Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • what time do you have to go in today? I am wondering whether it might not be a good idea to go in with the letter of claim and if there is any mucking around them to hand it to them.   We would have to draft something appropriate.   in any event I think you should prepare an sar and take it with you and hand it to them make sure that they realise what it is. Hand it to a senior manager.   Use our sar template here.   I think that they are starting to lead you around by the nose and I think that you should take control and make sure that they realise but there is only a short time before it goes legal. A letter of claim would be the best thing to do in addition to the sar     
    • The bank is yet to say if it will shed more jobs beyond the 35,000 it flagged earlier this year. View the full article
    • The bank is yet to say if it will shed more jobs beyond the 35,000 it flagged earlier this year. View the full article
    • go back and read what andyorch said in my above links about a DEED of assignment NOT being a Notice Of Assignment. its a general document for a portfolio of MANY debts they bought on a spreadsheet, NOT specifically relating to YOUR Agreement. but your was like all others, a single line in a spreadsheet.    the sheriff has specifically asked for the NOA and the Default Notice ...neither of which the fleecers have provided, merly a load of ole twaddle like trump does to divert attention away from those NOT being provided.   forget the stuff about LOP 1925 etc that a NOE is NOT applicable in scotland , the sheriff has asked for it..end of!!   bedtime reading particularly regarding default notice sec 87 https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?484300-Cabot-nolans-SPC-Claim-Old-Next-CAT-Debt(2-Viewing)-nbsp&p=5119630#post5119630   read from about post 70.   as for the written submission. i'll find an example later.   dx      
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3002 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

Sch 4 Para 3 (1) "executinga warrant of distress issued under section 76 of this" if its not a warrant issued under S.76 of the dvcv then the power of entry given by the dvcv does not apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sch 4 Para 3 (1) "executinga warrant of distress issued under section 76 of this" if its not a warrant issued under S.76 of the dvcv then the power of entry given by the dvcv does not apply.

 

I am correcting in thinking that what you're saying, Lamma, is that a scrote bailiff cannot force entry under the provision you quote?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So that rules out forcible entry, on other warrants not issued under S76 DVCA, so if they claim they are allowed to force entry under this head, but warrant is non DVCA, they are in the doo doo then, hopefully.

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

I agree. And a warrant issued under S.76 of the DVCV to boot. It is the authority not the who that is of primary importance. S125A arguments are spurious and irrelevant unless the warrant is issued under S.76. Only IF that condition is satisfied does any argument on who may do it come in. Schedule 4 is very clear and written in plain language. Fraud, acting with false authority of a court etc etc. And I suggest this for reading http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/125D

Edited by lamma
Link to post
Share on other sites

The provision you have provided a link for, Lamma, is pretty clear in what it says. And we know which scrote bailiff company/companies are the worst offenders for non-compliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im currently in the porcess of writting up a copmlaint about JBW but i didn't want to send it off until i recived a breakdown of fees. they have now sent it anjd i have attached it. I was hopping for some advice as the breakdown looks highly suspiciou such as charging for a letter that was never sent and for attendance to levy when no attempt to levy was made and an attendance to levy and remvoe on the same day when they clearley had no intention of removing the vehicle they clamped as they had not tow vehicle. Please let me know what you think about it so i can invlude it in my complaint.fees.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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Im currently in the porcess of writting up a copmlaint about JBW but i didn't want to send it off until i recived a breakdown of fees. they have now sent it anjd i have attached it. I was hopping for some advice as the breakdown looks highly suspiciou such as charging for a letter that was never sent and for attendance to levy when no attempt to levy was made and an attendance to levy and remvoe on the same day when they clearley had no intention of removing the vehicle they clamped as they had not tow vehicle. Please let me know what you think about it so i can invlude it in my complaint.[ATTACH=CONFIG]37352[/ATTACH]

 

Firstly, what is the debt for, please, as this will determine what fees they can legitimately charge. Also, who are you considering making a complaint to about JBW Group?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt was for a congestion charge. I looking to complain to OFT trading standards as well as a formal complaint to tfl as the "bailiff" they used is uncertified and no actual attempt was made to levy (witnessed by my family and a neighbour over the road.).

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if its congestion charge the bailiff cant charge for 2 visits on the same day

 

he cant levy goods and charge a removal fee on the same day to levy goods he must leave you a notice of distress listing the goods levied and he must be certificated

Link to post
Share on other sites

hallowitch that is pretty much what i thought the "breakdown" is an attempt to justify there disproportinate charges and hope i will go away, big mistake this has got me more angry than ever.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The debt was for a congestion charge. I looking to complain to OFT trading standards as well as a formal complaint to tfl as the "bailiff" they used is uncertified and no actual attempt was made to levy (witnessed by my family and a neighbour over the road.).

 

OFT Credit Fitness Team and Trading Standards, definitely. TfL, definitely. Ministry of Justice Bailiff Department, definitely. Their email address is cbregister@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk. Put PERSON ACTING AS BAILIFF WHEN NOT CERTIFICATED in the subject box. Police, definitely. It is an indictable offence to act as a bailiff without being properly certificated (Section 135, County Courts Act 1984 - Falsely Claiming to be Acting Under the Authority of A Court) and carries a maximum penalty of up to seven years' imprisonment. It may also amount to an offence of Fraud by False Misrepresentation (Section 2, Fraud Act 2006) and Attempted Blackmail (Section 21, Theft Act 1968). As far the breakdown of fees goes, I would treat this as a potential offence of False Accounting (Section 17, Theft Act 1968).

 

I'm attaching a copy of the County Courts Act 1984 to this post. Print off the relevant section and take it with you when you report the uncertificated bailiff to the police. If they can see the law in the raw, they are less likely to try the "It's a civil matter" nonsense.

County Courts Act 1984.pdf

Edited by old bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Central London county courtlink3.gif - Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008

 

Mr Culligan challenged the bailiffslink3.gif fees & charges imposed by Mr Simkin and Marstons when levying distress and seeking to remove Mr Culigans car for non-payment of a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Camden.

 

The Judgment goes a long way to clarify exactly what a Bailiff can charge for levying distress. bailiffslink3.gif have always sought to charge for fixing an immobilisation device by clamping a vehicle, and an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove). The bailiffslink3.gif have argued that the Fee Regulations permit them to make a charge for levying distress (that is 28% on the first £200 demanded, and for removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges). Bailiffs have claimed that the costs of putting on a clamp, etc. are costs to be included in attending to remove where no goods are removed, if payment is made before the vehicle concerned is removed.

 

 

 

 

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

 

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

 

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

 

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

 

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

 

The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says.

 

The Bailiff also charged Anthony Culligan £100 for the " reasonable costs " of removing the vehicle (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at Anthony Culligan's home. Because the Bailiff produced no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived at he was unable to show that it was reasonable.

 

The District Judge in his conclusion says:

 

"I am also conscious that my findings in this case ... may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful... I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgment now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful....".

 

What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed.

 

You should know however that Marstons obtained permission to appeal from the District Judge. His reasons for granting the permission were :

 

"The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before.

My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking.

 

Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard"

 

Finally, Camden now as a matter of urgency, need to revise their Contract with Bailiffs such as Marston, to take account of the District Judge's Judgment generally, and in particular to remove the authority to charge a fee for an immobilisation device over and above that provided for in the Statutory Fee Regulations.

 

London Motorists Action Group

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...