Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm sure I've said before that it's fine and dandy bringing in rules that favour you or your party, but you have to consider how it would play out if your opponents get in and want to use the same rules...
    • Its Gaelic celebration and bonfires today - Beltane Quite fortuitous for tomorrow lets hope
    • look on the bright side - it would allow Biden to do what he likes ...
    • Few tweaks as the run order was completely messed up and the main point of your defence (reconstituted agreement) pushed to the bottom of the statement.   I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. 1.The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.  I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. 3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights.  This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information).  The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 4.  I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 5. The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’. The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents. 6. Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 7. Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicitor's is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’ 8. On (insert date) I successfully made application to set a side the judgment. The claim proceeded to allocation, 9. The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. (insert date you did receive the documents) I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’. Remove irrelevant 10.The claimant relies upon and has exhibited a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement. It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HHJ Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’. The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause. 11. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not mislead the court. 12. It is denied I have ever received a default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence from the original creditors internal document software the trigger of said notice.  13.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 14. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024   Run 3 copies Court /Claimants Sol/File
    • As one of you mentioned above I've been in a mess for nearly 20 years now and I'm ready to sort my credit report out now - the main reason I got into second round of debt is my kids being unwell and the state considering them not unwell enough for extra help so despite my son being in hospital for 3 months in one year we got extra zero help and I eventually lost my job and got into debt to just so I can be تا my sons hospital bed at his time of need - my life basically fell apart and all these debts got me again 
  • 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

HELP NEEDED - parking ticket fine - Baliffs reject my vunerable household plea


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4103 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

Bump. Don't know the answer, so just bumping to top of the pile.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I appreciate all your help

- I'm against the ticking clock now to sort this.

 

Bottom line is that I will only be able to resolve this if they accept my vunerable household plea

(which Garland has already implied I dont from his letter - I cant believe this - my poor 3 year old has had to witness all this

- everytime the door knocks he says 'monsters' (which we all know they are but to hear my little boy saying it is heartbreaking

 

- also when they have been walking around my house lokoing in through the windows when I havent answered the door

- its just not right

- we have all suffered

- if my car goes thats it

- I am literally in the middle of nowhere

- no buses, anything -

 

my kids go to school 14 miles away -

how would I get them to school?)

 

I am on income support and barely have the funds to put oil in the heating tank.

I'm sorry to go on but I have truely had enough.

 

The other way is to try and find flaws in their fees or conduct which I dont know is possible.

 

Thats why I appreciate all your help.

 

I said to the baliffs today I would be having the fees scrutinized by the county court

but they didnt give a damn and just said carry on

but we want the money or we are taking the car.

 

I simply cannot hide the car - I am surrounded by farmers fields and this is not an option. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally, I would not suggest this, but I feel you may have no choice but to apply to the county court for an injunction against the council and Excel

under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

 

Under normal circumstances, you would give notice, but, where necessary, you can apply for an injunction ex parte (without notice).

 

I'm attaching the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Court Form P39CH.

 

You will need to name the local authority as the First Defendant and Excel Civil Enforcement Ltd as the Second Defendant.

 

You will, probably, have to ask the court to restrain both local authority and Excel until such time as they have addressed your vulnerable status.

 

The local authority should not be putting you in a position where you could end up in a worse position and possibly put your health and safety at risk.

 

As you say, you live in an isolated location and I wouldn't mind betting you need your car to get to your GP.

 

It's rare to have to do this, but if the local authority and Excel won't listen to reason, sometimes, measures such as this are necessary.

pf39ch_e.doc

Protection from Harassment Act 1997.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, just one last question - do I lodge this with the court local to the Local Authority or can I lodge it at my local court. And is there a fee payable that you know of? Do I have to advise the bailiff company and the LA of my actions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the judge said you should have had your mail re-directed shows that he never took into consideration all the facts and based on that you should be able to lodge an appeal. To the best of my limited knowledge there is no law that states you should have your mail re-directed when you move house. If you notified every one of the change of address, why would you have your mail re-directed anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Pipwri,

 

We need to see just how much Excel are overcharging before going any further. Could you please list the following -

 

Original PCN Charge

Uplift and Court Fee (This is where the fine increases when not paid within 14 days)

Number of Visits Excel have made

Details of any levy/levies

 

From this information, it will be much clearer how much Excel has overcharged and what will be the most appropriate course of action to take.

 

For your information, the fee for obtaining a prohibitory injunction is £175. However, as you are on benefits, you can get this remitted. I am attaching Form EX160 which will tell you how much you would have to pay if you have to apply for an injunction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks you so much OB - I will list the fees that I have been charged:

ORIGINAL PCN FEE = £70.00 although this would be reduced to £35.00 if paid within 14 days. I am not in receipt of any paperwork directly relating to the original PCN issued by Pembrokeshire County Council, however I have made enquiries into the parking fees they charge and this sum is what they charge.)

 

The WARRANT SUM quoted on Excel's paperwork is £82.00. (From the paperwork I have received from Excel there is no mention of the original PCN charge - is this included in the Warrant sum or addition?)

 

In total there have been four visits that have been charged for BUT the first of those visits was made to my previous adress where of course no-one was living and still isn't.

 

The levy/fee details I have are as follows:

11/4/12 Letter Charge £13.44

15/5/12 Attendance to remove fee £114.00

15/5/12 Attend to Levy fee £33.60

12/6/12 Attend to levy second visit £68.33

16/7/12 Attend to levy third visit 72.08

1/8/12 Attend to remove fee £114.00

 

Please note that the first knowledge of any of this matter whatsoever (I didnt even know a PCN had been slapped on my car) was on the bailiffs vist on 12th June 2012 when I came home to the red letter so I cant see how they can charge for going to the wrong address.

 

OB, I have been to see my GP today who is going to write me a letter supporting my vunerable household plea. I am going to send it to both the bailiffs and the LA to see if that can bring any further weight to my case. In the meantime, thanks again for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following was written by Tomtubby this afternoon and possibly some of it is applicable to yourself.

 

"It is a shame that you had not pursued the appeal to the local authority but this is now in the past and hopefully, you will know better next time.

 

The fees are worrying.

 

Firstly, the statutory fees allow for a 1st visit to be calculated at 28% of the amount of the pcnlink3.gif at £202. This would be approx £56.56. To calculate the 2nd visit, you would need to add £202 and £56.56 and again apply 28%. I calculate that the 2nd visit fee should therefore be around £72.40.

 

If a bailifflink3.gif were to charge an "attending to remove" fee then firstly, the intention MUST BE REAL. In other words, by charging £175, the bailifflink3.gif SHOULD be arriving "tooled up" to remove the goods. It is very worrying if a bailifflink3.gif were to charge an ATR fee without 1st knowing whether there are any goods belonging to the debtor that can be removed!!!

 

It is for this reason that it should be expected that the bailiff had FIRST levied upon goods.

 

Lets assume that the bailiff has previously levied upon goods....payment has not been forthcoming as agreed then the bailiff can attend with the intention of removing the goods and he may then charge an "attending to remove" fee ( which the regulations clearly state must be REASONABLE.

 

In this particular case the bailiff is charging £175 for "attending to remove". I am at a loss to understand how it is possible for Task Enforcement to then attempt to charge an "aborted removal fee" of £195 !!

 

By charging £175 the bailiff must attend ready to remove items and it goes without saying that the type of vehicle that he would need to bring with him must be suitably equipped for this purpose.

 

Lastly, if a bailiff is attempting to charge a fee for an "aborted removal" then you are legally entitled to write to NSL ( who own TASK Enforcement) or the instructing local authority and to request a copy of an invoice from the relevant removal company addressed to Task Enforcement as evidence that a removal contractor had been booked......and details of when the contractor was cancelled. Naturally, Task Enforcement would need to provide supporting evidence that they had paid the contractor !!!"

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hello again,

 

just to give you an update - I visited my GP and she wrote a letter saying that my health was severly affected and asking for enforcement action to be ceased.

 

I forwarded this to Excel and the council and have heard nothing until this morning 07.45am.

 

A new company Proserve were threatening to clamp a car in my drive that doesnt belong to me.

 

The person who it belonged to went out and showed the log book but the enforcement guy wouldnt accept this.

 

I went out and said he should do a dvla check but he said he didnt need to.

He said that the V5 didnt show the legal owner just the registered keeper.

The car is genuinely not mine and my friend then proceedded to drive his car out the way but didnt realise the clamp was in place.

 

The car moved ok though but caused damage to the wheel.

In the end the police were called and didnt want o get involved but to cut a long story short

I have had to part with £50 to send Proserve on there way as an emergency measure.

 

My point is can they legally clamp somenone elses car?

 

No levy was signed or anything.

I have had enough where do I go from here.

I recorded on my camera a conversation between me and the bailiff

- he said they didnt have to make a levy and he could just take the car

- is this right.

 

And as this is a new company surely they cannot charge for the previous bailiffs fees and charges.

 

Wouldnt it go to a fresh slate with the charges?

 

I asked the bailiff to get him to email me the breakdown of costs which I have now received and they have indeed charged a levy fee,

van fee of £240 admin costs £60 amongst other costs.

 

Please guys, can anyone steer me in the right direction.

 

In the end the police had to take my children to school

- I mean, how bad is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car owner could send a letter before action giving an estimate of the repair cost giving them 7 days to pay, before county court action is taken against te council and proserve jointly, Formal Complaint to council copied to proserve stating about the bailiff illegally levying a third party vehicle so the associated fees must be removed.

 

Don't worry others will 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 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

Proserve...do not appear to be anything other than debt collectors...they are not registered at Companies House as bailiffs.....I think you will find they have no rights to seize a paper cup let alone clamp a car belonging to a third party? You need to set up a paper trail and start by writing to them (copy in the LA)

and ask for a breakdown of their fees, copy of the clamping order, copy of the warrant will do for starters...the reply should be interesting???

pepsie

Link to post
Share on other sites

opps naughty

they are NOTHING like a bailiff

 

NO LEGAL POWERS AT ALL.

 

are you SURE this WAS to do with the CTAX issue

 

if you filmed and recorded it

 

you need to show it to a police inspector

if he claimed to be a bailiff

arrestable offense

 

impersonating a member of the legal services

 

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

who didn't search the name properly......

 

 

seems ok sadly

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

Name & Registered Office:

PROSERVE ENFORCEMENT SOLUTIONS LIMITED

UNIT 1 CLAYDON BUSINESS PARK

GREAT BLAKENHAM

IPSWICH

UNITED KINGDOM

IP6 0NL

Company No. 08066641

 

 

spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gif Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 11/05/2012

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC):

None Supplied

Accounting Reference Date: 31/12

Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)

Next Accounts Due: 30/09/2013

Last Return Made Up To:

Next Return Due: 08/06/2013

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify - the one piece of paper he gave me lists them at Somerset House, 30 Wynnstay Road, Colwyn Bay LL29 8NB

 

no companies house details and only the baliffs telephone number and a fax number.

 

It states the amount due of £599.68.

 

I have to nip out now but I really appreciate your help guys I am at my wits end

 

- I cant give up on this and will be back online later.

 

Thanks everyone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and just briefly,

 

when I asked for a breakdown of their costs

when he was at my house he said that would have to come from the office

and they wouldnt be able to do it until later.

 

Miraculously when I said to him, 'well you wouldnt pay for something if you didnt know what it was for'

 

he phone his company and they said they would waiver the attendance to remove charge and the bill dropped to £431.00.

 

My point is that surely they are only able to go for the warrant amount and their first visit fee and if this is £431.00

then surely the queen must be coming to pick up my vehicle!

 

Incidently he wouldnt show me ANY of the paperwork he had and implied to the police officers in attendance that he had a high court writ to collect the £599.

 

He was one of the bad guys who definately give the industry a bad name.

 

I will get my friend to file a complaint but where can I go now with this

- there are a number of wrongdoings on his part.

 

They obviously are not taking into account my letter from my GP about my vunerable household plea

and I will contact my MP to look into this if he will.

 

Should I contact the council to see what they have to say for themselves.

 

I feel they should have at least acknowledged receipt of the letter from GP that I sent them 2 months ago or informed me that they were instruction alternative enforcement agents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify - the one piece of paper he gave me lists them at Somerset House, 30 Wynnstay Road, Colwyn Bay LL29 8NB

 

I am going to Colwyn Bay tomorrow, i will look at that address to see if it is a legit office or an accommodation address.

 

I would ask the council what is going on

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

What a true gem you are brassnecked - yes the address is as you stated above. I dont know if it is any coincidence but i seem to recall that excel civil enforcement are in that vicinity too - would it possible they are one and the same just t/as different names. Incidently it was excel that first took on this recovery before proserve just got involved. x

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a true gem you are brassnecked - yes the address is as you stated above. I dont know if it is any coincidence but i seem to recall that excel civil enforcement are in that vicinity too - would it possible they are one and the same just t/as different names. Incidently it was excel that first took on this recovery before proserve just got involved. x

Excel are on Conway Road, Wynnstay Road is mainly solicitors offices, in Colwyn bay, and 30 Wynnstay Road is Edward Hughes Solicitors, so they could be using the solicitors as the registered company address, or even have an accomodation office there.

 

Contact the council and tell them that their agent proserve were attempting to clamp a vehhicle belonging to a third party, and start a Formal complaint regarding their ignoring vulnerability, and the attempts to levy a car not belonging to yourself, you could mention the LGO and the Report into Blaby council regarding this very thing.

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 emailed the council asking for him to send me the official complaints procedures as well as detailing the unlawful clamping of a third party vehicle and he responded by saying that the forms are on pembrokeshire council website and that he has written to his bailiff firm and will respond to defend their actions. I also note after my research that the previous bailiff firm sent an uncertified bailiff to my house in October last year - this guy only got his certificate at the end of december

Edited by pipwri
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...