Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks DX,    I will update if they outsource to another company or issue any of proceedings (unlikely I know)    cheers, 
    • go up on your UC log-in it should tell you if you are entitled to free prescriptions. if you are, then yes  and yes go get all your moneyback.    
    • I would expect revenue officers are quite aware of the time of day they are manning barriers. i'd also go as far as to say they don't bother to do this in off peak times... as there would be little point, no loss of revenue to protect.   they man the barriers at peak times, when people have purchased their permit to travel at a peak time travelled at a peak time arrived at their destination at a peak time.   thus they prevent: [loss of revenue] the traveller simply paying for an off peak fare when they just travelled in peak time [and most probably are a worker] getting an off peak return when they are travelling back home in peak time [worker returning home]     in other words ..fare dodgers.   your intended return was off-peak, but you didn't tell them.. we'll never know when your permit to travel was purchased nor if you travelled in peak time....but as from about post 5 i'll hedge my bets..   yes you are entitled as others may well be, to a refund because you were returning off peak but if you don't tell 'em…….   as for our experts , its either they are on holiday, which is none of our business or they sussed you out a longtime ago and don't want an argument here that they have 1000's of times in their regular work....   anyway  I've said all this from the start this thread is getting boring and repetitive.   dx ...    
    • @BankFodder and @BazzaS Thank you for your responses ~ I take on board all that you've said, and can only apologise again for all the narrative.   My nephew who's been [supposedly] dealing with this for over 6 months, unfortunately didn't have the experience and was consequently taken in by them and the way they 'operate', and he consequently let me down massively including through the Ombudsman this 2nd time: * 2nd Complaint with Ombudsman initially registered 11/04/2019 but, not registered properly until 15/04/2019 through their helpline (by this time my nephew, who was down as my rep for the Ombudsman, too, and the preferred contact, was away and out of the country until 07/05/2019, which was the day before the ombudsman's system had given for all evidence to be in). * Eventually after asking for and being granted 2 or 3 extensions all evidence had to be submitted by the 28/05/2019, though I was still able to keep adding evidence which would supposedly be taken into consideration (it wasn't...don't think any of it was, and it didn't take me long to work that one out!) via the messaging system. * On the BH Saturday (25/05/2019) during a phone session with my nephew in a last ditch attempt to try to get the evidence on the site, he ended-up really pushing my boundaries over this (I've finally had EMDR last year for all the trauma I've been through and that had finally kicked in)...I ended-up calling my nephew a patronizing [and might have used the F word!] prick and turning the phone off. Haven't spoken to him since, or the rest of my family, am only communicating with them through emails, texts and messenger on Facebook, and am intending to keep it that way until I'm god and ready. * The Ombudsman eventually issued his decision on 05/07/2019 (N.B. During this time he'd contacted me twice on the phone, thus bypassing my nephew's status as npower have been doing for years, including in the run-up to my lodging the latest complaint with the Ombudsman). * Npower appealed the decision on the 11/07 (the arrogance of that will strike you once I get the chance to upload the evidence I've been accumulating over the time my nephew has been 'dealing' with them and subsequently), I appealed the decision on the 18/07, which was the day before the final 14 days to appeal were up (N.B. During our 2nd converation, the Ombudsman had told me, whilst prefacing this with "I probably shouldn't be telling you this..." 🤪, that if I left it until the day before, I'd then have another 14 days whilst he considered the 'appeal' and then, even after that, I'd have recourse to appeal to his manager if I felt he'd got something wrong!!..........Yeh right! 🤬). * In the end he rejected both of our appeals and this is the basis of his response on the 01/08/2019, which he'd taken to be a relatively simple billing issue, along with my not having understood my bills and never having paid enough all along (NOPE!):- "Some of the bills are shown differently on the spreadsheets, but the information is the same. For example, on the first spreadsheet there is a bill of £3,032.40 on 4 October 2018. On the second spreadsheet there are three bills issued on 4 October 2018 for £677.33, £678.30, and £1,676.77. These three bills add up to £3,032.40. I appreciate that this can be confusing for customer’s, but this is something I did cover in my original decision. Whilst I acknowledge npower’s point that a manual bill will essentially contain the same information as the bills previously issued, it is the way in which the information is presented that is crucial to assisting the customer to understand their account better. After considering the appeals from you and npower, I can see no justifiable reason to change the decision, which I maintain is fair and reasonable for both parties, based on the evidence I have reviewed. I confirm that Ombudsman Services: Energy’s full and final decision is that npower should: • Issue a letter of apology. • Apply a credit of £120.00 to account 142309111 for the two failed appointments in 2015 in line with the terms of the Guaranteed Standards of Service. • Apply a goodwill gesture credit of £200.00 to account 142309111 in recognition of the shortfalls in service. • Provide the customer with a manual bill to show a clear breakdown of charges, payments, and credits on account 142309111 for the period from 19 February 2013 to 19 February 2019. We have now reached the end of our investigation process and there is no further opportunity to appeal. You now must decide if you agree to accept our decision in full and final settlement of the complaint."   * I haven't accepted it (why would I, when it's based on lies; npower breaching every SLC and Customer Obligation going with me; the GDPR and former DPA; fraudulently altering my data to fit in with their narrative; obfuscating, kicking-up a dust-storm, using bullying and harrasment every time they're challenged, all with the intention of trying to put the onus of responsibility for .managing. my account back onto me and save themselves coming under further scrutiny with Ofgem...though they're so far behind what has gone-on with this company over the years and/or they just don't want to unsettle their "Dear Stakeholders", especially with one of the Big 6; and all whilst I've been finally able to get the very damning evidence together against them?!). I'm about integrity and having a moral compass ~ everything this company isn't and lacks ~ and I will no longer compromise that for anything or anyone, particularly not this shower of 💩s in npower.   So yes @BazzaS I " a) want to take action" and furthermore, I believe I've got a very good case against them with your help.   Again thank you both for your support and I'll start on the bullet list over the week-end and also start uploading evidence (I've got rhemes of it on a USB stick, which I'm currently redacting the important ones of).   GM  
    • Hello.   I have received one of these penalty notices  for a prescription from several months ago.  I usually have a prepayment card but they're saying it may have expired, which it could have done.  Unfortunately, I can't find the card itself so I can't confirm.  I was going to pay the penalty on the grounds I may have carelessly let it expire but on the website for paying it says I may be entitled to free NHS prescriptions as I'm claiming Universal Credit.  I can't recall which elements but I suspect it's child tax credits and possibly something due to not high salary.   I'd never considered that I may be eligible but if this is true, then I may have been buying the prepayment card unnecessarily.  Which makes me wonder if I can avoid paying this fine because even though I ticked the box to say I have a prepayment card, which was technically not the case if it's expired, I may be eligible for free prescriptions.  Assuming I am, which I will try to determine next week for sure, do you think I can appeal the penalty based on the wrong box being ticked but ultimately it not be a fraudulent claim because I am entitled to them free anyway.   Does that make sense?  Your thoughts on the matter are all appreciated.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2571 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

on Monday this week I received hand delivered letter from JBW relating to a tfl congestion charge. There was no tfl reference on the letter. I contacted tfl as i had not had a congestion charge and they told me it was in February which is odd as i haven't been into London by car this year. anyway i went to do a PE2 and PE3 from the TEC as the bailiff had come late on Monday i would not be able to get to the County Court for a witness signature until Wednesday. On Wednesday morning they clamped the car that was supposedly involved. I am the registered keeper of this vehicle but not its owner. I got the forms signed, witnessed and sent on the Wednesday. I then turn my attention the bailiff himself on the first letter the signature was just two upside down Vs the second letter was had a name that looked like Mr. ***** or *****. I sent the following e-mail to JBW as I couldn't identify the bailiffs name and to inform them that they have clamped a car I don't own. Also thee balance has gone from £268 in the first letter to £550 in the second.

 

This is to inform you that despite your not allowing reasonable time between visits letter was hand delivered on Monday and a car was clamped on Wednesday i have submitted an out of time application PE3 and PE2 forms to TEC as your bailiffs visit on Monday was the first contact made about this alleged charge. In addition the supposed fee of 550.84 for a unknown fine off £200 is wholly disproportionate to the original charge and according to law the maximum i could be for the two visits is £296 i request a complete breakdown of costs as to what exactly you believe you are charging for, i have included the relevant law below and the calculation of costs as worked out to the letter of the law.

1For preparing and sending a letter advising the debtor that a warrant is with the bailiff and requesting the total sum due£10.00 Note:The fee under paragraph 1 can only be recovered if the letter is sent before a first visit is made to the debtor’s premises.

2For levying distress—

(i)

Where the sum demanded and due does not exceed £100

£20.00

(ii)

Where the sum demanded and exceeds £100

20% on the first £200; due 5% on any additional sum over £200

For attending to levy distress but where the levy is not made, the reasonable costs and charges for attending to levy.The costs and charges are not to exceed the fees and charges which would have been due under paragraph 2 above if the distress had been levied.The costs and charges are subject to taxation under rule 11.

20% of £200 is £40 x2 visits = £280 20% VAT is £16 Grand total of £296 Why have you £254 more than the law says you can.

I am also informing you that Whilst i am the registered keeper and main user the Ford Mondeo registration ****** i am not its owner therefore any attempt to tow it would not be legal.

Finally the names of the bailiffs on both letters are unreadable please supply the name of the Bailiff/s dealing with this as i wish to check they are registered.

This morning he left a message that confirmed it was ******. I have checked online and there is nobody with this surname certificated. Unfortunately the MOJ must be at the Olympics as their telephone keeps going through to answer machine. I sent a text to the mobile number asking him to supply what court he was certificated at and when. they only reply i got is who is this. I'm dubious about revealing who has asked this I don't want him to harass me via my mobile. Anyway that is where I am at the moment any advice as to what to do next would be much appreciated.

I have stared out the names as i though it might contravene forum rules to reveal them if it doesnt i will hapily put them back in.


Currently Pursuing three credit card companies for PPI and charges.

 

Capital one: Sent the required SAR information late, currently working out my claim.

Egg: Sent the required SAR information on time, curently working out my claim.

Virgin/MBNA: Still waiting less than week left to copmly with SAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you live in London or near? Has any other driver of the car been to London? If not the ANPR could have messed up and misread a numberplate, or a typo as in a data entry clerk input a wrong character. Is the vehicle on finance or owned by a company or relative?

 

Others who know more about JBW and their shenanigans will no doubt be along soon


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im the only one who drives the car i live about 40 miles away. Im well aware of the potential for mistakes that tfl can make with congestion charging as one of my dads customers got a letter from them with someone else car on it. the car is owned my by mum, i wrote my last car off and she brought it as a runner i could us whilst the insurance was sorted im currently using it to save up more money for something better when im done with it later this year she will give it to my dad as a run around for his business.


Currently Pursuing three credit card companies for PPI and charges.

 

Capital one: Sent the required SAR information late, currently working out my claim.

Egg: Sent the required SAR information on time, curently working out my claim.

Virgin/MBNA: Still waiting less than week left to copmly with SAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these are the letters they sent i have edited out all identifiying info.

jbw2.jpg

jbw1.jpg


Currently Pursuing three credit card companies for PPI and charges.

 

Capital one: Sent the required SAR information late, currently working out my claim.

Egg: Sent the required SAR information on time, curently working out my claim.

Virgin/MBNA: Still waiting less than week left to copmly with SAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the car still clamped?

 

Have you submitted the completed the Out of Time Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and was this done by email?

 

Have you received confirmation of receipt?

 

The TfL reference will either be "TL" "TF" or "GT".

 

I would suggest that you call TfL on 0845 900 1234 and ask them to CONFIRM the precise address that all statutory notices had been sent to.

 

I have sent you a PM to ask another question.

 

PS: In the papers today it is saying that many companies are allowing their staff to "work from home" instead of going into London to avoid traffic problems during the Olympics and that this includes 800 staff at the Ministry of Justice. This could explain why you cannot get a response to your query regarding the bailiff certification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The car is still clamped the out of time witness statment was sent by e-mail to the TEC and confirmed as recived by them yesterday at 14:15. I will try and get hold of tfl as well to confirm the adress they sent there letters to.


Currently Pursuing three credit card companies for PPI and charges.

 

Capital one: Sent the required SAR information late, currently working out my claim.

Egg: Sent the required SAR information on time, curently working out my claim.

Virgin/MBNA: Still waiting less than week left to copmly with SAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for answering the PM. I have also checked the bailiff register and the surname is not showing as a bailifff certificated to work for JBW Group. There is a bailiff with a slight change of spelling with the first name of Christopher as being certificated to work for Marston Group.

 

Have you called TfL as well to ask them what address they were sending statutory notices to. The reason for this is because it is possible that an application may have been made to amend the address at TEc. Can you post back once you have called TfL.

 

It is VERY unusual indeed for the clamp to remain on the car once an Out of Time Stat Dec has been submitted.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spoke to tfl and and the adress is correct also the person i spoke to said that once its clamped it cant be removed without payment to the bailiff regardless of the out of time decleration.

Me and my dad took a look at how the clamp was secured it woudl take less than 15 minutes to remove the clamp without damaging it. Im wondering what the implications would be for this and could we charge storage if they don't collect it.

 

Also thank you tomtubby you have been and absolute star.


Currently Pursuing three credit card companies for PPI and charges.

 

Capital one: Sent the required SAR information late, currently working out my claim.

Egg: Sent the required SAR information on time, curently working out my claim.

Virgin/MBNA: Still waiting less than week left to copmly with SAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also the person i spoke to said that once its clamped it cant be removed without payment to the bailiff regardless of the out of time decleration.

What ? ? ?I think TT and others may wade in on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What ? ? ?I think TT and others may wade in on this.

 

Once OOT is accepted all bailiff action must cease, and the clamp must be removed, and i think any money overpaid has to be refunded also. TT and the others will confirm


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lama and brassed that is pretty much what i thought but i only spoek to a script reader so thats probably a standard fob off.


Currently Pursuing three credit card companies for PPI and charges.

 

Capital one: Sent the required SAR information late, currently working out my claim.

Egg: Sent the required SAR information on time, curently working out my claim.

Virgin/MBNA: Still waiting less than week left to copmly with SAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is part of an issued standard script then I would argue its Fraud under Section 2 of the 2006 Act. Their only defence to such outright misstatements of the truth is an error by the individual. Why do you think they never give their names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who you like the details of JBW's OFT Licence, Lamma, so you can report them to the OFT? Okay. Here's goes.

 

Send an email to enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk and insert CREDIT FITNESS in the subject box. Give a clear and concise resume of your complaint. You will need to quote the following in your complaint -

 

Company Name: JBW Group Limited

Credit Licence No.: 629360

 

Don't forget to make a complaint to your local Trading Standards Department as well as OFT Credit Fitness Team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that is part of an issued standard script then I would argue its Fraud under Section 2 of the 2006 Act. Their only defence to such outright misstatements of the truth is an error by the individual. Why do you think they never give their names.

 

Under Section 2, Fraud Act 2006, a misleading statement can be deliberate or reckless. They're snookered either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP should follow the accepted procedure with OOT, to ensure they are doing everything by the book, then as tfl have made it up as they go along again, complain to OFT, along with a complaint to police, and MP quoting the offence they are committing as part of their daily operations, and their custom and practice under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Mention in the complaint that the offence is complete even if the intent was one of recklesness, rather than deliberate under Section 2.

 

Meanwhile , chase up OOT and ask TEC if the clamp is allowed to remain, try to get email confirmation it isn't then use it in any complaint. You could also write to Boris Johnson the Mayor who is Chairman of the Board of tfl with a complaint highlighting the potential and actual illegalities perpatrated by tfl.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OP should follow the accepted procedure with OOT, to ensure they are doing everything by the book, then as tfl have made it up as they go along again, complain to OFT, along with a complaint to police, and MP quoting the offence they are committing as part of their daily operations, and their custom and practice under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Mention in the complaint that the offence is complete even if the intent was one of recklesness, rather than deliberate under Section 2.

 

Meanwhile , chase up OOT and ask TEC if the clamp is allowed to remain, try to get email confirmation it isn't then use it in any complaint. You could also write to Boris Johnson the Mayor who is Chairman of the Board of tfl with a complaint highlighting the potential and actual illegalities perpatrated by tfl.

 

In addition to BN's excellent advice, make sure you bring this to the attention of the Department for Transport who have overall responsibility for transport. Their contact details are -

 

Department for Transport

Great Minster House

33 Horseferry Road

London

SW1P 4DR

 

The person you need to write to is Justine Greening, MP, Secretary of State for Transport. Also, get your MP involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brassnecked....Can I just correct a few points made in this post:

 

Once an OOT is accepted all bailiff action must cease, and the clamp must be removed, and i think any money overpaid has to be refunded also. TT and the others will confirm

 

In fact, all enforcement MUST cease once the Out of Time Application has been submitted to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

The clamp does not in fact have to be removed. However, in most cases the clamp is removed but this is at the discretion of the LA or bailiff.

 

If the car is clamped, the effect of the OTT is that the car cannot be removed to the pound. Furthermore, if a car has actually been removed to the poound, then, once an OTT has been submitted, the bailiff company cannot sell the vehicle and neither can any additional fees be charged for storage.

 

The local authority have 19 BUSINESS DAYS ( approx one month) in which to consider whether the vehicle owner has provided a good enough reason why he could not sent a Statutory Declaration at the Order for Recovery stage.

 

If the LA fail to respond within 19 business days then the application is accepted and the warrant revoked.

 

If the LA reject the OTT then it is referred to a court officer for him or her to make an "impartial judical decision" to determine whether the LA were right or wrong in reaching their decision.

 

If the warrant is revoked then it is the case that any money paid to the bailiff in fees should be refunded by the LOCAL AUTHORITY. The LA should also refund the amount paid for the PCN.

 

The LA may then reisssue another Notice to Owner and thereby allowing the vehicle owner the opportunity to either pay the charge at a cheaper rate or to appeal the PCN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In fact, all enforcement MUST cease once the Out of Time Application has been submitted to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

The clamp does not in fact have to be removed. However, in most cases the clamp is removed but this is at the discretion of the LA or bailifflink3.gif."

 

Thanks for the clarification TT that clears up the clamp business, but surely a discretion allowing a clamp to remain is a glaring anomoly that still holds the debtor hostage to the bailiffs whim?


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "bailiff" removed the clamp this morning so that's OK. I think the two things that has really annoyed me is the "bailiff" is not certificated and the obviously inflated fees. I'm wondering what would be the best way to complain about these especially the fact he isn't a real bailiff.


Currently Pursuing three credit card companies for PPI and charges.

 

Capital one: Sent the required SAR information late, currently working out my claim.

Egg: Sent the required SAR information on time, curently working out my claim.

Virgin/MBNA: Still waiting less than week left to copmly with SAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a cocky young bloke who was claiming he was a court bailiff from Northampton Court by any chance who flashed something that resembled a genuine HMCTS Court Bailiff's certificate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from it being illegal to pretend to be acting under the authority of a court, the levy, if this scrote clamped your car and wasn't certificated, is invalid and, quite possibly, illegal. If you have not already done so, report this to OFT Credit Fitness Team and Trading Standards without delay. The necessary details are in Post #13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

getting the consolidated final text together for that Act is not a small task.Original only goes to Section 63 !! Misrepresenting their powers in this way brings to mind all plethora of offences under various other acts. There is no way at all that they can force entry for any warrant other than one issued under section 76 of the DCVC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've downloaded the provision you refer to, Lamma. It's in Schedule 4A. As far as I can see - and I am going by gut-feeling - the use of force in order to enter a property in connection with a court fine for the purpose of distress would not be justified UNLESS the debtor was a persistent defaulter, that is, they had no intention of paying the fine. I am currently dealing with a case on another site where a certificated scrote forced their way in, assaulted the OP's daughter and extorted over £600 from her. It was found that the OP had already paid the fine in full and the court are now desperately trying to cover-up the fact they cocked-up and are not making a very good job of it. The scrote bailiff company involved has been reported to the OFT who are taking the matter very seriously and have already contacted the OP twice. A string of complaints, a large number of them involving serious breaches of the OFT Guidelines and the law, in general, against the same scrote bailiff company, have followed. Due to the fact that a number of cases are subject to possible proceedings, that is all I can reveal at present.

Schedule 4A, DCVC.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that if challenged, they will use section 125B as their justification, "approved enforcement agencies", i.e. certificated bailiffs employed by contracted companies. Don't know if it would apply to subbie scrotes sent out by the likes of marstons etc


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so, BN, but, at the end of the day, the scrote bailiff and his/her employers have to justify the use of force and prove that it was a proportionate and necessary measure in the circumstances. No-one has a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, and certainly not scrote bailiffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...