Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK - thank you. I understand the concept of LIP, and the need to keep my claim as simple and straightforward as possible. The legal arguments presented in what I called my skeleton statement were already in the original template I downloaded from this site. In that document I opened with "I am not proposing to set out the sequence of events." Might it be worthwhile for me to include a very brief timeline at that point, which would perhaps then allow it to become my witness statement? Or do you consider two separate documents are required? 
    • BF do you know where the instruction for skeleton has come from? Its just WX + docs. Do you think a skeleton is needed if the only issue in dispute is the legality of the exclusion terms. it seems excessive as well as wx no?   ah yes good point with LIP wx format i didnt think about the LIP judge softhand 
    • And incidentally, the really important part of this is that when you go to court, you are totally thorough and fluent not only with the facts – but with the effect of the legal points you are arguing. The facts are broadly not in dispute but the legal effect for instance of either having insurance or not having insurance. Of requiring insurance – these are the things you need to understand fully. Preparing your court bundle and eventually refining it bit by bit is terrific revision for you and will put you in control but also understanding its content fully and being fluent with its pages in the position of every point you are making is also essential.
    • Skeleton argument/witness statement – it's just a matter of terminology and we don't need to make an issue of it. Actually the three-page document that you have posted first of all and which you have called skeleton argument – is a witness statement which would be attached to the bundle which would be part of your indexed court bundle. I haven't looked at it in detail get or how it supports your claim or how it addresses any of the points made in the defence. I'll have to do that in the next two or three days. But for the moment, it looks fine. You have posted a second document which you are describing as an anonymized witness statement and as far as I can see, I agree with Cagger @jk2054 that much of your circle witness statement is a bit of a waffle and contains irrelevant information that you haven't remedied it in your final version which you say is chopped up. Also, you have received a suggestion of a template from Cagger @jk2054 and although this is going to be confusing for you, I don't think you should bother to use it. It is far too formal. You are a litigant in person and you need the flexibility of fully informing but informal documents which is what we are providing you with. We are suggesting models which we have been using over many cases and they all succeed in some them have been, complemented by the judge for the effectiveness and their clarity. You are litigant in person and one of the things you need to do is you need to have the judge on your side and helping you if necessary and this means that you don't want to start acting or talking or writing as if you are some kind of lawyer – you aren't. Being a litigant personage a certain sort of leverage and you should exploit that. The templates that we are suggesting to you are still not the templates that a completely un-advised person would use but they are still thorough. Stick to them. I suggest that you follow the advice given by the site team here and avoid confusion by switching horses. So for the moment I would suggest that you stick to your original skeleton argument – which follows the format that we have been using on this forum. We do like to see the fully prepared bundle please. I think there should be a next step. Have you got hearing date? Have you got a date for filing your bundle? In fact I have just looked back and I see that your filing date is 8 July. That's fine
    • First of all – as has already been pointed out to you, this is not a defect in the usual way that we understand and so that means that you don't need to rely on your 30 day and six months rights to reject. You can get MOT test done and it turns out to be an MOT failure for any reason then you have the added weight that they have is sold you an unroadworthy vehicle. Who did the existing MOT? I have a sense that it was big motoring world themselves in which case this would give you even greater leverage that if you have an MOT fail and it seems fairly clear that the reason for the failure is something which existed for some time that that would also cast doubt over the MOT provided by big motoring world and this would be even more serious. In any event, the vehicle is not as described and I think that this is an immediate ground for cancelling the policy and even better than that I think it would be a good ground for resisting any deduction made for mileage used – although we will have to deal with as it comes. I have read on Facebook that big motoring world tend to insist on quite a big deduction per mile and I have a sense that they do this because they know they can get away with it because they know their customers are really just happy to get rid of the vehicle any cost. You have told us you've got to a position where they seem to have agreed that you have now drawn a blank and they are being obstructive. Maybe you can lay out a bullet point chronology of exactly what has happened so far – point by point. I don't think you've told us how much you pay for the vehicle and also we want to know a list of the other expenses to which you been put including insurance et cetera and if you cancel the insurance how much you are likely to lose. How long is it not been driven? Why is it not been driven by your son? Didn't you planned for the more expensive insurance premium before you bought it? I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe you bought it and then was surprised at how expensive it was and are now finding a reason to return it. Please be completely level with us and tell us if this forms part of your reason for wanting to return it. We need to know everything – straight dealing – so we can help you in the best way possible. Otherwise we will have surprises sprung on us and we will all be embarrassed and you may lose. In fact I see that we don't know anything about the current all – make, model, mileage, or price paid which have already asked you about. Any reason that we don't have these very basic and obvious details without having to ask for them? You refer to the two new runflat tyres – why? Are these new ones which came with the car or these new ones which you had to buy and if so why did you have to buy them and how much they cost. It will be nice not to have to cross-examine your every detail. It will save a lot of time. Please have a look at this post carefully, discern the questions and address each one please.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

mid sussex council + baliffs my FOI request - possible help lorreta


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4082 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

ok here we go

 

the service level agreement

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/146196/response/360396/attach/3/SLA%20CenSus%20redacted.pdf

 

the request in full

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/baliff_information#comment-35657

 

break down

 

total number of complaints to the council about rossindales - 20

upheld complaints - 0

 

if anyone can help with this "public intrest test" then i would be grateful

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

personal thought is to ask for the minuites of the meeting minus pricing

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The redacted bit at paragraph 3.17 of the Service Level Agreement might not be all that different to NELC's SLA (11.6MB).

 

3.17 Rossendales will aim to fully resolve 80% of cases within 6 months of instruction and 100% within 9 months. Exceptional individual cases may be retained by Rossendales in excess of 9 months.

 

In this case 'fully resolve' means either obtain full payment or return the case to COUNCIL as No Trace, No Effects or similar.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the released information

 

However i dispute that the minutes of the meetings are not in the

public's interest and are commercially sensitive

 

discussion of items such as success rates are common no matter what

company is being dealt with, and knowing another company's rates is

not commercially sensitive but mearly an advertising point

 

the only commercially sensitive data is items such as pricing and

costs which can easy be redacted from minutes in the way that they

have been from the contract

 

the other details of the minutes such as operating practices,

methods of dealing with complaints is clearly within the public

interest and has attracted much interest from the general public

and consumer groups alike

 

therefore i require the release of these minutes and failing this

will follow up this complaint to the information commissioner

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most interesting

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

3.19 rossendales will make avaliable to debtors a variety of payment methods to make payments as easy and low cost as possible - doesnt happen, they will recover all reasonable charges providing these have been agreed with census - so councils apparently agree with extra charges

 

 

3.26 Census will generally avoid withdrawing cases from rossendales - is this tact admission that they refuse to retreave cases?

 

3.27 Generally payments will only be accepted by census where full payment including fees is offered again admitting that they refuses to accept reasonable payments

 

3.37 rossindales will keep full and acurate records of all actions takena written report will always be done in cases of violence if the council has this can it be requested

 

3.45 where a debtor has moved descreat enquires will be made of new ocupiers and neighbours

 

3.48 Complaints receaved by Census will be generally passed to rossindale to resolve free reign then

 

3.51 both census and rossindale recognises that debtors may wish to seek advice from solicitors or the CAB both parties will co-operate and provide all relivant information

 

thats from a quick scan

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

one other item it does actually say in the code of conduct that the council will not refuse payments near the bottom

 

as this looks like a fairly generic contract is it worth people trying to make a payment taking a printed copy of this with them theres at least 4 councils logos on there

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

one other item it does actually say in the code of conduct that the council will not refuse payments near the bottom

 

as this looks like a fairly generic contract is it worth people trying to make a payment taking a printed copy of this with them theres at least 4 councils logos on there

 

Well spotted, but the SLA kind of contradicts the Code of Practice where it states:

 

Service Level Agreement

 

3.27 Debtors will usually be advised to make all payments direct to Rossendales. CenSus will exercise a discretion to accept payments direct from debtors and, in such cases, will liaise with Rossendales to ensure that fees and charges are collected. Generally, direct payments will only be accepted by CenSus where full payment, including fees, is offered.

 

 

Code of Conduct and Practice

 

Payments made direct to the Authority will not be refused however we must as soon as we are aware update the bailiff website with the amount paid and amended balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Generally, direct payments will only be accepted by CenSus where full payment, including fees, is offered."

 

So they still may refuse payment, if they do you get the apparatchik refusing then ask them to sign a refusal you have prepared or one they write, then use it in any Formal Complaint later.

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 will update once i get the minuites of the meetings, i think they would have to push it a little to call it not in the publics intrest

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the info released it would seem to me that the SLA has been drafted by Rossendales and NOT the local authority. There is to much reference to ensuring that Rossendale;s fees are paid etc.

 

The "Minutes" will not be as easy to get. The "key" to getting info released under FOI has a lot to do with the wording of your FOI request.

 

Around 2 years ago I made approx 140 FOI requests to Local Authorities seeking copies of the Bailiff Contract and details of the number of Liability Ordesr/warrants of executions passed to bailiffs etc. I only received rejections in 2 cases. The wording that I use to make a Freedom of Information requests is as follows:

 

 

Dear Sirs

 

Re: Freedom of Information Request.

 

I would like to make a request under the above act for all of the information to which I am entitled by law, concerning any contracts

that exist between your council and any company of Bailiffs that are under contract with you for the collection of Council Tax and Business

Rate arrears, Parking Charge Notices and any others debts.

 

I would like to stress that the information that I require is not subject to either absolute or qualified exemption and additionally it is most certainly of public interest. In this respect, I would be grateful to receive from you the following:

 

A Copy of the signed Contract or Service Level Agreement between your council, and any firm of Bailiffs etc etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
i will update once i get the minuites of the meetings, i think they would have to push it a little to call it not in the publics intrest

 

They're in today, 10 of them heavily redacted.

 

 

Census 040211CL redacted.pdf

 

Item 6: PW asked what our company approach was regarding bailiffs putting their foot in the door? I explained that we don’t condone such an approach, although we suspect that some enforcement bailiffs do it, to stop the door being shut in their faces, they definitely would never assert that this was a means of obtaining peaceable entry, and if any examples of this came to light we would take an extremely serious view.

 

 

Census 110118CL redacted.pdf

 

Item 3: We discussed the TV exposure programme, and again it was confirmed that there had been no adverse reaction at all. I advised that we were trialling Body Worn Video units for several of our bailiffs and we believe the technology will help address complaints and bad practice as demonstrated in the programme.

 

Item 11: I advised PW that it was Rossendales 40 Birthday this year and that we planned to host a free client seminar and golf/spa day both in Lancs and possibly somewhere near Milton Keynes. PW agreed a very good idea and he would attend the Southern event.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

well that is one of the worst meeting minutes I've ever seen.

What is

the difference between returns nulla bona and No Contact? The

answer is, that No Contacts are currently where we have been unable

to visit the property. The validity of this was questioned, and it was

agreed that it would be more meaningful to report ‘No contact’ cases as

those where after repeated visits, we had been unable to make contact.

So no explanation of nulla bonna ??

Illegitimi non carborundum

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that basically Mid Sussex have no idea whatsoever about what their bailiffs are supposed to do and Rossendales are just taking the p*ss out of them or MS couldn't care less about their rate payers.

Illegitimi non carborundum

Link to post
Share on other sites

And they're having a 40th birthday party for tossers?

 

Oh and 12 months down the line they're still trialling the body cameras, ( perhaps the camera doesn't work when the bailiffs are in the wrong?)

 

I despair at the simplicity of the minds of people elected to their local council,

is it really the gravy train it used to be years ago or are they just blinded by the corporate image projected by the likes of tossendales?

 

It even mentions that tossers are recruiting bailiffs in the area, will Ms never learn?

Illegitimi non carborundum

Link to post
Share on other sites

well that is one of the worst meeting minutes I've ever seen.

So no explanation of nulla bonna ??

 

They will avoid that one, as it means there are insufficient goods to levy to cover the debt, so it has to be returned to the council, and the bailiff gets nothing, not even the cost of fuel.

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

  • 3 weeks later...

i noticed they were redacted heavly and infact ran it through several peices of software to de-protect the pdf and attempt removal of the redactions with no luck

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Mid Sussex District Council has been allowing its bailiffs to charge £130 van/attendance fees, willy nilly.

 

A FoI response reveals that on average, 60% of fees for attending with a view to remove goods were imposed on the same visit as the levy.

 

So, from the 1,103 total figure over the specified period, at the very least, 667 of these had not been charged in accordance with the law. In money terms, this means at the very least, £86,710 has been demanded from probably the most hard-up householders for this one element of Council Tax enforcement alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

b) where no prior levy was in place

 

 

 

2009 - 2010 0

 

2010 - 2011 0

 

2011 - 2012 0

 

2012 - 2013 0

 

These figures are not correct, the 2 bailiffs who arrived at my house in July 2011 did not have a prior levy and they charged for a levy and a van fee of 130.00 on that day. I wonder if all the other figures provided by Mid Sussex Council are correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

b) where no prior levy was in place

 

 

 

2009 - 2010 0

 

2010 - 2011 0

 

2011 - 2012 0

 

2012 - 2013 0

 

These figures are not correct, the 2 bailiffs who arrived at my house in July 2011 did not have a prior levy and they charged for a levy and a van fee of 130.00 on that day. I wonder if all the other figures provided by Mid Sussex Council are correct.

 

The answer is ambiguous. I think what the zeros mean is they never technically charged an attendance fee without first seizing goods, albeit levying immediately before the extortion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...