging the letter,  saying that the account had been put on a temporary hold whilst they contact their client with details of the query and that they will inform us as soon as a response is recieved from their client.   Then yesterday another letter of claim arrives, exactly the same as the one they sent in Nov, with no response to the letter we sent back to them in response to the previous letter of claim that they sent in Nov.      Do we just need to send another response back as we sent in Nov?   What are they playing at?   SLC never replied to the SAR that we sent off in Nov either.   Thanks again for your help with this.
    • not been reading up during the down times between each stage on here? so you know whats to come next at each stage and thus what to do? part of cag is self help.........   LEGAL : N180 Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track) **Correct at Sept 2016** - Legal - Consumer Action Group   i would recommend you do not give lowell sols your email/sig/phone - leave those blank on their copy  
    • no the last entry says DQ N180 sent to you on the 17th by the court   have you not received it?   dx  
    • Some clarification needed please.   I have been sent a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' (Form N180) which needs to be returned to the court by next week. In the blurb where it tells me it is to be returned by the due date, under the court's address it says "and serve copies to all other parties". Does this mean I also have to send a copy to Lowell as well?   Thanks.
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3346 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

The same stories over and over again, isn't it about time that someone took a proper look at all this?

 

 

most definitely!!! but who?? I can quite easily see how the actions of some of these bailiffs could worry someone into the grave...I consider myself to be of a strong disposition...but all the grief and hassle I received from the bailiff's was so stressful and worrying!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Done some refinements to the document - the latest version is here, which I think pretty much nails it on the dot - lettertocouncilceo-phoenix.pdf - and it'll get sent today.

 

Any other feedback is appreciated. Thanks simonf1975 for the notes you sent through, I've used them to rework the wording on the document a bit :)

Edited by Microchip
Link to post
Share on other sites

I apparently received

two visits from a Robert Clegg on behalf of Phoenix on the 23rd of March at 10:49 and 29th of

March at 14:48,

 

 

cant find him on the register of bailiffs did you phone Ministry of Justice Public Register of bailiffs on 020 3334 6355 to confirm he is a certificated bailiff and his employer is/was Phoenix at time the visit fees were charged

Edited by hallowitch
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd really appreciate that if you could!

 

I'm going to make the call re Robert Clegg being on the Register when I get chance at work too.

 

If Mr clegg was not a bailiff in march(certificated to phoenix) when the visit fees were charged then the fees would have to be removed It would be good if you could find out before wonkey made a final draft of your letter so she can include this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here's the latest version - lettertocouncilceo-phoenix-v2.pdf - with the assistance provided by wonkeydonkey. Seems to look pretty reasonable, and I've incorporated a few things of my own, hopefully it'll be quite effective. If anyone has any feedback before this goes in the post to the council later, I'd appreciate it.

 

Once we get some feedback from the council, I'll post up here with the response.

Edited by Microchip
Accidentally left names in redacted PDF, added bits of text
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Well, it seems some feathers have been ruffled, and the complaint to the council finally got some action. Got a reply immediately from the Council telling us they were looking in to it, and they'd be in touch. Just got 2 letters from Phoenix - one by normal mail, and one by 9AM guaranteed next day special delivery!

 

The first one - phoenix-20111124-letter1.pdf - is an "if you want all personal data, send £10, but here's the statement we have to give you", with the information in the statement.

 

The second - phoenix-20111124-letter2.pdf - is a retort from Phoenix. We have no communications on 1st, 9th, 21st and 30th April which he is pointing out on the first page. I will see if there's a such letter that was sent out when the arrangement was made re the £10 broken arrangement fee - is it possible that's a binding agreement? I've been unable to locate such a document.

 

Not sure what to make of the comments about the 50p processing fees.

 

Regarding the comment about the bailiff "inadvertently entered the figures £285.50 manually and this was incorrect the figure had he acted would have been £259.50" - £259.50 being £140 above the amount currently due according to them - which doesn't seem to quite add up. Judging by their £120 van fee (if it was a second visit after a walking possession if he'd had one), where has the extra £20 come from? This seems to nicely gloss over the "error" made by the bailiff, which I think is complete rubbish.

 

They also comment about the querying or offering settlement on the debt - it was queried as mentioned earlier in this thread as soon as I became aware of it and consulted with the people on here. "Nobody was attempting to defraud you, or deceive or cheat you in any way" - sounded like the bailiff who turned up was attempting to do just that, just wish I'd recorded it now, but my phone was on the blink.

 

I'm also curious as to why "You, or rather a person identifying themselves as your friend, have since contacted our office and they were advised to deal with the bailiff as they in their conversation stated quite categorically you would not be paying the debt" - where at any point in the documentation was this stated? I suspect they're watching this thread themselves. :wave: (For the record, while I've helped her get the documentation she needs together to sort this out, and get the assistance we need to make sure she pays the fair legal amount, as I've said all along, but she's sent all the documentation off herself.)

 

I'd appreciate any feedback anyone has, I'm not sure exactly where to take this now.

Edited by Microchip
Clarified amounts
Link to post
Share on other sites

It clearly stated on one of the letters from the bailiff "I have called today to collect the sum of £285.50 being the amount now due in respect of Council Tax owing to.... As yet I have not removed any goods. I will however be returning on or after the 14th/10 when I will expect to collect the sum quoted above"

 

Phoenix are now trying to say that this figure is what the bailiff COULD have increased it to. The actual money owing being £119.50.

 

I'm sick and tired of it now. How do they get away with this rubbish? It clearly states he want £285.50 from me. No? This is this them clearly trying to backtrack isn't it? Throwing in a few clever words that they think will confuse me?

 

Every time I read the words Phoenix Collections, I just get frustrated and wound up. They KNOW their bailiff was trying to pull a fast one. Infuriates me.

 

I will have the money tomorrow to pay the council directly. I will not be sad to see the back of these idiots. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is indeed a case of "you have been a naughty person by not paying so don't complain" what it fails to do is answer questions. Clearly they state "if you don't agree to our terms then we won't allow you to pay", this is confirmed by having to agree a "broken agreement fee" for the right to pay? It must be noted they are also saying the fees demanded by the Bailiff would not have been taken had you "paid up" yet the evidence shows these were the fees the bailiff wanted 'like it or lump it'

 

Sorry but to me this is a totally unacceptable reply. Should you wish to pay the £10 for the SAR, they are wrong to suggest they do have to provide screen shots under the Data Protection Act as they well know, simply put if it is data they hold on the subject, then it is data they must release. I have the right to feel confident in this field for having actually taken a claimant to court for failure to comply in full with a Subject Access Request, their own Barrister acknowledged screen shots of the account was infact data that must be given under the act and the Court ruled that to be the case.

 

There is a need to reply and should you wish further help I will be happy to draft it for you.

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is indeed a case of "you have been a naughty person by not paying so don't complain" what it fails to do is answer questions. Clearly they state "if you don't agree to our terms then we won't allow you to pay", this is confirmed by having to agree a "broken agreement fee" for the right to pay? It must be noted they are also saying the fees demanded by the Bailiff would not have been taken had you "paid up" yet the evidence shows these were the fees the bailiff wanted 'like it or lump it'

 

Sorry but to me this is a totally unacceptable reply. Should you wish to pay the £10 for the SAR, they are wrong to suggest they do have to provide screen shots under the Data Protection Act as they well know, simply put if it is data they hold on the subject, then it is data they must release. I have the right to feel confident in this field for having actually taken a claimant to court for failure to comply in full with a Subject Access Request, their own Barrister acknowledged screen shots of the account was infact data that must be given under the act and the Court ruled that to be the case.

 

There is a need to reply and should you wish further help I will be happy to draft it for you.

 

WD

 

Again, I'd appreciate the assistance if you wouldn't mind! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs....good for you for keeping the pressure up with Phoenix they might eventually learn peeps will not just roll over or walk away when they get a load of waffling in reply to valid points raised.

 

Will get back to you asap, but ready to send by Monday at the latest.

 

 

WD

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...