Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for that. I will give them till Tuesday. Thanks for your help, very much appreciated. 
    • Ok thanks for that, well spotted and all duly noted. Yes they did eventually submit those docs to me after a second letter advising them I was contacting the ICO to make a formal complaint for failing to comply with an earlier SAR that they brushed off as an "administrative error" or something. When I sent the letter telling them I was in contact with the information commissioner to lodge the complaint, the original PCN etc quickly followed along with their excuse!
    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
  • 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 
        • 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

Bailiffs coming to take goods for council tax tommorow advice please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4452 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

Just to update you all, I went to citezens advice they were too busy to see me, so I went across the road to the council offices and spoke to an advisor there.

She seemed to think it was quite funny, that there's nothing they can do, and the bailiff can break in if he wants to.

Apparantly they don't have any contact whatsoever with rossendales and once it is passed to them the council can't touch it. I said about the things people say on the Internet about rossendales looks like they make up their own rules, she said 'well yeah they will say that it's that kind of job nobody is going to like a bailiff'

 

Despite that I told her the car is used for work purposes, and she got someone else on the phone who rang rossendales for her (even though the council don't have any contact with them) and rossendales said they will put off the removal of items for 7 days but only because they might not be able to take the car.

I now apparantly have 7 days to prove I use my car for work

 

Thanks for all the advice so far, without it id be selling everything I own to get £1300 together in the next 7 days.

I will get typing some letters later tonight, although I spoke to the court enforcement manager on the phone thanks to the phone number from a member on here, he didnt care either and said I should be talking about this to rossendales not him. Hopefully letters will get more done

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you are you see, they've proved to you that lying just comes second nature to them.

 

I'm surprised the council's court enforcement manager you spoke to has managed to hang on to his job for this long, perhaps its down to his superior lying skills that the council are impressed with. Anyone who brags about their courtroom conquests and how they have the power to ruin peoples lives with bankruptcies and repossessions has everything that's coming to them in my mind.

 

What about paying the council direct? Anything said about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you are you see, they've proved to you that lying just comes second nature to them.

 

I'm surprised the council's court enforcement manager you spoke to has managed to hang on to his job for this long, perhaps its down to his superior lying skills that the council are impressed with. Anyone who brags about their courtroom conquests and how they have the power to ruin peoples lives with bankruptcies and repossessions has everything that's coming to them in my mind.

 

What about paying the council direct? Anything said about this.

 

Yeah she said if I bring money to their office to pay, although they can't turn it away, they have to ring rossendales and ask them how much their charges are, then pay those first

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update you all, I went to citezens advice they were too busy to see me, so I went across the road to the council offices and spoke to an adviser there.

She seemed to think it was quite funny, that there's nothing they can do, and the bailiff can break in if he wants to.

Apparently they don't have any contact whatsoever with rossendales and once it is passed to them the council can't touch it. I said about the things people say on the Internet about rossendales looks like they make up their own rules, she said 'well yeah they will say that it's that kind of job nobody is going to like a bailiff'

 

Despite that I told her the car is used for work purposes, and she got someone else on the phone who rang rossendales for her (even though the council don't have any contact with them) and rossendales said they will put off the removal of items for 7 days but only because they might not be able to take the car.

I now apparently have 7 days to prove I use my car for work

 

Thanks for all the advice so far, without it id be selling everything I own to get £1300 together in the next 7 days.

I will get typing some letters later tonight, although I spoke to the court enforcement manager on the phone thanks to the phone number from a member on here, he didn't care either and said I should be talking about this to rossendales not him. Hopefully letters will get more done

 

 

your council are talking rubbish

 

your council will have a contract /service level agreement with rossendales (you can make a freedom of information request to the council asking for a copy of this)

 

everything the bailiff does he does on behalf of the local authority legislation clearly states this

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/contents/made

 

  • Regulation 45 Distress

    45.—(1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.

     

    (4) Where an authority has seized goods of the debtor in pursuance of the distress

    (5) The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Yeah she said if I bring money to their office to pay, although they can't turn it away, they have to ring rossendales and ask them how much their charges are, then pay those first

     

    They can't allocate your payment to cover Rossendales fees if you pay through either internet banking, or through their website (if that's possible). They are bluffing, you can tell when they're lying because their lips move.

     

    They are responsible for their appointed bailiffs – they will try to pass the buck. If this goes to a formal complaint don't let them fob you off by passing it to Rossendales to handle. Incidentally that [EDIT] you spoke to will probably get involved in the complaints process somewhere down the line.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    you must make a formal complaint to the complaints department of your council with a copy sent to Tony Hunter, who is the chief executive, of your council

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?212401

     

    In my opinion asking to provide proof that the car is used for work is a red herring (however if you can you should send a copy of your car insurance if its for work) the car would only be exempt if its used by you only for the sole purpose of work to make it exempt from seizure

     

    the fact that it would not cover bailiff fees removal storage fees and a large portion of the principle debt should be put in your formal complaint note its the local authority that was taken to court in this detailed assessment (you should quote this case in your formal complaint)

     

    Detailed Assessment Judgment of Throssell v Leeds City Council where the District Judge ruled as follows:

    “Turning to the taxation it seems to me that notwithstanding the fact that there were three liability orders but one visit was made by one bailifflink3.gif and the maximum that the Council’s reasonable charges can be is the result of applying the formula contained in Schedule 5 paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Regulations”

     

    they cannot charge so many fees if only one visit is made

    as for your car how old is it? I.E. would the sale of it actually cover a large percentage of the bill anyway?

    a vehicle should only be removed if the proceeds of sale provide that there would be a surplus available to the liability order after deductions for the bailifflink3.gif fees, , removal storages and auctioneers fees.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    What utter rubbish, your council seem to have no idea what can and cannot be done. The council are wholly responsible for the actions of the bailiff, the bailiff is their acting agent and have to do what the council says. These people need to start reading up what they can and cannot do.

    Did you show them the link I sent linked in an earlier thread?

    Councils and bailiff companies have all agreed to abide by them.

    maybe you should also print off the council tax and administration regulations and send them a copy of it.

     

    Have a word with your MP and see what they have to say about it.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    ......I said about the things people say on the Internet about rossendales looks like they make up their own rules, she said 'well yeah they will say that it's that kind of job nobody is going to like a bailiff'.....

     

    I don't know why I didn't think of this before. If that's their attitude I can scan a couple of North East Lincolnshire council's formal complaint responses where they:

     

    1. upheld a complaint about a Rossendales bailiff adding an invented fee to my account.

     

    2. upheld a complaint about a Rossendales bailiff charging an unlawful fee for an illegal levy on a vehicle.

     

    3. stated they got the bailiff in question sacked for misconduct over the levy.

     

    Let me know if you think supplying the council with this evidence will help? If so I'll fish the documents out and get them scanned.

     

    Something else to throw at them

     

     

    The Grimsby Telegraph Article

     

    On the appointment of bailiffs, the spokesman for North East Lincolnshire Council said: “Rossendales are the appointed bailiffs for North East Lincolnshire Council for the collection of unpaid council tax.

     

    They are governed by the National Standard for Enforcement Agents. The council does not pay for Rossendales’ service, but a service agreement is in place and, as such, the company is accountable to the council.

    Edited by outlawla
    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    The LOCAL AUTHORITY are wholly responsible to the LEVY and FEES that are charged by THEIR agents.

     

    They cannot and must not abdicate responsibility for their agents actions.

     

    If you work as a self employed plumber, then you need to get some evidence together to support this (business cards, receipts, adverts etc). This should be sufficient to demonstrate that your vehicle is exempt as it is for "your use personally in the course of your business or vocation". This is the actual wording from the statutory legislation.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    • 1 month later...

    Sign on for benefits...your entitled to them,and the courts and creditiors are much more symaphetic when your unemployed and claiming benefits...as for the bailiffs,a lot of them work on a commision,the more there collect,the more there earn,so sometimes there threaten things there shouldnt,best thing to do is ignore the door in the first place..good luck!

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

      • No registered users viewing this page.

    • Have we helped you ...?


    ×
    ×
    • Create New...