Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I have found this group very helpful hence I am here seeking help and advice.   I got myself into a situation where I have now more than £50k in unsecured debts (personal loans & credit cards) and things are now getting out of control as I am struggling to make payments. This is purely my own created situation and I am taking 100% responsibility for it. I am keen to get out of this situation as soon as possible hence I would appreciate any help and advice in this process. I am employed at the moment and don’t want to risk going into IVA or bankruptcy as this would risk losing my job. Being sole bread earner of my family, I cannot afford to lose my job. I have been trying to keep up with the payments so far and had few missed payments instances until 3/4 months ago but got caught up with missed payments somehow using my savings. All my debts are still with original lenders. However I know I am getting into same situation again shortly and won’t be able to get out of it again. I have started exploring Debt Management Plan (DMP) option through StepChange but haven’t submitted it yet. Based on budgeting, I have around £820 available to make payments to all lenders after taking care of all other essential expenses. This is definitely lot more affordable than what I am currently paying to different lenders. 1. Is DMP right option for me in current situation? 2. what are the negative consequences of availing DMP? 3. is there something else that I can do to get out of this situation? I’m determined to clear out all my debts but need bit of breathing space and time. Let me know please if you need any additional information. Thanks in advance for all your help and guidance. MM  
    • Bookmakers use betting on political events to entice new customers, and say it is growing.View the full article
    • nope  and  neither dx
    • Ok Thank you DX will do just that . will keep you up dated.
  • 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

Ministry of Justice today release the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4152 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

This morning the Ministry of Justice released the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.

 

This is a very detailed response which consists of 72 pages and can be accessed by way of the following link.

 

You will need to scroll down to the bottom of the page under the heading of RESPONSES:

 

 

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...bailiff-action

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning the Ministry of Justice released the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.

 

This is a very detailed response which consists of 72 pages and can be accessed by way of the following link.

 

You will need to scroll down to the bottom of the page under the heading of RESPONSES:

 

 

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...bailiff-action

 

Thanks :)

 

I look forward to reading this on my lunchbreak!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting recommendation from the LGO on page 35 of the response.

 

Remedies and Complaints handling

 

139. The consultation paper set out the existing complaints procedures and sought views on whether this was sufficient. (Question 53)

 

141. The Local Government Ombudsman supports the Governments position (what is the LGO if not the government?) on not introducing a complaints body covering the industry as they are concerned about the impact that such a proposal would have on their own jurisdiction.

 

142. We consider that the proposed changes to the law, fees and the certification process will address some of the current complaint issues. It is clear, however, that there is a need to work with all stakeholders and the Local Government Ombudsman to clarify the details of the complaints process so that there is a greater understanding as to how debtors can seek redress. In particular, setting out the remedies that are available and where they could be obtained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

needs a good read, and double check to digest this.

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

Well I burned the midnight oil and read the report from start to finish making notes on the way.....conclusion... some positives but sadly they far outweighed by all the negatives.

 

Even when presented with all the evidence to bad practices, it seems this government are hell bent on permitting the' bad apples' and those that employ them to continue to operate without being regulated.

 

Yes, the media took a peak at what has been a shamelessly costly exercise but even they appeared to want to tuck it away.......is this because they don't really grasp the implications?

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this because they don't really grasp the implications?

 

They have been told to let it lie most likely, as they might find themselves with a nice statutory regulator who will gag them.

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

One thing I reckon that could help would be outlawing bond insurance. It will concentrate Bailiff's minds a hell of a lot more if they have to scrape together several grand out of their own pocket, and thats whats at risk.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst general opinion on here was always going to be that it hadn't gone far enough surely the fee reform must be something of a win.

 

Whether it is a certificated bailiff or an HCEO at least now the fees will be transparent and easy for all to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I reckon that could help would be outlawing bond insurance. It will concentrate Bailiff's minds a hell of a lot more if they have to scrape together several grand out of their own pocket, and thats whats at risk.

 

And this is exactly what an authorised HCEO has to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst general opinion on here was always going to be that it hadn't gone far enough surely the fee reform must be something of a win.

 

Whether it is a certificated bailiff or an HCEO at least now the fees will be transparent and easy for all to understand.

 

And thanks to a certain Miss Jones being in bed with the Mo(in)J, she's managed to wangle around a 600% pay rise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And thanks to a certain Miss Jones being in bed with the Mo(in)J, she's managed to wangle around a 600% pay rise.

 

It's certainly not Julie Green-Jones that has any clout at the MoJ. Her so called pay rise is merely through the management of a successful enforcement business and is a share of dividends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly not Julie Green-Jones that has any clout at the MoJ. Her so called pay rise is merely through the management of a successful enforcement business and is a share of dividends.

 

That brings me to another point. If these private bailiff firms have the potential to be so profitable, why the hell have almost all local authorities outsourced their enforcement to them? They use exactly the same statutory fee schedule, and probably all of these firms are contractually obliged to do additional administration for free, not to mention the ones who pay councils a percentage for the business.

 

Either a missed opportunity for councils to make a killing, or the private bailiff firms are up to something a bit iffy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly not Julie Green-Jones that has any clout at the MoJ. Her so called pay rise is merely through the management of a successful enforcement business and is a share of dividends.

 

CCR Magazine had a different view....

 

 

Julie Green-Jones has been instrumental in helping the Ministry of Justice to shape new legislation under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 that is due for final consultation to all relevant parties soon.

 

 

They can't be that inefficient, they're making £millions.

 

Have you ever known a government department to be run or managed as efficiently as private enterprise...???
Link to post
Share on other sites

This extract argues that an HCEO's cost base is higher because of the the greater likelyhood of disputes including interpleader proceedings and costs assessments. It's a pity that the HCEO's charge too much and wrongfully sieze goods then?

 

7.2.5.

Legal complexity of cases handled

High Court Enforcement tends to be a more legally complex process than Non‐High Court Enforcement, since:

HCEOS have the obligation to have a wide ranging knowledge of Civil Procedure Rules and should be prepared to defend that knowledge and expertise before senior judiciary as the circumstances of each case dictate;

following the levying upon goods, it is more common that an interpleader process will be entered into, during which the debtor and third parties may make representations relating to the status and legal ownership of goods levied upon;

HCEO fees are more often challenged by debtors through the legally complex process of detailed cost assessment; and

since the HCEOs actions are potentially subject to legal challenge by the creditor, to whom the HCEO has enhanced duties and obligations (compared to an EA), various aspects of the case must be recorded and administered to a level of accuracy and detail that could withstand examination in the context of a legal challenge. The administration of High Court Writs of Fi Fa therefore includes a greater level of detail and quality of information than that of non‐High Court distress Warrants.

As a result of all of the above considerations it is necessary for HCEOs to employ admin staff with greater levels of skill, and often with legal qualifications. Suitably qualified admin staff demand higher salaries, and serve to increase the staff overhead cost per case for HCEOs compared to EACs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More bullsh*t to justify the existence of these HCEO's... £600 magically turned into 2k against people who would never have imagined themselves on the wrong side of 'poverty', the same people who are queuing to get food parcels to help them survive....what next...debtors prisons..workhouses?

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

The attending officer may only get £25 or so, whilst the Company racks up to £750 for the same person, just so happened to find out from a disaffected "enforcement officer" what he actually received. Also believe this came up at a Costs Hearing last year where the HCEO had to quantify what the attending officer actually received - the Judge then downward graded what they were claiming.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So HCEO's should be entitled to charge more, because their horrific fees are often challenged by debtors. WTF!

 

Our civil "justice" system seems a complete farce to foreigners.

 

What lunatic system do we run where private debt is only enforced by public officials, and public debt is enforced only by private staff.

 

CAB or somebody needs to run a proper national campaign advising people on their rights, showing how to keep your goods out of Bailiff reach by SD's etc. Best way to fight this monster is to starve it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

So HCEO's should be entitled to charge more, because their horrific fees are often challenged by debtors. WTF!

 

Our civil "justice" system seems a complete farce to foreigners.

 

What lunatic system do we run where private debt is only enforced by public officials, and public debt is enforced only by private staff.

 

CAB or somebody needs to run a proper national campaign advising people on their rights, showing how to keep your goods out of Bailiff reach by SD's etc. Best way to fight this monster is to starve it.

 

HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

 

 

You obviously haven't read my last post on this thread. Some of the reasons given for higher charge scales is the extra costs because of disputed ownership, disputes over charges and legal difficulties. Firstly a Fi Fa writ is extraordinarily easy to obtain, a doddle, so no great cost there then. Disputed ownership might be a tricky one with business debts because of varied ownerships of premises, different limited companies, personal ownership etc but really not that bad because all PLC and Ltd companies are online together with financial status. I would classify those problems as very easy to sort out by a moderately intelligent person in a few minutes. Disputes over charges occur simply because HCEO companies charge far more than they should. I would warrant that 90% of costs hearings probably go with the debtor.

 

In the case of personal creditors and sole traders there is no greater difficulty than that faced by a certified bailiff.

 

The simple fact is that HCEO companies have been driving a coach and horses through the legal system and the Masters at the High Court are fed up with dealing with fall out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

 

What is ridiculous about educating people on their rights, and getting the lawful, legal ways of protecting your goods from levy into public knowledge?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...