Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4156 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

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have just emailed rds,stating that im not refusing to pay,but I am dealing with council.and that im lodging a formal complaint about them putting van fee and levy fee on same day,especially that no levy has been made and I havent signed anything,ever,from rds.ive also emailed council,informing them of this and,of how to pay this debt.....hopefully il hear something b4 bailiff comes back!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council will only reply and tell you to 'deal with the bailiffs' ..you have to take the bull by the horns and work out what you can reasonably afford to pay on a weekly/fortnightly/monthly basis then make that payment on exactly the same day/date, this will build up a history to show you are not a 'won't pay' and in fact making effort to pay. Please be careful when you make those payments..we have had many a cagger who has paid religiously their set sum every week, then later found they had been paying to the wrong reference number with all payments going to the current CT and the debt for the outstanding CT was still owed???

 

Forget asking the council for any help and start telling them this is the way you will be paying, there is little to nothing they can do once you start paying other than accept your payments.

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I no longer have a ct bill for 2010 so hiw will I get ref no:?

 

Call the benefits and revenues department and request it. It should also be on the letters that the council have sent in way as reminders, it could well be on any bailiff letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all.just a quick update... As I wroteto complain to the council and rds about the.confusion over fees added to the account I have today recieved a letter from rds statin 'there was possible issues with the way my account was handles by the council,and the account has now been handed back to them'.....PHEW!!!

BUT...there is still some confusion on my partt as in this letter it states 'our bailiff levied on items inside the property and left a copy of the notice of distress with you'

He never left any such thing.no paperworj at all was left with us!!! What a lie.it also says he levied on a veichile outside the property,and we dont even have a car!!! Do I dispute this with rds?? Or do I just keep schtum and wait for council to get intouch? Surley as the bailiff has lied about leaving paperwork something should be done? Any help plz

Link to post
Share on other sites

if he never got in to the house

he cant levy on stuff inside

 

he cant levy on vehicles not yours

 

so eitherway cannot charge those fees NOR van fees

 

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

Hi all.just a quick update... As I wroteto complain to the council and rds about the.confusion over fees added to the account I have today recieved a letter from rds statin 'there was possible issues with the way my account was handles by the council,and the account has now been handed back to them'.....PHEW!!!

BUT...there is still some confusion on my partt as in this letter it states 'our bailiff levied on items inside the property and left a copy of the notice of distress with you' send dossers the Acme letter putting them on strict proof of everything

He never left any such thing.no paperworj at all was left with us!!! What a lie.it also says he levied on a veichile outside the property, again ask dossers for the details of the vehicle, as strangely you don't own one and we dont even have a car!!! Do I dispute this with rds?? Or do I just keep schtum and wait for council to get intouch? Surley as the bailiff has lied about leaving paperwork something should be done? Any help plz

 

Initiate a second Stage Formal Complaint, if you have sent an initial one in, stating that their agent dossendales has not provided any notice of seizure nor details of a vehicle they claim to have levied, being as you don't own a car.:

 

Send them the Acme letter below asking for details of what they levied, as you didn't have any notice of seizure put them on strict proof again, and you could mention that any levy on a car is invalid as you don't own one.

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme bailifflink3.gif Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges.

 

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were certificatedlink3.gif at.

e - the date of the Certification.

f - a copy of notification of seizure of any goods, chattels or vehicle

 

This is not a Subject access requestlink3.gif under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

 

Even if they give you a list it will probably be faulty if it is a generic list, and is not an accurate listing of your specific goods. At which point all and any levy is down the toilet along with the associated fees.

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

If debt has been handed back without charges added, then I wouldnt complain, they obviously knew that some thing was wrong. They wont admit it though unless you make a song and dance about it.

 

If charges are added or bailiff tries and gets his charges from you, I would be inclined to start making some noise about it.

 

This is just my opinion though.

 

You could wait until the dust settles and then enquire about it. See what they have to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As' they have handed the debt back to the council should I not jist stay quiet?

 

You could, but if the council still insist the fees are payable, it may be better to have a Formal note of what they are charging in writing so their claims can be demolished later, Did he list anything at the time you let him in? You need a copy of whatever goods he has listed at the least, he must by law leave one with you AT THE TIME of any levy.

It's your call, but if they insist the fees are payable on top even though the debt is back in house, it may be worth rattling rossers cage to get the unlawful elements removed,

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...