Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
    • cause like you said in post one, 99% of people think these are FINES (it now reads charge). and wet themselves and cough up. they are not, they are speculative invoices because the driver supposedly broke some imaginary contract by driving onto privately owned land which said owner may or may not have signed some 99% fake contract with a private parking co years ago, thats already expired or has not been renewed or annually paid to employ them dx  
  • 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

Question regarding Bailiff Fees


phunkeymonkeh
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6213 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

To cut a long story short, i was £200 in arrears on last years council tax. Judgement was ordered, and i was presented with a bill for the outstanding amount plus this years circa £900.

 

The bailiff company came (Menai Collect) and i paid them in full on their first visit, and i didnt sign anything or let them in.

 

They charged me £85 for removal with a van....

 

Can they do this? i thought they could only apply this charge if a walking possesion had been signed.?

 

I complained to the Bailiff compant requesting the £85 back, and they have just sent me a letter saying that they can charge this fee at any stage and do not require me to have previously signed a walking posession.

 

I want to double check before i write to them again.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're pulling your leg, phunkey.

There is no point in them attending with a van to remove goods if they have not previously entered your house to levy.

Presumably there were other charges beside the £85 van fee. They might have overcharged you for those as well!

Write to them asking for a full statement of their costs.

Write to your council complaining about the charges imposed by their bailiff.

Make sure each letter is accompanied by a copy of the other.

Post back here when you get a response.

 

Elsinore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Elsinore,

 

There were no other charges. That was their first visit.

 

I have already written to them and the council.

I havnt received a response from the council yet, but Menai Collect wrote back stating that and i quote

 

'the regulations do not state that this fee can only be charged if a walking possesion agreement has been entered into. '

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to ask their managing director, Mike Garland, if he thinks this squares with the 'mission statement' on his website:-

 

"Menai’s focus is to obtain the best outcomes for its clients’ while maintaining the highest possible standards of professionalism; upholding the dignity of the laws under which it operates and promoting respect in equal measure for the law and for those against whom it enforces the law"

 

Elsinore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, this letter was from Mike Garland.

 

The bailiff that called at my house was the other director ! Such a professional outfit.

 

Esentially what im asking , is the charge legal at that stage....first visit and no entry or walking possesion.

 

If not, do you have any links or exerts i can fire back at him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is not legal to charge a van fee for collection of council tax if the bailiff has not taken a levy. The fees for council tax are regulated by statute - if no levy has been taken then they are allowed to charge £22.50 for the first letter or visit and £16.50 for the second. That is it unless they obtain walking possession - if you would like a summary of what they can charge go to national debtline's web site: National Debtline, for FREE CONFIDENTIAL and INDEPENDENT ADVICE call 0808 808 4000, and go to factsheets, then bailiffs and council tax, where the regulations have been reproduced. They do this all the time - don't let them get away with it. If they refuse to refund you, national debtline's factsheet tells you how and where to complain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wont go into the details because it enrages me.

But to give you the full picture i met them on the doorstep as i was leaving. I refused to sign anything or let them in.

 

The bailiff removed, without my persmission..my car keys from my back pocket and wouldnt give them back.

 

Does this change anything at all, can they 'levy' without me signing anything ?

I should mention that their van, was not a van at all , but a mitsibushi truck

Link to post
Share on other sites

That does cloud the issue a little - did they remove your car? What happened to the keys? Basically I think they can sieze a vehicle if they have reason to believe it is yours (and the bill is in your name) but if they want to have the right to come back another time to remove goods then you have to sign a walking possession agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiff charges for Council Tax from October 2003

 

For a visit to your home where no entry is made and a list of goods is not made (i.e. a levy is not made)

a) £22.50 for a first visit

b) £16.50 for a second visit

c) no further charges for further visits

 

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

 

Reasonable costs incurred (N.B. only one charge can be made).

 

Elsinore

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they can't pick pocket you - although having watched the Whistleblower programme on bailiffs this week - they seem to get away with all sorts of things they can't legally do - and if it is your word against theirs it seems they get away with it with impunity. Outrageous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Funnily, the letter i received from the bailiffs regarding my complaint confirms that they took the keys from my pocket.

 

Is it worded like they pick pocketed you? I would be going straight to the police with that evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...