Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In the earlier thread (now linked above) you were going to change your name by Deed Poll. Did you do that? Did it solve any of your problems? What, exactly, have you been charged with? Has a court date been scheduled? I cannot think of any reason why the police would tell you to pay your Ex's debts that she incurred 5 years before you met her. Either there's lots of the story you aren't telling us, or you have misunderstood what you have been told, or you are trolling us. Earlier you said it was your Ex who wanted you to pay her debts and, for some reason that  no-one here could understand, you were going to do so. So your Ex can give you all the details of her debts and you can pay them. She can hardly expect you to pay them if she won't give you the account details! I've never known debt collectors be fussy about who pays as long as someone does. They routinely take payments from friends and family to clear debts. It's not illegal to pay someone else's debts          
    • What you've said isn't helping. Please post up a redacted version of the appropriate section of the court papers.  HB
    • Oh, yeah. The law I’m charged with is riding underground without a valid ticket said by SJPN Student Union can’t provide any help, I have contacted them
    • it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything. Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do). Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS. Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves. 10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either. the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get. where your post said fine it now says charge dx
  • 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 4305 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

hi i recently had a visit from a bailiff from Jacobs, i let him in and he went through the debt i had with my local council for council tax. there were 2 outstanding amounts, 1 i had already made arrangements (which i am meeting every month) with the council for one and the other amount which i disputed as my daughter was on an apprenticeship so we qualify for a 25% reduction as i am a single parent. i told the bailiff that although the amount was in dispute with the council (which he rang while at my house and they verified with him) that i would go through the motions with him in the meantime while the amount was adjusted

he left me with a financial circumstances form to fill in along with an offer of payment. i filled the form in and he told me to send a copy of my tax credit award as i was self employed this would clarify my income. i had that very same day renewed my tax credit over the phone so ten made the mistake of deciding to wait and send the new award to jacobs once i had received it. 2 weeks ago i had a letter from jacobs about the debt, i rang immediately and explained i was waiting for the tax credit award, he told me to send in last years and not to wait for the new one. i did this the same day and posted it recorded delivery. today i get home from work to find a letter from jacobs acknowledging receipt of the form but that mt debt had been passed to a bailiff who had been instructed to collect payment in full (approx £1200) or remove goods.

obviously its now saturday night and nothing i can do so thought i would try and get some advice before jacobs open first thing monday morning

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 sofas, a wood cabinet, table and chairs, all free standing wardrobes (i have none in my room, 2 of my kids are built in and 1 youngest daughter has 1 wardrobe, washer and tumble dryer thats it

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok sofa do they have the fire safety tag still on them if they don't they can NOT sell them on

 

the wardrobes sound if they are the children`s how old are they possibly a exempt item

 

i take it you have another washing machine? if not another exempt item

 

sounds to me bailiffs are after making a quick buck and nothing else

how much is the council debt for

 

how much are levied items worth approx

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 sofas, a wood cabinet, table and chairs, all free standing wardrobes (i have none in my room, 2 of my kids are built in and 1 youngest daughter has 1 wardrobe, washer and tumble dryer thats it

 

I wouldn't worry about his levy. Could I ask which rooms in the house he went in or did you tell him what you had?

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

when he took the initial levy he was only in the lounge/dining room i didnt invite him, nor did he ask to look into any of the other rooms, so bedroom furniture, washer etc were all assumptions he had made. my kids are older, the eldest is 20 and currently unemployed after being made redundant recently, my daughter is 18 and on an apprenticeship and the youngest is 16 and due to start college next month, she has crohns disease

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds very much to me that Jacobs are engaging in something Civil Law calls Unjustifiable Enrichment. Under Criminal Law, it's called Fraud. Could you post up what your actual CT liability is, please?

ca

 

sorry can you explain what the CT liability means? x

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much Council Tax arrears do you actually owe? This is what CT liability means. The scrote is a silly, silly boy making assumptions as to what is in rooms. Because when he comes back to remove, if he ever does, he will look a total idiot when he cannot identify individual items. It would amount to Invalid Levy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when he took the initial levy he was only in the lounge/dining room i didnt invite him, nor did he ask to look into any of the other rooms, so bedroom furniture, washer etc were all assumptions he had made. my kids are older, the eldest is 20 and currently unemployed after being made redundant recently, my daughter is 18 and on an apprenticeship and the youngest is 16 and due to start college next month, she has crohns disease

 

If he hasn't caught sight of things he cannot list them, assumptions are not permitted, goods must be listed exactly, as in make, model, serial number colour etc furniture particularly settees and chairs cannot be sold without the fire retardent labels attached, so would be worthless without them, so imho, the levy is most likely invalid anyway.

 

The unlawful enrichment mentioned by oldbill, is the fact that goods reach about 10% of their value at a distress sale auction, so in order to cover a debt of £1000, they need to take goods to the value of £10,000. If he siezes goods that are likely to fetch considerably less than this then it can be argued that the bailiff levied the goods solely to open the door to more fees for himself and his company, when he should have returned the debt to the council, "nullo bono" goods of insufficient value if sold to satisfy all fees, charges, and a portion of the debt

 

Your 16 year old has Crohns so it is possible the whole family are therefore vulnerable under the guidelines making bailiff action inappropriate. Is the Chrohns having a marked impact on her daily life? If she is vulnerable that renders the WHOLE FAMILY vulnerable also, and the bailiff should cease and desist.

Vulnerable Situations

 

Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that

they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially

excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes

procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about

how such situations should be dealt with. The appropriate use of

discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance

could cover every situation, therefore the agent has a duty to

contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations

where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern. If

necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further

action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is

needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement

agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to

accusations of inappropriate behaviour.

 

 Enforcement agents must withdraw from domestic premises if the

only person present is, or appears to be, under the age of 18; they

can ask when the debtor will be home - if appropriate.

 

 Enforcement agents must withdraw without making enquiries if the

only persons present are children who appear to be under the age

of 12.

 

 Wherever possible, enforcement agents should have

arrangements in place for rapidly accessing translation services

when these are needed, and provide on request information in

large print or in Braille for debtors with impaired sight.

 

 Those who might be potentially vulnerable include:

 the elderly;

 people with a disability;

 the seriously ill;

 the recently bereaved;

 single parent families;

 pregnant women;

 unemployed people; and,

 those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or

reading English.

Edited by brassnecked

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 have the paperwork here and it reads as follows

the balance is £1182.25, the debt to the council is £1048.25

 

the inventory i will list here word for word

2 red leather settees

1 polaroid LCD TV (this doesnt work)

1 beech TV unit

1 beech sideboard

1 pine dining set and 6 chairs

1 m/wave

1 hoover

1 t/dryer

all f/standing b/room furniture

 

as i stated before he was only in my lounge so is assuming i have free standing bedroom furniture and a microwave, tumble dryer hoover etc

 

my daughters crohns is mostly controlled with tablets daily but she does sometimes have flare ups which can impact greatly on her life with severe stomach cramps and an urgency to use the loo

Link to post
Share on other sites

as i stated before he was only in my lounge so is assuming i have free standing bedroom furniture and a microwave, tumble dryer hoover etc

 

He cannot just assume as you may only have 1 item or 20 items

 

you could argue levy invalid

if it was me i would make any and all future payments to the council direct

stay off phone to bailiffs

make a complaint to council as they responsible for the muppets sorry mean bailiffs

 

bailiffs will lie and threaten to get a locksmith as he has had peaceful entry he would need a court order to do so he does not have that

 

very possible goods will not cover the debt if this is the case he should of handed it back to council as un able to enforce but he had his pockets to line which is why he has not done so

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have the paperwork here and it reads as follows

the balance is £1182.25, the debt to the council is £1048.25

 

the inventory i will list here word for word

2 red leather settees - do they have their safety labels on them, how old, - also see below

1 polaroid LCD TV (this doesnt work) - no value

1 beech TV unit - little value unless solid wood

1 beech sideboard - as above

1 pine dining set and 6 chairs - see below

1 m/wave - as unseen must be removed, no brand or model listed

1 hoover - as above

1 t/dryer - as above

all f/standing b/room furniture - not allowed a global statement

 

as i stated before he was only in my lounge so is assuming i have free standing bedroom furniture and a microwave, tumble dryer hoover etc

 

my daughters crohns is mostly controlled with tablets daily but she does sometimes have flare ups which can impact greatly on her life with severe stomach cramps and an urgency to use the loo

 

If the Bailiff were to remove your seating listed on the levy above what alternative seating would you be left with bearing in mind you must have 1 seat for each member of the household?

 

You owe over £1k for your debt, the Bailiff in my opinion has not seized sufficient goods to satisfy the debt should they be removed. Therefore I am left with the thoiught that the levy should be challenged as being invalid - the Bailiff should have returned it as Nulla Bono - no goods worth seizing. he has made the levy with one thought only and that is to gain a financial advantage for himself and his company.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed PT unless they can lawfully seize £10k worth of goods, and in Op's case this is highly unlikely given the list it should be returned nulla bono. I feel OP should send a Formal Complaint to the council Head of Revenues, copied to CEO, Leader, councillor and MP, that their agent Jacobs for which they are 100% liable has placed an unlawful levy on their goods and chattels, as it comprises exempt items and is of insufficient value to cover the debt, nor do they have sufficient goods and chattels to cover the debt if sold in the house. Notwithstanding vulnerability due to daughters illness. Just my thoughts others will know more.

Edited by brassnecked

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 have to agree with BN and PT 100% that this bailiff is out to make a financial advantage for himself and Jacobs. The matter must be returned to the LA as nulla bono. Also, there is the daughter's Crohns which makes them a vulnerable family.

 

In a case like this, I would be inclined to use the provisions of Regulation 46, Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended) to haul the LA involved before the magistrates court that issued the LO and have them put a stop to Jacobs' pocket-lining. However, it does need the assistance of a legal professional.

 

The OP has the following weapons in their armoury -

 

Local Government Ombudsman

OFT Credit Fitness Team

Department for Communities and Local Government

 

should they need to pursue complaints against LA and Jacobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you so much everyone for your help, i will speak to the council first thing in the morning and make all the points you have raised about the way Jacobs have behaved.

i was really scared when i got the letter yesterday but now feel better about tackling the problem, its not that i disagree with the bill, just the way it has been handled.

will update you when ive spoken to them

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...