Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • 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

Excel Civil Enforcement - I fear this is the real deal :-/


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4392 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

Hhmmm, well R&R entered initially and took a list of my possessions. Is that still withstanding? I'll contact Excel later and post the response I'm given by their goons.

Even with a levy they cannot just break in at that stage, I cannot see how Excel have got hold of this if Ross 'n Robbers are the contracted bailiff to the council, for the collection of council tax liability.

 

Something is wrong imho, as HMRC and Excel along with their operation crackdown are sweet FA to do with council tax enforcement. Mistaken identity with someone who has been to magistrates court?

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

Even with a levy they cannot just break in at that stage, I cannot see how Excel have got hold of this if Ross 'n Robbers are the contracted bailiff to the council, for the collection of council tax liability.

 

Something is wrong imho, as HMRC and Excel along with their operation crackdown are sweet FA to do with council tax enforcement. Mistaken identity with someone who has been to magistrates court?

 

No I don't understand that either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

looking at the first three letters of the scans, it is definatly a court fine and not council tax.

the ref will start with *MC(* being the court area i.e smc is south magi courts).

 

Op crackdown is in force with the police, and arrests can and will be made if need be.

 

Forced entry can be made even without a levy in place for magi fines.

 

Talking through the door wont help as they can and will force entry if you refuse to let them in on HMCS fines.

 

And that letter is a HMCS warning letter.

 

council tax warning letters are very different and give more details on debt origin i.e council ref no, cost added and so on.

 

Ross and Roberts levy no longer exists.

 

If they were unable to collect and returned it to the magi's as such, then it will have been reissued to excel for them to try and collect.

 

I would ring excel tomorrow and find out what the fine is for.

they will have the basic details and can give you the courts ref no for you to speak to them.

at this stage the court will only give you fine details and will refer you back to bailiff for anything else.

 

I would advise paying this any which way you can, or you DO risk being arrested or you CAN lose your household items and cars.

 

Sorry to sound harsh but not alot you can do now.

You would have had multiple letters from magi courts, not to mention original summons or "side of the road" fine and at least 2 from excel.

not only that but this red letter will not be a first visit so you would have recieved notice by hand prior to this.

If you wish to contest that a bailiff has ever visited before, then please be aware almost all bailiffs now have trackers in their vans and either cameras in their vans or on their person.

 

Good luck to you and hope it all works out well in the end. just talking to the bailiff may help.

the office staff will have a script where as the bailiff can decide on his own what to do i.e arrangements and so on.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God. I've made a massive mistake here.

 

It is, as most have correctly identified, infact a mag court fine (motoring related) and nothing to do with my council tax,

 

I'd completely forgotten about it and now its accrued so many different charges its near twice the original amount.

 

How embarrassing.

Sorry if I've wasted peoples time here.

 

Though, I'm still in the same pickle, albeit its now actually pretty serious.

 

I can muster possibly half of that £810 for Friday, do you think they'd accept that?

 

Is it worth calling the office or should I try and negotiate with the bailiff.

I dont want them anywhere near my home,

 

so I might wait outside the gates for them to arrive instead.

 

Is this the right course?

 

I feel like a right plumb.:roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what you got it wrong

 

we will still help.....

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello :D

 

Im new, in Cardiff and a friend kindly linked me up to you guys.

 

I too have had two red letters from EXCEL civil enforcement Ltd in the last two days.

 

One with OPERATION CRACKDOWN on it, case 2 £238.00

 

One with Removal Notice on it, case 3 £231.00

 

There was a case 1 ...i paid it last year.

 

Case 1 and 2 are motoring offences and Case 3 must be parking tickets, im not sure.

 

If i can explain last year i opened my front door to a Excel representative.

 

He put the door in my face, "im f****** coming in",

 

i put the door back at him and told him in the same language he used that he wasnt.

 

I ended up paying £300 over two months last year, now they are back for more.

 

What are my rights here please? im not a wont payer, im self employed but not working much so i just cant afford to pay.

 

After my door in face incident, i will now be filming any conversation from now on, and i will tell him so...is this ok?

 

Many thanks :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I contacted the court who told me to speak with Excel directly.

 

They told me another bailiff has been assigned and I was given his number, a Mr Durrant.

 

I spoke with him and agreed to pay £510 tomorrow with the remaining amount at the end of this month.

 

I was shocked when he asked, "How about we leave you for a few hours so you can call a few people and get some more money".

 

Quite offended really, thankfully laying hands on the £510 didnt involve asking cap in hand to friends and family

but I do sincerely feel for those people who have to do that, its degrading.

 

Anyhow, 510 tomorrow, I wont let them in,

 

 

I'll get a receipt and await another visit on the 28th of this month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I was shocked when he asked, "How about we leave you for a few hours so you can call a few people and get some more money".

 

This sort of suggestion will push many vunseable people into the hands of loan sharks, it is absolutely repugnant that a bailiff or enforcement officer would or does encourage a debtor to seek more debt just to pay THEM

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

Yes, its certainly not a good thing to say, but ultimately it sounds like its worked out reasonably well, as long as you are able to afford what you have agreed, and I don't think many people here will be at all shocked by anything a bailiff does or says.

 

Paying money to a bailiff rather than directly to the court does trouble me slightly but I guess if the court just directs you to the bailiff there isn't much else you can do!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can't really afford it in all honesty, its money owed to others than invariably is pushed to another source. Its not great, but its necessary unfortunately. Yes, the court had effectively 'sold' it, I suppose. Hey, ho.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I'm sure the bailiff lied about, is that they've said they can take any property even though most belongs to your landlord and your landlord would have to prove its his and collect it. That's wrong. Your landlord can make a statement to say what you told the bailiffs and if they still insist in removing goods that are not yours, they will be breaking the law.

SAFU

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello everyone - a quick update, I received a letter on the 14/4/12 from a company called M3PR: http://imgur.com/A38xX

 

I do owe them the balance of the court fine which is 290.00. Is the content of this letter correct? If I were to pay, for example, next Thursday (26/4/12) would they not accept it because it would be beyond the '5 days from the date of this letter' (which would be yesterday, 19th). If that were the case, then today would be the 'first Friday following the expiry' as they have detailed.

 

I notice that the proprieters of this company are Excel Civil Enforcement so I assume this is just a guise to get even more heavy handed.

 

Can I assume, if they don't turn up today, that my deadline is next Friday? If so, can I pay on the Thursday or will they just ignore the gesture? I wouldn't have thought so. Finally, can they use a locksmith? This is a court fine after all.

 

Many thanks in advance everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the letter you have received has been sent by 2nd Class using DHL/UKMail etc in which case it was purposely timed to arrive after any date you could comply with. I believe it is a letter designed to intimidate and would ask what goods are they coming to remove as from a quick read of the rest of this thread I see nowhere have Excel either gained entry to your home or been able to seize goods extrenally.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...