Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Making Payments to Local Authorities


Jamesx81x
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4265 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

 

Is there any known legal regulation that states that once a debt has been passed on to a collection agency you no longer have a right to pay the creditor direct?

 

I have seen many collection and enforcement agencies state you no longer hold the right to make payment direct but where is this legally set in stone and can the Local Authority/Creditor state any reasonable grounds for refusing to accept the payment if you make it direct to them?

 

Thanks

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reasonable ground would be if the debt had been sold, or ownership had been transferred to a third party.

The OC would then have no right to your money.

 

In any other circumstances, I would have though that refusal to accept payment would look VERY bad on the original creditor if it ever went to court.

I'm assuming this is a council tax/bailiff issue - SOP seems to be for the council to refuse payment, and tell you to pay the bailiff.

You should be able to make a payment direct to the council by an automated payment line, online, via a paying-in slip, or (by preference) a cheque accompanied by letter - basically any way except by card to one of the phone monkeys.

Carpe Jugulum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if the debt has been sold must you deal with the DCA. However you can still SAR the previous owner, and in some cases the new owner can be advised that they have bought a debt in deep dispute.

 

If the DCA is only acting on behalf of the OC, then you can tell them to go skydiving with a cement block tied to their feet.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, no the ebt has not been sold on the company in question is just collecting on their behalf.

 

Both the LA and the Collectors are saying i have lost my right to pay the OC direct although i didnt quite get how they worked that out.

 

Thanks for the answers guys was just wanting to know if the OC can reject the payment if i made it direct, which i will now do

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes BigEgg it is Council/Bailiffs!

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a little off topic i made a form 4 complaint regarding the bailiff in question(over the same issue).

 

I have received a summary from the Judge who has requested a hearing due to him not been overally happy with the bailiffs actions.

 

Detailed in the summary the Judge states the bailff has not complied with the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 requirement in that he did not apply for the required amended certificate and that he did not pay for produce the bond upon request from the court. As these are legal requirements set out in the act and he has not complied with them then any levy placed would be unlawful would it not?

 

Thanks

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply

 

It was for a PCN that the council passed on to the collection company who in turn instructed a bailiff to attend my property.

 

He placed a levy on my car which is subject to outstanding finance and is essential for me to get to work. I made numerous complaints to the company but they were just ignored. Thinking that i was going to have my car taken and the fact i received no answer to my complaints i proceeded with a form 4 complaint as it was my belief the company had been informed enough times it had outstanding finance and i needed it for work.

 

The judge summarised stating a hearing would be held, but then went on to the fact the bailiff himself had not met with the courts requests to have is certificate amended neitehr had he bothered to provide the bond needed to be legally certified.

 

As these are requirements of the Distress for Rent Rules and he has not met them i am asking would any work he did whilst not conforming to them be lawful as surely if he is not correctly certified he should not be carrying out actions of a legally certified bailiff?

 

Thanks

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

does the "distress for rent" rules have anything to do with PCN enforcement?

Are you wanting to pay the PCN in full now? - just phone the automated line, or send a cheque.

If you want to pay by installments, it's quite possible (I don't know) that the Council can refuse, and then

you'll have to make arrangements with the bailiff.

 

You may get better answers to the bailiff question in the bailiff forum

Carpe Jugulum

Link to post
Share on other sites

If his Certificate was "invalid" for whatever reason he was actually breaking the law and could be fined as it is illegal for a Bailiff to levy distress without it. Any work that he has done is all unlawful and both him & his Company could also be guilty of trespass. Even if his Certificate was in order then the fact he levied on a vehicle that is not yours would have rendered it invalid, however you would have had to produce proof of this.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an INTERESTING thread !!

 

I am VERY interested indeed to hear of the Form 4 Complaint.

 

The Judge has picked up on an extremely important area where the bailiff has failed to amend his certificate etc. This requirement is made very clear to bailiffs from reading paragraph 12 (7A) (2) of the following statutory regulations:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2360/pdfs/uksi_19992360_en.pdf

 

A serious point that should be known is that when the bailiff leaves his previous employer...the bailiff bond is CANCELLED.

 

Even though this bailiff was enforcing an unpaid PCN, the regulations covering the requirement of a bailiff certificate are outlined under the Distress for Rent Rules.

 

In the past 2 days at work, we have come across 3 bailiffs who have also failed to apply to the court to have the bailiff certificate amended. This is a subject that is of GREAT interest to me.

 

When is the Form 4 Hearing and are you intending to go ( you really ought to).

Edited by MARTIN3030
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tomtubby

 

Thank you for replying.

 

Well basically he left Rossendales and asked for his bond to be cancelled he then went to work for Newlyns.

 

The initial judges summary clearly states no amendment was applied for neither had the court itself received the security bond required. Newlyns sent the court his certificate but as stated by the judge it was innacurate.

 

I have now received documents from the solicitor basically stating if i follow through with the claim they will be seeking a costs order. They also state that i am to be under no misunderstanding that the bailiff was covered by a bond at all times. So if the judge was saying he wasn't, what do the solicitors know that i dont?

 

The initial complaint was made due to them trying to seize the car which has outstanding finance to it. They have a report from a barrister detailing he can find nothing in law which specifically states that goods on finance cannot be seized.

 

My argument is that i am not the legal owner of the goods therefore they are exempt, there is also the fact i told Newlyns previous to the Levy that my car was essential to my employment to ehich that is clearly exempt in law.

 

He could argue the fact he was not aware of this but as a part of process should he not have reviewed my file? Also there are the charges applied! A bailiff should have knowledge of the law that covers him! Should he not be then aware that if the figures on which he are enforcing are not correct then his levy figure will not be correct? Although i am not that naive to believe they would give a flying toss about that!

 

Id like to see it through but it is at a court 90 miles away from my home address and then their is the risk of possibly incurring the costs if it didn't go my way! I would not be able to afford that kind of money.

 

Unfortunately going alone means that, i have no legal advice and am simply acting on what i believe to be right and my interpretations of law. I believe my biggest plus is the certification issue but his solicitor has thrown doubt on whether i can even use that!

 

Thanks

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times are we going to hear this SAME situation where solicitors REPRESENTING the EMPLOYER threaten a complainant with a cost order. This is yet another way in which this awful industry is shown to be simply out of control.

 

If I was the one making this complaint I would be sending a letter to the court to advise them of the pressure that you are receiving.

 

I hope that nobody minds, but I have sent you a PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As some people may be aware, I work for a commercial business advising the public regarding a bailiff visit and by coincidence this morning received a message from a lady in Kent who has a serious complaint with a bailiff and she has made a formal complaint to the relevant local authority.

 

A part of her complaint had been that the bailiff was not shown as being certificated to work for the particular bailiff company. The bailiff "claimed" that his application to "amend" his certificate is "in the pipeline" as he only left his previous employer a month ago.

 

NOT TRUE!!!!

 

The lady decided to telephone the ex employer and was told that Mr xxxx had not in fact left " a month ago" but that he was DISMISSED by the previous employer in FEBRUARY!!!

 

And furthermore, the ex employer apparently WROTE to the "issuing court" to advise them that they had cancelled his "bailiff bond".

 

If that particular bailiff had applied to the court to "amend his certificate" the court may well have refused to grant a renewal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...