Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • 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 4128 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

How do I pay the council?

 

Do you have your Council Tax bill to hand? On the reverse it should give you their bank details, if so pay by online banking, you may also use the Council website or as said above.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Please be aware that it is very rare a bailiff will take goods. How ever, first they must levy items that will cover cost's and fee's.

If they have not done this then all they can charge is for their visits. £42.50.

 

Please do pay the council via their on line/phone payment facility by using the account on this years billing as Ploddertom has suggested. Once you have paid it, send email to council with the payment reference number, let them know that you will only be paying using this method and that it will be a regular payment until debt is paid off.

 

Dont converse with the bailiff from now on. He will only lie again, it will be about getting the police and you will go to prison etc etc. its all hot air.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all.so glad I stumbled across this site.its given loadsa info and now I dont feel so scared of 'the big man' returning :)

I copied some of the letter I came across on this site,parts about knowing my rites,and the itemising of costs and fees of the bailiff.also wrote another letter to the council sayin I will pay them direct,and ONLY them.not the bailiff,and for them to reply with how they want their money (at £50 per month,which I feel is a reasonable amoint!) I would like to just sat a massive THANKYOU to all who have helped me on this site with replies :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be surprised if the response from the Council is to say you must deal with the Bailiffs. You are far better off just paying them but you must remember to budget extra for any lawful fees that are due to the Bailiff.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

He wants you to you your council tax.

 

I have had a quick read through your thread and I dont see anything obvious why the bailiff should not be pursuing you.

 

If you are struggling to pay then you should be in receipt of a prescribed low income benefit and your arrears can be paid off instalments.

 

Write to the council with a reasonable offer of payment, £5 a week and stick to it. Keep the door shut and never let any bailiff into your home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if he comes back tomoz? The letter has MAGISTRATES LIABILITY ORDER/WARRENT OF EXECUTION ,hubby works,and I wrote to the counil offering £50 a month but have not heard a thing,im unsure how to pay this old ct bill.on the letter the bailiff left is clients ref no: so do I pay it on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bailiff refuses your £50 a month then all you can do is keep your door locked shut and wait until the case is returned to the council and you can reinstate your offer to pay £50 a month.

 

The only other route is find out if the bailiff has done something wrong and you can start the formal complaints procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no....just had rossendales bailiff back.same bloke.he posted another letter FINAL NOTICE.sayin he givin me 24 hours of his intentions to recall and remove my stuff.what do I do?

 

does the bailiff have a levy ? if he does not there is little he can do

 

Final notice magistrates court warrant all words to scare you to paying the bailiffs

 

there is no right of entry for the bailiffs they can not force entry

 

payments should be ,made direct to the council as already advised by others as well

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

They wont be breaking into your home. Only time they do that if they have a levy on goods kept inside the property.

 

even with a levy there will be no forced entry it will need permission from the magistrates court rarely. if ever given

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

They wont be breaking into your home. Only time they do that if they have a levy on goods kept inside the property.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/471.html

 

This particular High Court Appeal Judgement gives very good detail as to exactly what stage a Bailiff or HCEO can re-enter a property to remove goods after a correct levy.

Edited by sweep1
Link to post
Share on other sites

even with a levy there will be no forced entry it will need permission from the magistrates court rarely. if ever given

 

Not required if the Bailiff or HCEO has correctly levied on goods. Read the following High Court Appeal.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/471.html

 

This particular High Court Appeal Judgement gives very good detail as to exactly what stage a Bailiff or HCEO can re-enter a property to remove goods after a correct levy. (No permission required from the Court)

Edited by sweep1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not speak to the ballif again dont even open the door to him.

 

Instead of waiting for Council to reply to your offer of paying instalments, just start paying. use their online facility or automated phone service as suggested previously. the reference number you need is on your ct bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Khazachanchi, would appear to indicate that a bailiff or HCEO should communicate to a debtor when they were going to return to enter and remove goods, turning up ad-hoc, "at any time" does not cut it in modern times where it is custom and practice to secure premises when leaving them, unlike the days of yore when doors were usually left unlocked even with residents out and away from the premises, these days the bailiff cannot rely on thinking unlike the past that the door is specifically barred against him, it is barred to all and sundry in the residents absence as a matter of course and it is entirely normal for it to be so. the door is locked, the resident doesn't know when the bailiff/HCEO will return, so forced entry is not lawful, unless due notice of a time/date of intended attendance to physically remove is communicated to a debtor

 

 

"33. For all these reasons I would conclude that a bailiff is not entitled to re-enter by force except where, having gained entry peaceably, he was expelled by force or he has been deliberately excluded by the tenant. What amounts to deliberate exclusion must be recognised on a case by case basis. It will include cases where the tenant knowing of the intended visit deliberately locks the door and goes away or when invited to admit the bailiff refuses to do so. But in my view it does not include the case of a tenant who has no knowledge of an intended visit by the bailiff at any particular time and locks his premises in the ordinary way and goes about his business as normal. "

 

From: Khazanchi & Anor v Faircharm Investments Ltd & Ors [1998]1WLR 1603

 

It would appear to infer that unless the bailiff/HCEO has been refused entry by the debtor at a re-attendance then they should communicate a date and time of a subsequent attendance where they will force entry if the premises are locked against them.

 

Others will know more or have a different opinion

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

Not required if the Bailiff or HCEO has correctly levied on goods. Read the following High Court Appeal.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/471.html

 

This particular High Court Appeal Judgement gives very good detail as to exactly what stage a Bailiff or HCEO can re-enter a property to remove goods after a correct levy. (No permission required from the Court)

 

we are talking about a council tax debt here

For council tax there is no breaking in all they have is a liability order nothing else

even with a levy there is no breaking in

 

all a levy allows the bailiff to do is charge a van attendance fee if you are a day late or a penny short of around £180 upwards

 

most of the time any levy bailiffs think they have has insufficient goods to settle a debt

 

remember there is a liability order NOTHING else

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

AS for breaking into to your home - the bailiff has to first gain peaceful entry. Most SLA's/Contracts/Code of Practice between Councils & bailiffs usually insists that where a bailiff gains peaceful entry and seizes goods, later goes back to remove same & is denied entry makes them have to ask:

a - the Council for permission to force entry and if they agree

b - go back to the Magistrates Court to gain an Order allowing them to do this, and if they agree

c - has to write to you giving a date & time when they will attend

d - only then if they are refused could they force entry

Orders such as these are only granted in exceptional cases - usuallywhere there is a history of wilful refusal to pay. You will be a long way from this scenario.

 

 

hope that clears things up :!:

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

we are talking about a council tax debt here

For council tax there is no breaking in all they have is a liability order nothing else

even with a levy there is no breaking in

 

all a levy allows the bailiff to do is charge a van attendance fee if you are a day late or a penny short of around £180 upwards

 

most of the time any levy bailiffs think they have has insufficient goods to settle a debt

 

remember there is a liability order NOTHING else

 

Yes that is the case but in any complaint where there are constant threats to break in albeit unlawful by the likes of dossers et al, the case and the quotation is worth including in any Formal Complaint, where threats of an ad-hoc forced entry are communicated to a debtor, in any manner. This is important as for a forced entry the express permission of the council and magistrates granting the forced entry, and a letter to the debtor giving a specific date and time of the attendance to force entry must be given, this after and only after the bailiff has actually had a peaceful entry initially. No peaceful entry, no levy, bailiff is screwed.

 

From the perspective of the OP, dossers can threaten all they like but won't be breaking in anytime 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

 

From the perspective of the OP, dossers can threaten all they like but won't be breaking in anytime soon.

 

Exactly my thoughts on it

tossendales have a liability order and will try to convince people they have a warrant/court order,As we know they relying on fear and intimidation

 

The OP should make any and all payments direct to the council that way there is no wilful refusal to pay

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly my thoughts on it

tossendales have a liability order and will try to convince people they have a warrant/court order,As we know they relying on fear and intimidation

 

The OP should make any and all payments direct to the council that way there is no wilful refusal to pay

 

Exactly, offer of payment backed by actual payments and printing a reciept for the online transaction circumvents any accusation of wilful avoidance, and along with the proof of threats from the likes of dossers, makes a more compelling case for the council taking the debt from the bailiff when it becomes apparent that they may get a kicking from Ombudsman, if they don't.

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...