Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4357 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

I have to pay Ross & Roberts £100 per month for my husbands old council tax arrears,

ONTOP of my monthly council tax, and I only earn £400 a month, I can't afford to pay any more money out :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll give it a go, it is so hard to pay, they threatened to take all of my stuff, even though its not my debt, if we are even late on a payment, and they point blank refused to reduce it :-(

 

thank you for your help :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

urm.....

 

on the ctax front

 

was this ctax for the home you shared?

 

if it was you are jointly liable

if i was not, then why are yuo paying it?

 

as for paying the bailiff,

you should ever do that but pay the council direct via your iternet banking site.

 

 

 

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

Hiya,

 

With regards to council tax, it was my husbands debt before I moved in with my daughter, then got married. I furnished the whole place as his ex lodger completely destroyed his stuff when he kicked her out for comitting benefit fraud which we found out when i helped him make a claim for benefits before i moved in.

 

the woman from ross and roberts said as i didnt have receipts to prove the stuff was mine it would be taken as his. i dont have any receipts, alot of the stuff is old, or was given to me, and although not worth much is all we have. she even listed my sofas.

 

unfortunately, we let them in as they got the van parked outside and said if we didnt let them in they would break in and take all our stuff, even my daughters toys!! so stupidly i let them in and she listed all my stuff anyway!

 

she was a complete b**** to me, i was in tears so was my daughter and myself and my husband (bf at the time) nearly broke up over it!

 

ive asked the council to take the debt back at a lower rate, but they just say as the debt is high they wont consider it. its breaking us trying to pay it every month :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you checked to see if you are entitled to more money as you are on a low income, you might even get council tax benefit and housing benefit, check this site (its anonymous) and if it says you are entitled to money claim it

 

http://www.entitledto.com

 

Freds/Reds and Bryan Carter are well known on here for their dubious activities, Uncle Bryan usually runs off when challenged.

 

As far as Freds stating the debt does not come under the CCA Act, it DOES... it is a form of credit for services.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also write strongly to the council about the Ross & Roberts lady, she was clearly wrong in her assumption that she could take kids toys - she can't. As for the receipt statement that is a standard bailiff copout argument and doesn't stand up in court.

 

You can pay the council tax online and not pay any more money to R&R, let them take you to court and the court would be on your side, not theirs, and we have a bailiff expert on this site who can help with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

new thread for ctax issue created for you here

 

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

You can write a state dec and get it sworn at your local court or a solicitors to state that the items in the home are yours, there is a small fee.

 

Are you on any benefits, if so can you let us know, are you classed as vulnerable under the national standards

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/bailiffs-enforcement-officers/national-standards-enforcement-agents.pdf

have a read of the link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also write strongly to the council about the Ross & Roberts lady, she was clearly wrong in her assumption that she could take kids toys - she can't. As for the receipt statement that is a standard bailiff copout argument and doesn't stand up in court.

 

You can pay the council tax online and not pay any more money to R&R, let them take you to court and the court would be on your side, not theirs, and we have a bailiff expert on this site who can help with them.

 

I would do this, but, when they left, they said now that they have been in our house, if we dont make a payment even if its only a day late, they have the right to break into our house and take the stuff they've listed :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you tell exactly what goods they have listed on the notice of seizure

 

how much the liability order was for

 

They have listed all my living room items, sofas, tv, wii, dvd player, stereo etc etc, so my living room would be emptied if they came and took the stuff. the order was for £3000, we have paid £100 since jan 2011

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you checked to see if you are entitled to more money as you are on a low income, you might even get council tax benefit and housing benefit, check this site (its anonymous) and if it says you are entitled to money claim it

 

http://www.entitledto.com

 

Freds/Reds and Bryan Carter are well known on here for their dubious activities, Uncle Bryan usually runs off when challenged.

 

As far as Freds stating the debt does not come under the CCA Act, it DOES... it is a form of credit for services.

 

I have just checked this site, apparently im entitled to a lot more than they are giving me!! but can i use this as a cross reference to show they are not paying me enough?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have listed all my living room items, sofas, tv, wii, dvd player, stereo etc etc, so my living room would be emptied if they came and took the stuff. the order was for £3000, we have paid £100 since jan 2011

 

can we have the full list please, as some are not allowed to be listed, for example sofa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, get in contact with the benefits people in your area on Monday and they should get the ball rolling, ask for a backdated claim due to the council tax levy and the fact that you are not getting the right benefits, then also get the printout from entitledto.com to the local council and inform them you have been wrongly assessed, are clearly vulnerable and they must call their dogs (Ross & Roberts) off.

 

If you can get a CAB appointment try them as well but don't hold your breath.

 

Just cos R&R say they 'can break in' doesn't mean they 'will', if there are illegal items on the levy, the whole levy is invalid and they have no right to collect anything further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Ross 'n Robbers are the appointed bailiffs, does the council outsource their backoffice functions to Capita. This would explain the council's apparent lack of will to tackle this, you may be talking to Capita rather than the council, so it may be soon the time to send out Formal Complaints, to CEO, Council leader councillor amd MP, that the council are avoiding the issue of your vulnerability and enforcing against the National Guidelines.

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

can we have the full list please, as some are not allowed to be listed, for example sofa.

 

Tv

Tv stand

Woo exercise board

Stereo

Speakers

DVD player

Surround sound

Wii nunchucks

Wii

Storage uprights + glass

3 seated sofa

2 sestet sofa

 

This is doubled on 2 pieces of paper, apparently there is 2 claims. Ones is for 1352 plus bailiff fees 140 and the other is 604 plus bailiff fees 141 we had to pay 250 there and then so they wouldn't take the stuff :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st off, they cannot use the same items on different levies, 2nd those items dont look as if they would cover the fee's and costs. Apart from the sofa's have you any other seating in the living room.

 

 

How much in monetary terms would you value those items.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tv little value unless top of the range 3d flatscreen did they list the remote also?

Tv stand as above no value

Woo exercise board

Stereo unless top of range or high cost separates little value

Speakers as above

DVD player DVD players can be bought for £20 new,as above

Surround sound as above

Wii nunchucks

Wii if childs exempt

Storage uprights + glass

3 seated sofa Do these have fire labels on?

2 sestet sofa as 3 seater

 

This is doubled on 2 pieces of paper, apparently there is 2 claims. Ones is for 1352 plus bailiff fees 140 and the other is 604 plus bailiff fees 141 we had to pay 250 there and then so they wouldn't take the stuff :-(

I would say that the levy is invalid, insofar as for a LOs totalling of £2,000 or so they would need to seize £20,000 worth of goods, due to bailiff auction stuff usually fetching 10% of value at auction, If they were to take the sofas, would there be sufficient seating dor the whole family? Also if there are no fire retardant label tags attached they cannot legally sell them at auction.

 

i would say that the levy is invalid insofar as there are insufficient goods on it to cover all fees, including auction, and a remainder to pay a portion of the debt. It may be that they levied only for the purpose of garnering fees imho. Others will know more.

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

1st off, they cannot use the same items on different levies, 2nd those items dont look as if they would cover the fee's and costs. Apart from the sofa's have you any other seating in the living room.

 

 

How much in monetary terms would you value those items.

 

probably £500 max, i bought the sofas second hand for £70 quid and its the only seating we have, we have a 3 year old and the telly pretty much belongs to her, we dont get a look in lol!

 

all the stuff listed, i havent bought new, its been second hand or given to me, the only luxury we have is the wii and that was also 2nd hand.

 

so, what do you think is the best course of action? i know we have to pay the debt, but £100 quid a month is ridiculous, is there any template letters i can send to the council, and will it actually get to a member of the council or these capita ppl?

 

do i need to write to R&R saying im not paying them anymore, i really dont want them to take the little things we do have if i do stop paying them :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that the levy is invalid, insofar as for a LOs totalling of £2,000 or so they would need to seize £20,000 worth of goods, due to bailiff auction stuff usually fetching 10% of value at auction, If they were to take the sofas, would there be sufficient seating dor the whole family? Also if there are no fire retardant label tags attached they cannot legally sell them at auction.

 

i would say that the levy is invalid insofar as there are insufficient goods on it to cover all fees, including auction, and a remainder to pay a portion of the debt. It may be that they levied only for the purpose of garnering fees imho. Others will know more.

 

So do you think they'd bother, I worry, as I'm am one of these unlucky people and they would turn up and take my stuff when i wasnt here just out of spite!i suppose they could take the 2 seater, there are 3 of us here, so deffinately couldnt take the 3 seater, am i right? there defiantely isnt any fire retardant labels!

 

it may sound sad and pathetic, but im so scared of them, there was 2 huge blokes with the van and this horrible woman and i dont wanna go through the stress of it again, im already on anti depressents coz of this :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are no fire retardent labels on the sofas then an auction house would not take them, the bailiffs need to have a complaint lodged and you now need to get onto the council tomorrow armed with the info from entitedto.com and get them to backdate the claims and call off their hounds (as previously stated).

 

You are clearly vulnerable with a young child under 10 in the house and the bailiffs acted outside their remit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are clearly vulnerable with a young child under 10 in the house and the bailiffs acted outside their remit.

 

I wish that was the case SG, but it does not matter if there is a child under 10, that does not make this a vulnerable situation, what does make this a vulnerable situation os the fact that you are on benefits.

 

Plus the fact that the items do not belong to your partner, they cannot take anything. See your council and speak with the head of revenues and benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish that was the case SG, but it does not matter if there is a child under 10, that does not make this a vulnerable situation, what does make this a vulnerable situation os the fact that you are on benefits.

 

Plus the fact that the items do not belong to your partner, they cannot take anything. See your council and speak with the head of revenues and benefits.

 

I tried making an appt with the council this morning who advised I need to make a complaint in writing then IF they think there is a cause for a meeting they will arrange it.

 

They also advised I need to make a complaint to R&R, I dont know what to say or write without getting more crap from them :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to write a Formal complaint, to the CEO of the council out lining what you have stated on here.

 

As for R&R send them a copy out lining the fact the items are your's and there is nothing in the household belonging to your partner, enclose a copy of the statutory declaration signed and sworn by a solicitor or county court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...