Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • oh don't you just love fleecers out to make a buck out of people they think are just mugs..
    • Useful link, BN.   The article mentions that the National Audit Office said that the DWP isn't learning anything from its mistakes.   HB
    • 1.     The Claimant claims £9,240.52 for monies due from the Defendant.   2.     This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and The Student Loans Company Limited.  Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: 01xxxxxxxx, 00xxxxxxx, 97xxxxxxx, 96xxxxxxx.   3.     The Defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated.   Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s).   4.     The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013, with a notice provided to the Defendant.   A new master reference number xxxxxxxxxxxxx was also applied upon assignment.   5.     The Claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims   DEFENCE ……………...   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.     Paragraph 1 2 is noted and denied accepted . I have had financial dealings with The Student Loans company in the past.  I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information.   2.     Paragraph 2 is noted and accepted.  I did take out 4 student loans with the Student Loans Company.   2.     Paragraph 3 is noted and denied.  The Defendant never agreed to make payments to the Claimant, terms of the original Student Loans Agreement have been adhered to and thus repayments of loans are not due.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that an agreement(s) to make payments was made and a breach of agreement(s) occurred.   Paragraph 3 is denied as The Defendant maintains that a default notices were never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that default notices were issued to, and received by the Defendant    3. Paragraphs1 & 4 are denied.The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits for deferral since graduating in XXXX. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.   4.      On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant, to which both have failed to respond to,  It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant;  the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement/assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 CCA Request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a)   Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement(s) (b)  Show how the Defendant is in breach of agreement(s) (c)   Show why the Claimant has terminated agreement(s) show the nature of breach and service of Default Notices and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer  Credit Act (d)  Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and (e)   Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.     5. On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant,  for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply to my section 77 requests and their solicitors, Drydens Limited, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.    6.     The Defendant has supplied the Claimant with a deferment letter and evidence every year that their income is below the threshold for repayments, by way of Royal Mail signed for and proof of postage has been kept. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.      7.     The Defendant has done everything required of them to qualify for deferment as per the original agreement(s) with The Student Loans company.  The Claimant has only once acknowledged a deferment letter on 16 September 2014 whereupon they granted their request to defer repayments for that year. 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 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.    8.The Defendant therefore fails to see how they are in breach of any agreement(s) and deny the Claimant's claim of £9,240.52 or any other sum, or relief of any kind. 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        ……………………………...   delete the red add the blue.    
    • Is this better?   In the Bristol Civic Justice Centre   Claimant name and address xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx   Defendants name and address Nissan Motor (GB) Limited, The Rivers Office Park, Denham Way, Maple Cross, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9YS.   Brief details of claim Damages   Value £225   Particulars of claim 1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018 and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.     2. This claim is in relation to three breaches of the Data Protection Act (2018) by the Defendant. (a) Failure to comply with the statutory time limit. (b) The Defendants data disclosure was incomplete. (c) The Defendant sent the data to an address which was not the address of the      Claimant data Subject.    3. The Defendant has failed to comply with the statutory time limit and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (2018). (a) On 09 January 2020, the Claimant made a request for to the Defendant for a statutory data disclosure.  The statutory timeframe for compliance was 10 February 2020.    4. The Defendants data disclosure is incomplete.  (a) The Defendant has provided data disclosure on 25 February 2020.  However, the data disclosure that has been provided by the Defendant is incomplete.    5. The Defendant sent the disclosure to an address that was not the Claimant’s. (a) The Claimant provided the Defendant with the correct address to send the Subject Access Request to on 10 January 2020 and again on 19 February 2020.      6. The Claimant has made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) asking for a statutory assessment to be carried out.  The ICO has offered a preliminary view that the Defendant has breached their statutory duty in failing to comply with the statutory time limit.    7. By virtue of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered distress.
    • They must have had something to hide as they have been pulled up on these deaths before.   This seems a typical case   https://welfareweekly.com/family-of-jodey-whiting-seek-fresh-inquest-into-her-death-to-examine-role-played-by-dwp/
  • Our picks

london-girl

Collect Services - help with parking fine - Please!!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3722 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

Hello

Hope someone can help!

On Tuesday or Wednesday I received a letter from Collect services stating that I owe £138.16 for a parking fine; wrote a letter offering payment, which i sent at the weekend. Today I arrived home and found a hand delivered letter from a bailiff. On the front of the envelope was a typed note that read:

PRE-REMOVAL NOTICE

Unless paid in full or arranging with the Bailiff to collect the sum due by 6pm today, our removal Bailiff will return after that time to seize your vehicle or remove your household goods as an alternative.

If necessary Legal Entry will be made even in your absence.

To avoid this action: Wayne Doyle on 07920 221569 before 6pm today (17.10.06 - hand written)

Inside the enevelpe was a letter with an amount due £183.99 on the back (typed) and on the front hand-written £327.99.

How do they work this out?

I do not have the money to pay an £190 odd; what can I do... i have called and left a very disgruntled message. What can I do if they turn up tomorrow morning?

How can they gain Legal Entry if I don't let them in?

Can i apply to the courts for them to look at the amount they are demanding?

Please help!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello

Hope someone can help!

 

On Tuesday or Wednesday I received a letter from Collect services stating that I owe £138.16 for a parking fine; wrote a letter offering payment, which i sent at the weekend. Today I arrived home and found a hand delivered letter from a bailiff. On the front of the envelope was a typed note that read:

PRE-REMOVAL NOTICE

Unless paid in full or arranging with the Bailiff to collect the sum due by 6pm today, our removal Bailiff will return after that time to seize your vehicle or remove your household goods as an alternative.

If necessary Legal Entry will be made even in your absence.

To avoid this action: Wayne Doyle on 07920 221569 before 6pm today (17.10.06 - hand written)

 

Inside the enevelpe was a letter with an amount due £183.99 on the back (typed) and on the front hand-written £327.99.

How do they work this out?

I do not have the money to pay an £190 odd; what can I do... i have called and left a very disgruntled message. What can I do if they turn up tomorrow morning?

How can they gain Legal Entry if I don't let them in?

Can i apply to the courts for them to look at the amount they are demanding?

Please help!!!

 

 

 

 

Bailiffs of any kind can NOT enter through a locked door and can NOT break in.

 

They CAN enter an UNLOCKED garage and take your car away. They CAN take it from the street. Without going into any more detail, the rules are simple:

 

They CANNOT enter your home if you don't let them in - NEVER sign anything, even outside the door, they wil tell you it's a repayment agreement and you MUST sign or your goods wil be removed.

 

RUBBISH! There is NO law which says you have to agree to or sign anything, and if you don't let them in they can't break in. if you DO sign you wil probably have been duped into signing a "walking possession agreement", this then means you have signed your goods over to them (such as your TV and video) and most importantly if you have signed they CAN then legally break in.

 

DON'T SIGN ANYTHING. EVER!

 

What about your car? Simple. Tell them you are self-employed. They can NOT take your car if it is for business use. Similarly, they can not take it if you are buying it on H.P. (Hire purchase) because you don't own it, so it's not yours to take. HOWEVER this does not apply if you got a loan (not H.P.) to buy the car.

 

Go for the self-employed angle. If you get a letter saying "Pay up or we will come round and take your goods and/or car", just write back telling them that you are self-employed and you need your car for business use. Send it recorded delivery. Trust me, they wouldn't even risk taking your car. They may ask for proof you are self-employed. Ignore them. You have no obligation to prove anything.

 

Also check this link regarding the ticket.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/5232-your-parking-ticket-may.html?highlight=parking+tickets


 

 

 

 

 

I am not a legal expert my advice is given without prejudice and is purely my opinion only. If you are in doubt please seek professional advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I intend to write/send this letter tomorrow, I will also fax it tonight.

18th October 2006

 

SENT VIA RECORDED DELIVERY

 

Administration Manager

Collect Services Limited

2 / 4 High Road

Ickenham Middlesex

UB10 8LJ

Your Ref: XXXXX

 

 

Dear Administration Manager / WAYNE DOYLE

 

Re: penalty charge number: XXXXX 15/03/2006

 

 

 

 

I write with reference to the letter dated 17-10-2006; which states that I owe £327.99 for the above named ticket. Firstly, I have sent payments to your offices for the ticket; secondly which is much more disturbing is the amount the ticket has been raised to! How does a £138.16 mature to £327.99 in under 6 days. Your 1st letter was in fact dated Monday 11th October, which I received soon after.

 

Your letter states that you intend to if necessary gain legal entry to my home even in my absence – there are no articles that state that you are allowed to do this as I have not given you permission to enter my home. So any such entry will be rendered as a theft and I will seek to instruct preceeding for trespassing, and if any goods are removed, theft. You have also stated that you intend to remove my vehicle, which is subject to a hire purchase agreement and is used for work (I am self – employed).

 

As per my first paragraph the debt has been paid via payment arrangement and the fees you are now seeking are unjust and unreasonable. I intend to seek legal council to investigate the operations of you/your bailiffs as they are collecting money fraudulently. And, as you have a contract with the council I am sure you have a vulnerable debtors clause, which means that you must allow debtors to make affordable payments.

 

I look forward to reviewing your comments.

 

Your sincerely

XXXXX

 

Is it okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I intend to write/send this letter tomorrow, I will also fax it tonight.

18th October 2006

 

 

SENT VIA RECORDED DELIVERY

 

Administration Manager

Collect Services Limited

2 / 4 High Road

Ickenham Middlesex

UB10 8LJ

Your Ref: XXXXX

 

 

Dear Administration Manager / WAYNE DOYLE

 

Re: penalty charge number: XXXXX 15/03/2006

 

 

 

 

I write with reference to the letter dated 17-10-2006; which states that I owe £327.99 for the above named ticket. Firstly, I have sent payments to your offices for the ticket; secondly which is much more disturbing is the amount the ticket has been raised to! How does a £138.16 mature to £327.99 in under 6 days. Your 1st letter was in fact dated Monday 11th October, which I received soon after.

 

Your letter states that you intend to if necessary gain legal entry to my home even in my absence – there are no articles that state that you are allowed to do this as I have not given you permission to enter my home. So any such entry will be rendered as a theft and I will seek to instruct preceeding for trespassing, and if any goods are removed, theft. You have also stated that you intend to remove my vehicle, which is subject to a hire purchase agreement and is used for work (I am self – employed).

 

As per my first paragraph the debt has been paid via payment arrangement and the fees you are now seeking are unjust and unreasonable. I intend to seek legal council to investigate the operations of you/your bailiffs as they are collecting money fraudulently. And, as you have a contract with the council I am sure you have a vulnerable debtors clause, which means that you must allow debtors to make affordable payments.

 

I look forward to reviewing your comments.

 

Your sincerely

XXXXX

 

Is it okay?

 

Yeo that sounds fine:D


 

 

 

 

 

I am not a legal expert my advice is given without prejudice and is purely my opinion only. If you are in doubt please seek professional advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although you are London girl, do I take it that your parking ticket was incurred

outside the central area? The reason I ask, is that if you refer to the london motorists group yourrr fine is consistently less than their figures

London Motorists Action Group - Content

they give a step by step guide to how bailiffs fees, and hence the fine mounts up.

After looking at the bailiff page, switch over to the handling PCNs to see if you

have a possible case for having the ticket quashed.

 

I take it from your first post, that while you offered to pay the sum, you did not

include a cheque, or any other form of payment? Did you send the letter first class

or recorded? If only first class, they can turn round and deny receiving it. And in

doing so, they can now ratchet up their fees.

Check the letter you received-was it sent on Monday or Tuesday? They have to

give you 7 days allowing for the letter to be delivered, so to come round today

if only posted last Tuesday is wrong.

 

For safety, park your car away from your home to make it difficult/impossible for the bailiff to clamp it.

 

Others better equipped than myself should be able to advise you whether you are

better to phone or write to ask if they received your letter, and if they will

therefore accept that figure [£138] as the amount due.

 

PS Sorry I wrote this post earlier this evening and got called away. When I returned, I missed

that there had been new posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zooman

again I will say:

 

The onus of proof is on you not the Bailiff.

 

They may ask for proof you are self-employed. Ignore them. You have no obligation to prove anything.
See above. The courts have ruled on this many many times and the lower courts hands are tied.

 

This site will not encourage people to tell people untruths. If your not self-employed to not include that statement as simple you are burning your paths as any Judge, Council official will not look favorable on this.

 

Now the question simple lays with the HP, put a copy of the HP agreement with the fax or they will simple think you are lying and if the car should be there when they call it will probably be Levied. Sending the HP agreement will give you protection.

 

Anyway - Collect Services.

 

First the £183.99 printed on the back. This clearly comprises a warrant value of £125 plus a first visit statutory fee of £45.83.

 

BUT, the way to work out a statutory fee is this:

 

£125 + £11.20 letter charge (ex VAT) = £136.20

Round to £137 to calculate.

£137 @ 28% (on first £200) = £38.36

£38.36 + VAT (£6.71) = £45.07 (not £45.83)

 

What they have clearly done is rounded up the £38.36 to £39 then added VAT = £45.83. This is wrong as rounding up is for the purpose of 'calculating' not for the purpose of rounding the ex_VAT fee. They have charged 76p too much. Minor point and probably not intentional, more a question of bad interpretation of the SI.

 

The balance then of £144 will be their 'attending to remove goods where no goods are removed' reasonable fee of £122.55 plus VAT.

 

Unlike c tax regs, this 'abortive removal' fee is perfectly legal as it states 'for attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges'. As the prime objective of bailiffs is to seize goods not collect money then it is a legitimate fee and it can be charged on as many occasions as necessary. No prior levy is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that they are lawful in adding the fees?

I am self-employed and the H.P agreement isn't even in my name so I am not simply trying to mislead the Bailiffs!! ?

 

The Bailiffs in my opinion are ripping people off.

Why is it necessary, since they drive company leased cars/vans for them to charge £125 for putting a letter through my door?

I am at the moment tending to credit debts (via a debt management plan with CCCS), I am not trying to evade payment, I simply do not want to be ripped off, which is what I feel Collect Services are attempting to do.

 

Thanks for the breakdown of the costs but I feel these Action Groups Discussions ought to be seeking to work in favour of consumers rather than 'rip of organisations' that take liberties with archaic legislation to benefit their own bank balances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MizzPiggy

Dear London Girl,

 

I am sure Zooman was just trying to point out the obvious and did not mean harm.

 

Yes the fees can seem unreasonable and yes there are issues.

 

If you would like some help, as obviously by your posts you are really worried, then send me a quick message and more than happy to help.

 

If you email me at help@bailiffwatchdog.co.uk am sure I can alleviate some of the distress till morning.

 

Zooman was only being fair with his comments...honest..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing is not clear from this post is whether the original parking fine is lawful. Did you know about this before the bailiffs got in touch?

 

If the original fine is lawful then everything in Zoomans post is spot on. You must not lie in any official communication as this will destroy any credibility you have should the matter reach court.


BEFORE starting your claim read through the FAQ's and if there's something you aren't sure of then ask.

If you win, donate to this site

Contents of my posts are purely my own personal opinions, some formed by personal experience and some from research. If in doubt seek qualified legal advice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the breakdown of the costs but I feel these Action Groups Discussions ought to be seeking to work in favour of consumers rather than 'rip of organisations' that take liberties with archaic legislation to benefit their own bank balances

 

Blueskies comment is spot on. Go to the source. If that's in error then fair enough.

 

I have to say I think it is unfair to anyone who posts information of the site to criticise them for trying to help. Zooman was simply pointing out facts on which you could then make a reasoned judgment. Alison at Watchdog on the other hand is an active advisor who specifically helps people facing debt and erroneous enforcement. Both are just trying to help.

 

Just because you don't like what can be legally charged doesn't mean that the bailiffs have done something illegal. Just because you don't like the fee scale doesn't mean the bailiffs have abused it. Would you question the cost charged to a debtor if you were the creditor owed money or would you rather pay yourself the costs of what is basically the same as providing any other service (in terms of overheads such as labour, transport, accommodation, etc)?

 

Enforcement like any other service has a cost. Is it right for the person who owes the money to pay for it or for the creditor? If the state is the creditor does that mean all of us should pay?

 

As I've said before, it's not about [legitimate] cost but about appropriate enforcement. If a debtor really cannot pay, then a creditor has a right to secure payment by having the debtor's goods sold to raise the money. If the debtor has only basic goods and seizure would seriously impact on their basic needs then seizure must not be undertaken. In such instances bailiffs are not the solution.

 

Debt advisors, of whom I know many, are there to assist those in financial difficulty and not to thwart the system or dodge payment. They too must operate in a legitimate manner according to the rules laid down. Their aim is to negotiate a way to minimise the affect of debt, reduce it where possible but set a course for repayment which does not cause undue hardship to the debtor and is acceptable to the creditor.

 

While I have every sympathy for 'consumers' (of which I am one also) who are blighted by corporate greed, we are not talking about consumer debt here but the effect of a warrant issued by a court for a penalty prior to which there are no less than 3 occasions in which an appeal may be lodged. The rights and wrongs of the origins of a parking penalty are for others to judge but if everything has been done in accordance with the law of the land, then there should be no complaint against those who are charged with upholding it.

 

I learnt long ago that nobody likes bailiffs, except when they recover money owed to them. I accept that decriminalized parking regimes are unpopular, but bailiffs didn’t invent them. They were all instigated by local authorities who had all been voted there by the local people….. if you don’t like it, vote them out.

 

One final point, at which this epic began. If bailiffs operate in a legitimate manner and charge legitimate fees then I see no problem and will defend their existence. If they behave inappropriately and overcharge, then I’m right beside you in wanting to see them dealt with.

 

We forge the chains that bind us. Charles Dickens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting on the sidelines on this one and after reading the posts again, I can see

why London Girl is upset and where the responses have not quite hit the points

she was hoping for.

 

From her first post, it was not clear whether she had sent a chegue with the letter

[she said she had offered payment]. Her second post clarified that and explained

why she felt aggrieved.

She had, as she felt, paid them, and now not only were they coming back for more,

but threatening even more charges.

 

We do not know, given the vagaries of our postal system if CCS had received her cheque. And even if they had, whether they feel that a cheque is, to them,

an acceptable form of payment.

Whatever, the letter on Tuesday was a disgrace. There is no way that they can effect legal entry without her presence until they have walking possession at least-which

they did not have. In addition, to deliver a letter, and to arrange, without the

consent or knowledge of Londongirl, another [costly] appointment for the same day

is highly dubious as to its legality. Especially as at that time, the collector had

no knowledge of how she would pay. A debit or credit card payment would resolve

the problem without recourse to vans ets etc.

 

A bit unfair to have a go at Zooman, but understandable in view of her

circumstances, since he was mostly responding to another post in the thread, as

well as explaining how bailiffs charge. He was not to know that Londongirl is

selfemployed -merely pointing out the dangers of so claiming if untrue. [As an aside, I feel that in a Court of Law, claiming you are selfemployed by reason of having registered as a trader on Ebay would be insufficient justification. Especially if your main employment is a salaried one.]

 

To end,I hope that by now, CCS will have received her cheque and accepted it as payment.

in full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HUSBANDKHAN

to start thing off. london girl want to file a pe3 and a pe2(late filing of a stat dec out of time) thisis available from the tec @ northampton phone number :08457045007. quote the pcn number if not on letter ask the bailiff company what the pcn number is. phone tec with this and say you want to file a late statutory dec because you did not recieve the pcn or any paperwork to it. they will send you out 2 forms you must fill these in and also get them witnessed at a county court office/magistrates etc. you can either swear or affirm. i personally affirm. you then must fax/email/post these forms of to the tec(northampton) who will order whoever is chasing you for the pcn to halt all action. it usually takes approx 4-8 weeks for a reply. either the chaser will aknowledge the late stat dec and withdraw action or they will refuse to accept it. the next part is where the application will be referred to a court officcial who decide without a hearing. this is the part that will take 4-8 weeks. once they decide if they refuse you must notify the chaser and file an n244 this will be sent to you with a decision. technically the chaser can still continue its action. in most cases they hold pending the appeal to a local district judge. simple.when you get infront of the dj expalin what happened and he will sort it out. the penalty will go back to the notice to owner stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HUSBANDKHAN
to start thing off. london girl want to file a pe3 and a pe2(late filing of a stat dec out of time) thisis available from the tec @ northampton phone number :08457045007. quote the pcn number if not on letter ask the bailiff company what the pcn number is. phone tec with this and say you want to file a late statutory dec because you did not recieve the pcn or any paperwork to it. they will send you out 2 forms you must fill these in and also get them witnessed at a county court office/magistrates etc. you can either swear or affirm. i personally affirm. you then must fax/email/post these forms of to the tec(northampton) who will order whoever is chasing you for the pcn to halt all action. it usually takes approx 4-8 weeks for a reply. either the chaser will aknowledge the late stat dec and withdraw action or they will refuse to accept it. the next part is where the application will be referred to a court officcial who decide without a hearing. this is the part that will take 4-8 weeks. once they decide if they refuse you must notify the chaser and file an n244 this will be sent to you with a decision. technically the chaser can still continue its action. in most cases they hold pending the appeal to a local district judge. simple.when you get infront of the dj expalin what happened and he will sort it out. the penalty will go back to the notice to owner stage. i am currently in the process of chasing jbw and ccs ltd for approx £7000 they took off me. ihave been there and done it. also do not let anybody into your house. they cannot force the door or cannot have you arrested. they can get in through any unlocked window. i live on the 2nd floor so the bailiffs are f***** trying to get through mine. also their is a health and safety law in place. to get to a certain height they need to use scaffolding and saftey equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HUSBANDKHAN
to start thing off. london girl want to file a pe3 and a pe2(late filing of a stat dec out of time) thisis available from the tec @ northampton phone number :08457045007. quote the pcn number if not on letter ask the bailiff company what the pcn number is. phone tec with this and say you want to file a late statutory dec because you did not recieve the pcn or any paperwork to it. they will send you out 2 forms you must fill these in and also get them witnessed at a county court office/magistrates etc. you can either swear or affirm. i personally affirm. you then must fax/email/post these forms of to the tec(northampton) who will order whoever is chasing you for the pcn to halt all action. it usually takes approx 4-8 weeks for a reply. either the chaser will aknowledge the late stat dec and withdraw action or they will refuse to accept it. the next part is where the application will be referred to a court officcial who decide without a hearing. this is the part that will take 4-8 weeks. once they decide if they refuse you must notify the chaser and file an n244 this will be sent to you with a decision. technically the chaser can still continue its action. in most cases they hold pending the appeal to a local district judge. simple.when you get infront of the dj expalin what happened and he will sort it out. the penalty will go back to the notice to owner stage. i am currently in the process of chasing jbw and ccs ltd for approx £7000 they took off me. ihave been there and done it. also do not let anybody into your house. they cannot force the door or cannot have you arrested. they can get in through any unlocked window. i live on the 2nd floor so the bailiffs are f***** trying to get through mine. also their is a health and safety law in place. to get to a certain height they need to use scaffolding and safety equipment. try it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to start thing off. london girl want to file a pe3 and a pe2(late filing of a stat dec out of time) thisis available from the tec @ northampton phone number :08457045007. quote the pcn number if not on letter ask the bailiff company what the pcn number is. phone tec with this and say you want to file a late statutory dec because you did not recieve the pcn or any paperwork to it. they will send you out 2 forms you must fill these in and also get them witnessed at a county court office/magistrates etc. you can either swear or affirm. i personally affirm. you then must fax/email/post these forms of to the tec(northampton) who will order whoever is chasing you for the pcn to halt all action. it usually takes approx 4-8 weeks for a reply. either the chaser will aknowledge the late stat dec and withdraw action or they will refuse to accept it. the next part is where the application will be referred to a court officcial who decide without a hearing. this is the part that will take 4-8 weeks. once they decide if they refuse you must notify the chaser and file an n244 this will be sent to you with a decision. technically the chaser can still continue its action. in most cases they hold pending the appeal to a local district judge. simple.when you get infront of the dj expalin what happened and he will sort it out. the penalty will go back to the notice to owner stage. i am currently in the process of chasing jbw and ccs ltd for approx £7000 they took off me. ihave been there and done it. also do not let anybody into your house. they cannot force the door or cannot have you arrested. they can get in through any unlocked window. i live on the 2nd floor so the bailiffs are f***** trying to get through mine. also their is a health and safety law in place. to get to a certain height they need to use scaffolding and safety equipment. try it

 

I would think that Husbandkhan is a prolific 'offender' from his post. £7,000 is either a large fee hike or, more likely I suspect, a lot of parking tickets - for which Husbandkhan presumably never received any of the countless letters sent to him?

 

The advice given is not on how to deal with [bad] bailiffs but how to park with impunity and avoid paying what is due.

 

Londongirl in her original post stated, "On Tuesday or Wednesday I received a letter from Collect services stating that I owe £138.16 for a parking fine; wrote a letter offering payment, which i sent at the weekend", which I assume to mean that she acknowledged the ticket which for whatever reason didn't get paid and agreed (by sending a cheque) to pay it now. She objects to having to pay fees which she considers unfair as she sent payment (possibly a little late). But she did not try to avoid her responsibility.

 

Clearly, there are two types of people on this site. Those in genuine difficulty facing unfair attention and those, like Husbandkhan who seek to play the system. No wonder bailiffs can sometimes be overly diligent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To end,I hope that by now, CCS will have received her cheque and accepted it as payment in full.

 

Minor point I've just noticed. The bailiffs in this case are CSL (Collect Services Ltd) not CCS (as featured by BBC1)!

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...