Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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

Miscalculated Capital Contribution Order & rossendales - **RESOLVED**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4108 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

Hello ,

I was hoping someone could give me some Advice?

 

-Partner Got in trouble in Jan 2011with police ,

which led to magistrates court and the crown .

He was granted legal aid.

Eventually sentenced and found Guilty in Dec 2012.

our relationship went down the pan years ago,

and he eventually got his own Flat in Aug 2011 after living with sister for about a month and a half .

 

Since 2008 I have been paying mortgage and all bills ( I can prove this and he does'nt deny this!)

 

Received a letter about 2 weeks ago dated 7/08/2012 From Rossendales , A Capital Contribution Order.

 

Dear Mr.....

Following your conviction in the crown court , you are required to pay a contribution to the cost of your defence representation

 

The amount you are required to pay £2,286.61

 

This amount must be paid within 28 days of this order-04/09/2012.

 

The legal services commision, who paid the cost of your defence, has the power to make this capital contribution order under the criminal defence

(contribution order)regulations 2009.

 

Rossendales ltd is contracted by the legal services commission to collect and if necessary enforce payment of this amount.

 

Errm...

* He got Legal aid?

* never Received any letters or anything saying he had to pay this before ,

( the court case finished beginning of Dec 20110)

8months ago! letter from rossendales - first notification.

 

Aparrently If you have savings or equity up to £30k.

Anything over the £30k threshold you may have to pay a certain amount, if found guilty at crown court- news to us

he has no savings and is on ESA.

 

the only equity is the Joint mortgage he has with me ,

and they're saying that after the mortgage thats outstanding and the value of the house this leaves £48k, worth of equity ,

then take the £30k away leaves £18 which they call disposable capital?.

 

My arguements as follows:

 

Ive have not got a perfect credit history

- and Know a little about CCJ ,Charging Orders.

 

Now I have a debt ( not mine , Long story, can see my other posts for that)

- got the interim charging order then the final .

Ended up with a notice of restriction against land.

 

this is against me and "is expressed to charge the share and property and interest of Me. not my Ex Joint mortgage holder."

 

my thought is sole named debts go on the persons share of the Mortgage?

county courts recognise a 50/50 share with joint Mortgages ?

 

When phoning Rossendales and informing them my Ex has not got £48k in equity ,

Because the house is mine as well, 48 divided by 2 = £24k in equity each. which then means Ex is under the £30k threshold ,

( you only start to pay something after the £30k threshold .)

 

at first the lady agreed

- but when she spoke to her manager the 50/50 share on a joint mortgage does not apply

and they have calculated the amount owing of any capital or equity in property and includes an allowance of £30k.

 

I hope im not rambling on , and hope you understand

 

Had no letter to say had not got legal aid or to say or there was a problem

first letter informing him that there was money to be paid sent by bailiff and only giving 28 days ,to pay and 8 months after the case finished

 

If he doesnt pay this it will lead to a charging order or our property

- now if thats the case that a county court judgement,

Charging order.

A debt in a sole name, would be against thats person share in a property .

 

Then how could the original calculation of the debt not take in to account that this house is half mine,and my Ex does'nt have all the equity or capital they say...

 

oh someone please tell me where i stand with this , solicitor said this is the first they've heard of this , and cant really tell me anything more.

 

I Know rossendales they will be here on the dot on the 4/09 and im scared stiff for me and my son..

 

Sorry about spelling, Grammar ,I'm a little worked up at the Minute.

 

I guess what I'm asking is;

 

 

That if a debt in a sole name is dealt with by a county court and it's also recognised that there is a joint mortgage ( someone else has a share if you like ) and that any judgement made would be against the Debtors share. Why does'nt that apply when the courts and legal services dept are calculating equity or capital someone has ( that some one else has a share in that property) and that they have equity and capital in that property also ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off let me say I know nothing about these matters at all.

 

However I do believe that Rossendales are acting under their Rossendales Collect banner

- that is they are purely debt collectors.

 

I don't doubt their letter heading may be that which alludes to Bailiffs and/or High Court Enforcement Officers.

 

It may be that if you tell them to get lost they could start enforcement proceedings which may include applying for a CCJ for which they will add those costs to whatever debt they are chasing.

 

I may be barking up the wrong tree but thought it worthwhile commenting on their different parts.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

my thoughts too

 

can you scan up the letter please.

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

Just a couple of thoughts, enquire with Legal Services Commission exactly what criteria are used regarding joint equity, as normally yes surely partners equity only if non resident and split up should be taken into account, as is below threshold no order. Once you have this in writing and if it backs you tell rossers to do one spelling out from information what the rules are, and where they have bent them.

 

Bear in mind that whatever banner rossers operate under they will not play fair, and will make it up as they go along, interpreting everything in their favour whatever law or regulation they purport to be abiding by or applying. If you work from that standpoint and research and rebut their demands you won't go far wrong. you can be sure Caggers will look up and research this alongside you to help you sort it out.

 

Leaflets in pdf about charging and legal aid are here

 

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/public/help/information_leaflets.asp

 

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/LSC_StepByStep_leaflet_2010.pdf

 

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/cls_main/LSC_PayingForLegalAid_leaflet_2010.pdf

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

yes worked ......well certaintly not the bailiffs arm the DCA bit.

 

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

Does anyone know who is behind another website as they are coming up with various statements in dealing with bailiffs that I have not seen before.

 

In regard to Rossendales,

it is interesting to note that that site states that although the demand for payment usually comes on bailiff headed notepaper, there is no

facility for bailiff enforcement which is misleading.

 

You have 28 days to dispute the Order-the one from the legal Services Commission, not Rossendales, and one of the ways [apart from not having the required amount] is to query the letter sent to you as it fails to comply with the Regulations

for example.

Does your letter from the Commission cover the 5 points below.

 

Contents of capital contribution order and payment22.—(1) A capital contribution order must state—

(a)the amount payable under the order;

(b)that the amount must be paid within 28 days of the order or within such other period as may be agreed by the Commission and the individual;

©the remedies available to the Commission as a creditor if payment is not made by the due date;

(d)that if a payment is not made by the due date compound interest at the rate of 6% a year with half-yearly rests may be added to that payment from that date;

(e)the individual’s right under regulation 29.

(2) Payments under a capital contribution order must be made to the Commission.

 

On top of that, Regulation 29 below gives you further reasons to dispute the demand-

29.—(1) An individual in respect of whom the assessing authority has made a contribution order may apply to the Commission for a review of the order, on the grounds that—

(a)there has been—

(i)a miscalculation of the individual’s income or capital or the cost determined under regulation 11, or

(ii)an administrative error; or

(b)the individual is suffering or would suffer financial hardship as a result of making the payments required under the contribution order.

(2) An application under paragraph (1)(a) must be made within 28 days of the making of the order.

 

(3) The Commission may determine a review without a hearing.

(4) On a review the Commission may confirm, revoke or vary the contribution order.

(5) Where the Commission—

(a)revokes a contribution order, and the individual has already made a payment under the order, or

(b)varies a contribution order so as to require a lower payment, and the individual has already made a payment above the amount as varied,

the Commission must repay to the individual the amount of such payment together with compound interest thereon, from the date of the payment, at the rate of 2% a year with yearly rests.

Previous: ProvisionNext: ProvisionBack to top© Crown copyright

 

As usual, Rossendales have got it wrong again.

When assessing how much capital the potential debtor has in a property the Regulations state-

 

Assessment of capital16. The value of any interest in real property shall be taken to be the amount for which that interest could be sold less the amount of any debt

secured by a mortgage or charge on the property.

 

So the interest in the property is 50% less the mortgage cost-just as you said to Rossendales.

Edited by lookinforinfo
missed info
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi - Just an update to let you know where I'm at with rossendales/Lsc,

 

Well I wrote a letter to the LSC , one to my local office and sent a copy to head office and also emailed a copy,

(see below)

 

 

Legal Services Commission

5th Floor, Boulton House

17-21 Chorlton Street

Manchester

M1 3HY

DX14343 Manchester.

 

 

 

28/08/2012

 

CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION ORDER.

CASE REF

CLIENT /MAAT

Formal Complaint / Dispute:

 

I would like to dispute the amount owing for legal aid, (£2286.81) that you have sent via Rossendale’s. I would also like to add that this is the first notification I have had of this money owing, dated 7/08/2012 since my conviction in Dec 2011.

 

I believe there has been a miscalculation concerning my Income and Capital, and would like this to be Reviewed, As, At the time the case was going on, my ESA benefit had been suspended, I appealed this Decision and took the matter to a Tribunal which I won and my benefits where backdated to when they were suspended - 13th April 2011.

As from the 12th July 2012 my ESA has been suspended again Due to a Medical, and again I am appealing the decision and awaiting the Response.

 

So at the moment I have Nil Income and in Regards to the Capital of( Address), Although I am a Joint Name on the mortgage I no longer live at this address My ex-partner Pays the Mortgage , as she has since 2008, She lives at that address with my son .

 

I ask For the Capital Contribution Order to be looks at again and the following points to be taken into consideration:

 

The assessment to My Current & previous means and circumstances is wrong and is based on incorrect information. I am an exempt person for the purposes of a Capital Contribution Order because I am in receipt of a benefit ESA.

My income is less than the prescribed minimum.

My combined assets and property is less than £30,000

I received the Order more than 21 days after the end of the proceedings (Dec 2011) in the convicting court which denies my statutory right of appeal.

 

 

The bailiff’s letter is not a qualified notice under Regulation 8(11) because the company is not “the Assessing Authority”

I am already Suffering Severe Hardship, and can In No-way pay any amount to this Bill.

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

( Name)

 

Received reply

 

Saying they had looked into my complaint and can confirm that Rossendales letter was right,

however the data from which they have drawn their info was flawed

 

"our means assessment administration tool( MAAT system) send automatic data feed to Rossendale's system each night and Rossendale's act on the info received.

 

Our MAAT system had incorrectly included your partners share of the property and calculated equity for 100% of the property rather than your 5o% share only.

 

your partner should not have been taken into consideration in this assess:ment as there was a conflict of interest in the case."

50% share of equity = £24k, which makes total equity and capital apportioned to you is lower than the £30k capital allowance therefore your capital contribution should be Nil.:whoo:

 

I would just like to Say a massive Thank you to all your comments and Advice , I could not of done it with out your help.

 

THANKS AGAIN!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...