Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Which would require a hearing....so the fee would be £255.00
    • When providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under section 78(1) of the Act:   a.     must a creditor provide a photocopy (or other form of complete copy) of the original agreement that was signed by the debtor or at least provide a copy which is derived directly from the original agreement or complete copy thereof? or b.     can a creditor provide a document which is a reconstitution of the original agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself?   It was held that a creditor can satisfy its duty under section 78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself.   The judge accepted that as a matter of law, section 78 does not itself require any particular explanation as to how the copy was made. However, as a matter of good practice and so as not to mislead the debtor, it is desirable that the creditor should explain that it is providing a reconstituted as opposed to a physical copy of the executed agreement. This will also explain why the copy might otherwise look a little odd. The creditor can also explain in the letter that this procedure is satisfactory under the Act. The judge also provided that the following information needs to be included in the reconstituted copy agreement (assuming of course that it was present in the original):   1.     Heading: Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 2.     Name and address of the debtor 3.     Name and address of the creditor 4.     Cancellation clause applicable to the executed agreement.   All of the above may be provided on a sheet which is separate from the full statement of terms and conditions which also forms part of the reconstituted agreement. The creditor may, however, decide to reconstitute the agreement in a different way so that, for example, the information above is populated electronically onto the same sheet as that which sets out the terms and conditions, or some of them. The judge stated that he did not intend to prescribe the precise form of the reconstituted agreement. The key point is what information it should contain, subject to the point that its format should not be such as to mislead the debtor as to what he agreed to.   The judge also considered whether a statement like the one appearing in the reconstructed application form in Carey referring to the agreement to the terms and conditions "attached" needs to be included in the reconstituted copy. Alternatively if the application form had said "I agree to the terms overleaf", should that statement be included. The judge held that this aspect of the form is not necessary for the purpose of the section 78 copy, although there is nothing to stop a bank from putting it in or indeed from furnishing a copy of the type of application form or signature page that the debtor would have signed, as some banks have done. The statement referring to terms and conditions is not itself prescribed information and the supply of the terms and conditions which were applicable at the time will tell the debtor what he needs to know in terms of the content of what he signed up to, including the presence (or otherwise) of the prescribed terms.   In practical terms what this is likely to mean is that if the creditor chooses to use as the section 78 copy the section 63 copy, which would have been provided to that particular debtor at the time following execution of the agreement, this will be sufficient provided that the information referred to above is supplied. This exercise is not a mere formality. The creditor will need to check carefully that the details of the debtor at the time are correct and that those are the particular terms (including prescribed terms) that he/she agreed to. This is to ensure that it is an honest and accurate copy.   Must a creditor provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Regulations) as to form, as at the date the agreement was made in order to comply with section 78?   A creditor need not, in complying with section 78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Regulations as to form, as at the date the agreement was made.   Must the copy provided under section 78 include the debtor's name and address as at the date when the agreement was made, and if so in what form? The section 78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself.     If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, is a copy of the executed agreement as varied, a sufficient copy for the purposes of section 78(1), or must the creditor provide a copy of the original agreement as well?   If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms.     As your agreement is post April 2007  Section 61(1)(a) and 127(3)   Consumer Credit Act 1974 would not apply.   Andy
    • well start a new thread for the court claim.   as for this one i'd await the letter of claim  
    • Useful information...   And....   https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part55
    • nice and ofcourse totally unlawful.   £349.50 is the usual sum RLP try and fleece out of people under some silly civil threats none of goes to the store it all goes in RLP's pocket for their next staff holiday paid for by mugs that fall for their twaddle ignore!!
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2528 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

Im hoping someone can help my friend and will try and give as much information.

 

My friend sold her car in August to a neighbour.

Due to illness and being on sick and in and out of hospital, she could no longer afford the running costs.

 

Three weeks ago she received a hand posted letter from a Bailiff for a bus lane ticket which she had no prior knowledge of.

 

The bailiffs visited again and she refused them entry.

 

The next day, the neighbour who bought the car came round furious saying the bailiffs clamped the car and had it towed off within half an hour.

 

He told them that he was the owner but they said he would need to pay £500 to stop them towing it off.

When I say neighbour, he lives on the next estate so it wasnt even any where near my friends house.

 

They have both made numerous phone calls to the bailiffs offices (Marsdens) and been given nothing but the run around.

They asked the new owner to fax proof of ownership which he has, but everything he has faxed

- which they asked for - isnt good enough.

 

When he asked what would be good enough, they said they didnt know!

 

The new owner made a complaint to the police but they didnt want to know and flatly refused to get involved.

 

He has also tried to complain to the authority that instructed the baiiffs and has done this in writing but they are giving him the run around too.

 

They have now had the car for 3 weeks for an original debt of £100 for which they have taken an Audi TT and they now want neary £1000 to get the car back.

 

The new owner wants my friend to refund him the money for the car, which she hasnt got as this money was used to pay all her debts and rent arrears due to being ill and out of work.

 

What next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you can record phone calls they will properly not get too far keep a paper trail

 

The car should be reported as stolen it is theft so not a civil case as the police will make out

 

Get on to local MP


If i have helped in any way hit my star.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have both contacted the police several times to report the car stolen but they dont want to know and said its not a matter they can deal with.

 

There was no clamping order for the car either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These things aren't my forte and got mixed up originally because of the different addresses, which in this case didn't apply.

 

I note you say she never received any prior notification until the Bailiff turned up.

 

If that is the case then I suggest she rings the Traffic Enforcement Centre tomorrow morning

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/traffic-enforcement-centre/frequently-asked-questions

and in particular ask for exactly what address was on the Warrant - she will need the PCN number.

 

As for the neighbour it should be enough he has furnished all the relevant details required that they asked for.

 

In my view they are being obstructive and the Council that issued the ticket should be informed

and told a claim is being made for all out of pocket expenses including car hire & reimbursement of the monies paid.


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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She has now filled in a PE7 and another form with Traffic Enforcement. All this has been sent to the council. The council say she owes the Bailiffs £455 but the Bailiffs are asking nearly £1k. Its all been a nightmare and nobody is listening. The car is due to be sold on Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think we've had this before here

if remember correctly...

 

you certainly need to go BACK to the police and demand it is recorded

and you get a crime number.

 

any PC that fails to do this, you should take down their collar number

and ask to speak to the inspector.

 

the car has been stolen, the bailiff had no right to take it

and has no right to hold it

nor charge for its release.

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner of the car made an official complaint with the police, even spoke to an Inspector who told him the same - its a civil matter and the car hasnt been stolen. They wouldnt log it as stolen or even record and give a crime number. Total waste of tme.

 

Just wondering if local MP could do anything, or does anyone know of a solicitor that specialises?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes contact MP ASAP, also new owner should send an Invoice with a letter Before Action to the council for all costs as per hire of replacement car, etc, giving them 7 days to respond, after which action will be initiated in County Court for recovery, as they are 100% liable for their bailiffs "mistake" aka theft, and subsequent consequences Presumably Owner now has V5 and a reciept for the money paid for the car? If so perhaps Marstons are trying it on, as in a case involving Jacobs the vehicle had already been sold within days. Perhaps this is the case here.

 

Complaints to ACPO and the IPCC as this is prima facie theft, Marstons refusal and denial of owners right to have the vehicle returned, constitutes the mens rea for theft as in taking and intending to permanently deprive the lawful owner of the vehicle.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, the car CANNOT now be sold as an Out of Time witness statement has been filed. All enforcement is now on hold and no additinoal fees can be added.

 

What you friend also needs to do is to call TEC and ask them to confirm the precise address on the warrant. This is to ascertain whether there has been a problem with the address.

 

She should have received a Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery and all these documents ( which are statutory notices) are sent before a bailiff visit. Unless there is something wrong with the address, these letters should have been received.

 

Marston Group will almost certainly require the following:

 

Copy of Sales Receipt for the car.

 

Proof to support how payment was made

 

Most importantly...a copy of the insurance certificate or cover note that should if possible be for the same day as the purchase.

 

If these docuemnts are available, then this shouold satisfy Marston Group.

 

Many times, a simple letter headed Third Party Claim will suffice. Please check if your friend has the above documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marston Group have been involved in some very dodgy seizures of motor vehicles as of late. Also, I am currently dealing with a number of cases, on another site, where it has been shown that Marston Group bailiffs have lied to the police and the courts. Also, a large number of complaints have been made to OFT Credit Fitness Team against Marston Group some of which are sufficiently serious enough to bring into question Marston Group's fitness to hold a Category F Debt Collection Licence. More and more OPs are being advised to report misconduct by Marston Group bailiffs to HMCTS Enforcement Managers. It will only be a matter of time before HMCTS call time on Marston Group's contract and OFT do likewise with their OFT Licence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree OP should complain to OFT on Credit Fitness also, along with reminding the Council who are wholly liable for marstons, about Blaby Council and the LGO regarding their bailiffs rottendales who did something similar in levying, but not removing third party vehicles. this is much worse as the car was actually taken.

 

As Op indicated the car was taken three weeks ago, the likelihood is that the car has already been sold, so Sharkstons are stonewalling, in full knowledge they have messed up and are trying to bluff and bully to cover their sorry jive asses.

 

Sadly the police are as inept and wrong on bailiff law as usual.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if it is in the OP's interest to obtain the details of the bailiff's certificate from Marstons and then write to the District Judge at the certificating court(s). As we know, a cagger did this and the bailiff had their certificate revoked without a Form 4 being submitted or a hearing taking place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wondering if it is in the OP's interest to obtain the details of the bailiff's certificate from Marstons and then write to the District Judge at the certificating court(s). As we know, a cagger did this and the bailiff had their certificate revoked without a Form 4 being submitted or a hearing taking place.

 

It is certainly an option, I am concerned that the car given the time before OP posted here may already have been sold, and the bailiffs are trying to say that they are entitled to do what they did, and as to the legal owner, tough, suck it down and stand the loss.

 

Actually if the owner was to send a letter before action to marstons and the council for the return of THEIR property wrongly seized, giving them 7 days or action will be taken for recovery of cost of vehicle and consequential losses in the county court with the council and sharkstons as joint defendants; might that focus their minds?


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus that Marstons acted lawfully falls entirely upon Marstons, not the owner of the vehicle their brainless bailiffs seized and had no right or power in law to do so. If the car has already been sold, I am afraid the mug who purchased it at auction does not, in my considered judgement, have proper title, no matter what he or the police may argue. The police, incidentally, may well be guilty of a breach of statutory duty of failing to investigate a crime reported to them. They are not trained or proficient in bailiff law and, therefore, they should have dealt with it as a crime until the contrary was proven.

 

The OP should insist the vehicle is returned, even if it has been sold. Because it was wrongfully seized, the seizure and subsequent sale are both illegal. The OP still has proper title in the vehicle. If Marstons are unable to recover the vehicle, then the OP is in a better position to insist on a vehicle of BETTER value than that of the vehicle wrongfully seized is provided as a replacement. Marstons may try and negotiate this down to equivalent value, but that only applies to civil litigation where a civil tort has occurred. In this case, it appears Marstons were told it was a third-party vehicle, in which case their bailiffs acted recklessly and, in my opinion, dishonestly, also, as they knew they had no right or power to take the vehicle or sell it.

 

As to a Letter Before Action, I would be inclined to cite the local authority as 1st Defendant, Marstons as 2nd Defendant, the bailiff as 3rd Defendant and the Removal Contractor Marstons used as 4th Defendant. The Removal Contractor needs to be warned the vehicle used to remove the OP's vehicle may be liable to forfeiture due to the legality of Marstons' actions. It also needs to be made clear to Marstons and their Removal Contractor that a course of action through the criminal courts is being considered, in addition to any civil proceedings.

 

This, in my opinion, would focus the minds of Marstons' senior management and that of their Removal Contractor whom, I would not be surprised, might refuse to carry out any further work for them. If the Removal Contractor forfeits their vehicle, they can sue Marstons for a replacement vehicle.

Edited by old bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldbill, the car had been sold by Op, and new owner was who it was taken from


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know the date the Bailiffs sold the car ?

 

Did they serve notice and inventpry correctly ?

 

Could be irregular dostress.

"selling without having served notice of the distress with copy of inventory on the tenant; selling within the five or 15 days allowed to reply"

 

It sounds as though it was also an unlawful distress so there is a claim for damages.

"A claim for damages lies for any wrongful distress whether it is illegal, irregular, or excessive"

 

As for title being passed, in the case of an unlawful distress, it can't be.

"An illegal distress is one which is wrongful at the very outset, that is to say either where there was no right to distrain or where a wrongful act

was committed at the beginning of the levy invalidating all subsequent pro-ceedings.

In such a case the distrainor is a trespasser ab initio, and it is no defence that the goods have been applied in discharge of the rent *.

 

As the distrainor has in himself no right to seize the particular chattels,

he can confer no title to them upon a person to whom,

under colour of the distress,

they may purport to have been sold." * = Attack v Bramwell (1863) 3 B & S 520 It looks to me that the bailiff is in a world of hurt and knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oldbill, the car had been sold by Op, and new owner was who it was taken from

 

Thanks for that, BN. Fibro Fog again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes contact MP ASAP, also new owner should send an Invoice with a letter Before Action to the council for all costs as per hire of replacement car, etc, giving them 7 days to respond, after which action will be initiated in County Court for recovery, as they are 100% liable for their bailiffs "mistake" aka theft, and subsequent consequences Presumably Owner now has V5 and a reciept for the money paid for the car? If so perhaps Marstons are trying it on, as in a case involving Jacobs the vehicle had already been sold within days. Perhaps this is the case here.

 

Complaints to ACPO and the IPCC as this is prima facie theft, Marstons refusal and denial of owners right to have the vehicle returned, constitutes the mens rea for theft as in taking and intending to permanently deprive the lawful owner of the vehicle.

 

I doubt whether ACPO could help in a case like this, but IPCC certainly will be able to help. However, I will check with ACPO whether they have a policy on certificated bailiffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we know the date the Bailiffs sold the car ?

 

Did they serve notice and inventpry correctly ?

 

Could be irregular dostress.

"selling without having served notice of the distress with copy of inventory on the tenant; selling within the five or 15 days allowed to reply"

 

It sounds as though it was also an unlawful distress so there is a claim for damages.

"A claim for damages lies for any wrongful distress whether it is illegal, irregular, or excessive"

 

As for title being passed, in the case of an unlawful distress, it can't be.

"An illegal distress is one which is wrongful at the very outset, that is to say either where there was no right to distrain or where a wrongful act

was committed at the beginning of the levy invalidating all subsequent pro-ceedings.

In such a case the distrainor is a trespasser ab initio, and it is no defence that the goods have been applied in discharge of the rent *.

 

As the distrainor has in himself no right to seize the particular chattels,

he can confer no title to them upon a person to whom,

under colour of the distress,

they may purport to have been sold." * = Attack v Bramwell (1863) 3 B & S 520 It looks to me that the bailiff is in a world of hurt and knows it.

 

There is also Rai and Rai -v- Birmingham City Council 1993. I agree with you that Marstons and their intellectually-challenged bailiff are well and truly in the brown and smelly stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sent an email to ACPO enquiring about their policy on Certificated Bailiffs (if they have one). Once I hear from them, I will post up their response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know anything further on this.

 

From what I can make out it is theft and the police should be involved especially if the car had been registered in the new owners name. The bailiff had no right to take the car.

 

The council are fully responsible of their bailiffs actions. Formal complaints need to be sent to the CEO of the council, the police and Marstons.

 

When was the penalty issued? was it before or after the date of the sale. I dont think this was mentioned. If it was my apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...