Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
  • 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

JBW bailiff forced me to pay - can I do anything


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4364 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

A couple of weeks ago a JBW bailiff visited my friend around 7:20 in the morning saying he had a warrant for some unpaid parking penalty.

 

Without asking permission he entered the flat.

 

As my friend doesn't speak english too well and was not aware of the situation

 

he let the bailiff in and called his 16 years old daughter to interpret.

The bailiff demanded instant payment of £400 - £700 in different moments of conversation.

 

He was not willing to deal in any way, refused to leave and kept on asking for payment.

 

Asked if he can come another time he said no.

 

Asked for instalments he refused as well and threatened the family that he will take away the car or he will put my friend to jail.

The whole situation lasted around 40 minutes within his wife, 16yo and 3yo daughters was present.

They started crying and stuff and eventually my friend was forced to pay £570 with his credit card on the spot.

He only showed the warrant on his mobile device and never left any copy of it.

 

He left hand written notice of seizure and a receipt only.

 

We read different sources and we are sure he breached his competence.

 

Now we do not really know where to start and what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is story repeated every working day. Early morning call (steel capped shoes kicking the door?), Bailiffs have adopted the unlawful assumption that they can flash a PDF copy of 'warrant' that was recently typed out in their office on commercial software.

 

Its a con. There is no legislation that allows this.

 

There is legislation that requires the local authority to print a warrant within 7 days of its authorisation by Traffic Enforcement Centre, but if that had happened the bailiff would have brought a copy with him.

 

Jail? Another con by an shameless idiot who has absolutely no authority at all in this respect

Link to post
Share on other sites

disgusting

 

do this:

 

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/

 

he paid under duress

 

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

Hi, thanks for the answers.

 

I heard about the chargeback process but never actually went across. What steps should I take to make it happen? Do I need to contact the police? Can I do it online or on the phone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

erm...read the link?

 

phone the card provider

 

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

Also get a complaint off to the council that issued the PCN and JBW. They should have left the premises as soon as they had realised that the debtor did not understand English. Disgraceful behaviour JBW, sort your bailiffs out!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a letter to the bank demanding Chargeback form, will see what they say.

 

Here is what I conceived as a letter of complaint. I would very much appreciate any help with wording as parts of the document I took from a template and parts of it wrote myself. Any suggestion greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haringey Council Parking Service

P.O. Box 4789

Worthing

BN11 9QA

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

JBW Ref:

Client ref:

Visit by your bailiff on

 

Formal Complaint Stage 1

 

 

I have had an opportunity to seek advice and I write on the understanding that Case Law has ruled an Authority is liable for its bailiffs. I therefore ask you to deliver to me at the above address a full refund of of £573.04 within seven days from the date of this letter.

 

I have all reasons to believe that the bailiffs behaviour was disgraceful and regard the whole process as fraudulent.

Please allow me to present you with the circumstances we experienced:

The bailiff came in early in the morning at 7:20AM

He was invited inside the house as we did not suspect any such visit.

We never received any letter or any information of a possible bailiff action.

I do not speak fluent English and therefore had to call my under-age daughter to interpret.

The bailiff was acting rude aggressive and abusive towards me and my family during his whole visit. He was threatening me with removal of vehicle, goods from inside the house and jail sentence towards myself. Please bear in mind my wife and 16yo and 3yo daughters were present the whole time.

Despite several attempts he refused to pay another visit, delay payment or allow instalments.

He threatened us with a phone call which we believe was fake for a removal vehicle.

After all this with all my family thoroughly shaken and the bailiff refusing to leave the premisses I was left with no other choice then pay. I am a father of two and the only working person in the family and as such I did not have anything close to the amount and had to pay using credit card causing another debt.

At no time I was presented with Warrant of Execution which I believe is necessary for a bailiff to undertake any action.

 

 

 

Apart of all this I have reasons to believe there is several inaccuracies in the Notice of Seizure I was issued:

There is no entitlement for your bailiff to charge me a fee for Levy fee because I paid the bailiff when he attended.

There is no entitlement for your bailiff to charge “Other” fee because the law does not provide for any fee of that description.

 

Charging these fees only is fraud and I understand it is a criminal offence under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and anyone receiving or benefiting from the proceeds of a crime may be subject to a criminal investigation.

 

I appreciate the public are less-informed of the prescribed fees bailiffs are entitled to charge, I believe they have taken advantage of this to make a gain or obtain an unlawful money transfer for himself or another. While I am quite sure the council did not intend to contract a firm of tricksters who have been found defrauding a member of the public in this way, I would be grateful if we can settle this matter quickly and quietly by refunding me within the next seven days. They may be bailiffs but that does not make them less liable than any other public service contractor, e.g. a plumber. However, a bailiff is in a position of trust and in abusing that position they commit an offence under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, that in your failure to furnish me with a refund within seven days, I will automatically file a claim in the small claims track without writing further and this will invariably involve an application for costs, and I'll inform the LGO that you the council is aware that a contractor working under your instruction is engaging in criminal activity by defrauding memebers of the public. If you wish to start an investigation of your own, please be advised that in the absence of a refund this doesn't delay legal proceedings or filing a criminal complaint with a police authority.

 

This document is a notice of intended proceedings and delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it to be served on you by the ordinary course of post in the meaning of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and therefore your responsibility and it’s in your own interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...