Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see they're trying to round up asylum seekers and lock them up for about three months so they can be put on planes to Rwanda. I'm a bit surprised that this is legal.  
    • thought for the day "Prime ministers need a big strategy that tells you where you’re going, you need a bunch of tactics that get you there, and you need the ability to take everybody else with you."   Now I know you are all thinking 'why is the  UKs destination Rwanda ???
    • Asset Link filed for a default CCJ against me, in relation to an old Barclaycard debt which I apparently signed an agreement for back in 2000.   I did not own a Barclaycard in 2000 so I know this is not true.  The CCJ notice was sent to an old address so I did not receive it.  Years later when I found out about the CCJ when I applied for credit, I put an application in to have the CCJ set aside.   As part of the set aside case, I was asked by the judge to provide a draft defence, should the CCJ be set aside.   The defence I provided was that I did not admit to the debt as I had not been provided with any evidence of an original loan agreement.   I won the case and the CCJ was set aside.   Link then filed to court again to make me pay the debt.   We both filed directions questionnaires and the judge allocated the claim to the small claims track.   As part of the directions, additional directions given were as follows ' Additional Directions in a claim for an Assigned Debt - Because the claim is in respect of an assigned debt the Court makes the following directions for the management of claim.  The claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless, before that time, the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents'  It then listed various documents such as an original agreement, deed of assignment, notice of default, statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement etc.     The Claimant failed to provide these documents within the deadline provided and instead I received a copy of a bundle of documents provided by them in preparation for the court date, this was received weeks after the deadline.    I have called the Court to ask if it has been automatically struck out and they advised that it is not automatic and that I should still send my witness statement by the deadline provided, which is Wednesday.  This does not give me much time to prepare my witness statement.   I have never done anything like this before and I am unclear what my witness statement should include.  My thoughts were that I should keep it simple and stick to the facts, like the fact thy have not provided evidence of the original agreement, or the deed of assignment of the debt.   They have provided a copy of a default notice from Baclaycard dated 2015, this states a figure of £550 but the debt they say I owe is £10k.   I am not sure what makes a valid default notice?   I have previously requested proof of the debt from Barclaycard directly and have evidence of emails between us where they have been unable to provide me with the agreement or any documents at all relating to the debt.   Should I include these as an appendix?  Are there any other documents I should include in my bundle?    I have also tried to mediate with the claimants, to save the court costs and time, on a without prejudice basis, but the claimants solicitors refused to mediate.   Should i state this in my witness statement too to show the judge that I have been reasonable and they haven't? Many thanks   Louise
    • Right that's exactly why so many drivers got caught, it had been that way for many years then suddenly changes with no warning
    • The hearing is 25th June, I have downloaded items to different organisations previously but they do it a simple way and I just cross out private things with a felt tip and sent to an email address.  I have looked at the instructions for CAG it seems extremely complicated especially this about having to use a system MSPAINT.EXE that removes your personal information. I am hoping one of my Grandchildren understands things to give me help, I have shown one of my daughters she said she does not understand the instructions. I have a PC and I mainly use a lap top, as previously advised I only understand the straightforward things, sending an email and using my scanner to send a document that I save in a file or send it to an email. I will try and find someone to help me, thanks for your help you have given me so far appreciate it        
  • 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

Urgent Help Needed - Bailiff Levy ***success***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4477 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

The way I see your fees is as follows but without the dates may just be guess work:

 

The object of the visit by the Bailiff is to levy on goods but where this is not possible - you were out - then he may charge a 1st Visit Fee of £24-50, if he makes a subsequent visit and the same happens again then he may charge a 2nd Visit Fee of £18-00. No matter how many more times he visits he can then no longer charge any more fees unless he can levy on goods.

 

You say he has levied on goods on his 1st Visit - therefore he is not entitled to charge a 1st Visit Fee. On the same visit he has also charged for an Attending to Remove Fee - as he has given you no time in which to pay this fee must be removed at this time. As he already has a levy on goods another visit made to you would be to Attend to Remove the said goods - he cannot charge a 2nd Visit Fee so this must be removed.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked the notice of seizure and inventory of goods form left by the bailiff on the 1st day and they added £213.50 on that day when they levied my partners car.....which means all those charges where for that 1 day.

 

Should i be making a complaint?

what is stopping them from coming down and actually finding my car outside this time and levying it with the disputed balance of £213.50?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You advised the bailiff that this car is not yours and therefore, the levy is invalid and all fees associated with the levy MUST be removed and replaced with a maximum fee of £42.50 for "attending to levy" ( where no levy was made).

 

Sadly, this account appears to be yet ANOTHER one where the council is Birmingham and the bailiff company is Equita.

 

As many regulars on here will know, B'ham outsource the collection of their council tax to a "back office" provider by the name of Capita.

 

Equita ( and Ross & Roberts) are wholly owned by CAPITA !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You advised the bailiff that this car is not yours and therefore, the levy is invalid and all fees associated with the levy MUST be removed and replaced with a maximum fee of £42.50 for "attending to levy" ( where no levy was made).

 

Sadly, this account appears to be yet ANOTHER one where the council is Birmingham and the bailiff company is Equita.

 

As many regulars on here will know, B'ham outsource the collection of their council tax to a "back office" provider by the name of Capita.

 

Equita ( and Ross & Roberts) are wholly owned by CAPITA !!!

 

Little more needs to be said then, another stitch up and £££s for Capita.

 

Formal Complaint and escalation to LGO as required by Op imho

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

  • 5 weeks later...

Im Back

I sent a letter to Equita telling them that they have not removed the invalid Levy fee, they responded by saying that they contacted the bailiff and he has stated that I knew that a levy was made. They have also asked for V5 and insurance docs to prove that I am not the owner of the vehicle.

Couple of things:

1) The letter states that 'he' (the bailiff) knew I made a levy...but the bailiff is female and I have pointed out that everytime I spoke to them it was a male who has not been proven to be a certified bailiff...any idea why this would be the case?

2) Yes I knew about the Levy fee and stated in my first correspondance to them I knew about it and that the vehicle in question is not mine

3) My worry is that the vehicle is my partners and she lives in the property, but is not named on any of the liability orders or demand for payment or any of the bills from the council, if I send the V5 and insurance docs can they count it as a valid levy?

4) The levy on the car was made on the first visit by the bailiff, I thought this can only be done on the 2nd visit....am I right or wrong? if I am right surely me sending the V5 and insurance docs shouldnt be applicable

Link to post
Share on other sites

A levy can be made on the first visit, however that can not charge for a visit fee on the same day. If you send proof that the car is not yours (even though they know this) this should stop the levy fee and the van fee.

You have every right to request a copy of both the bailiff certificates.

 

Have you complained to the CEO of the council yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the levy be valid even if its owned by my partner who is not named on any of the letters/demands/orders etc?

 

I'd see what others think, but in my opinion the levy will be invalid in these circumstances.

 

Also, it is unlikely the council will forward money to the bailiffs with regards the enforcement fees. However, it will likely tell you these need to be paid.

 

Bailiffs are allowed to "RETAIN" fees collected from the debtor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Equita will argue any goods at your home are jointly owned (joint and several) - and if you are a named driver on the insurance, will argue you have an interest in the vehicle.

Also, equita can not charge you 1st and 2nd visit fees as they have a habit of sending letters through the post not hand delivering them

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of the visit according to the statutory regualtions is to "LEVY UPON GOODS". Therefore, there should be NO need to charge an "attendind to remove" fee.

 

Furthermore, there should be NO requirement for YOU to prove ownership of the car because.....ALL BAILIFF COMPANIES HAVE ONLINE ACCESS TO DVLA RECORDS.

 

Under an FOI request, DVLA confirmed that Equita have been granted this right!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

does it make a difference if we are not married? I just dont know what the next steps to take are

 

If you have paid all outstanding debt to the council the levy should be irrelevant. You don't owe the bailiffs if your debt to the council has been settled. The statutory fees that the bailiff is demanding are not the bailiffs. They are in fact the council's fees which they allow them to retain. This will be detailed in their contractual arrangement with the bailiff firm.

 

It is highly unlikely the council would forward any fees to the bailiff firm, unless you paid over and above the outstanding debt to the council to cover their fees.

 

To be safe, you could ask the council to put it in writing that your debt has been settled in full.

 

Bear in mind – even if confirmation is received – the council would likely state that you still owe money to the bailiff. This would be between you and the bailiff (the council wouldn't care less about the bailiff's fees). If you receive confirmation that your council tax debt has been settled in full, they would not be allowed to enforce the levy.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have paid all outstanding debt to the council the levy should be irrelevant. You don't owe the bailiffs if your debt to the council has been settled. The statutory fees that the bailiff is demanding are not the bailiffs. They are in fact the council's fees which they allow them to retain. This will be detailed in their contractual arrangement with the bailiff firm.

 

It is highly unlikely the council would forward any fees to the bailiff firm, unless you paid over and above the outstanding debt to the council to cover their fees.

 

To be safe, you could ask the council to put it in writing that your debt has been settled in full.

 

Bear in mind the council would likely state that you still owe money to the bailiff. This would be between you and the bailiff. If you receive confirmation that your council tax debt has been settled in full, they would not be allowed to enforce the levy.

If the council give it to you in writing the Liability is fully discharged, the bailiff cannot rely on his levy to enforce for his fees alone as the debt has effectively died. he would have to use the small claims track to sue you for his fees which he would have to swear were fully legitimate, and actually owed. This is something he may well be reluctant to do, for whatever reason.

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 asked the council a while ago to send the bailiffs a letter confirming all outstanding balance payments, which they have as the bailiffs have acknowledged that payment, but they are still demanding the levy charges. What if I send a copy of the V5 documents but black out the addresses and say I dont trust them with the information but have provided proof that the vehicle is not owned by me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your council has sent confirmation to the bailiffs that your debt has been settled, can't you also request the same? Once you have this in writing, you will know that the bailiff has no powers to obtain any payment from you. The only risk you might possibly take would be, as brassnecked pointed out, the bailiff commenced further action himself to obtain his fees, which is unlikely and in my opinion, not worth his time.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would email the bailiff company and offer them the visit fee of £42.50 for two visit fee's.. then tell them that the onus is on them to find out who the car belongs to, they have access to DVLA to check, so even if you sent a copy of the log book with the address blanked out they can still see where the address is.

However they may argue that your partner is also responsible for the CT bill as she lives there also and you are living as man and wife.

You could argue back that if your partner had moved out regardless whether there was any out standing debt, they would not chase her for it as she is not on the bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is gonna help me, but my partner has not changed her address on her V5, she still has it at her previous address...If i send this without insurance docs it would still prove ownership of the car isnt mine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is gonna help me, but my partner has not changed her address on her V5, she still has it at her previous address...If i send this without insurance docs it would still prove ownership of the car isnt mine

 

I am afraid I will have to leave that up to your own discretion. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got another letter from them yesterday

(dated 3 days after the last letter)

telling me they are sending a bailiff to collect my things within the next 2 weeks.

I thought enough is enough and called them....

 

Equita: Have you called to pay the outstanding £263

Me: Nope

Equita: Have you called to arrange a payment plan

Me: Nope

Equita: Then why have you called?

Me: To get an apology from Equita!

 

He then said the outstanding balance is for council tax,

i told him the council tax has been paid and the outstanding costs were bailiff charges which were illegal.

I then carried on using words like fraudulent, vulnerable, harrasment etc.

The guy then said he had escalated the matter to his manager who will call back

 

Later on in the evening I got a call back and i was prepared for a war,

but the manager was actually pretty good,

i fibbed and said the owner of the vehicle who had the car levied doesnt want to send out the information to Equita as they have seen them on Watchdog,

the manager just looked through the history and said that they will take off all bailiff charges and just charged the visit fees of £42 which i happily paid

 

Hopefully thats an end to the saga, just a quick thanks to everyone who has helped out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...