Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good Evening, I received this pack yesterday its an application notice to change claimants. Will they be chasing me for this as they were successful with the first claim? many thanks Webb 1.Application Notice N244rd.pdf 2.Asset Transfer Deed r.pdf 3.Notice of Assignment Part A Letter 1 & 2rd.pdf 5.Claim Form rd.pdf 6.Draft Order rd.pdf
    • Hi, If they haven't followed the court's directions there will be little tolerance of the court. Anyway please can you upload a copy of the court paperwork
    • Yes, you should have applied for an immediate strike out as soon as the deadline expired. Without the agreement, they are stuffed Forget Barclaycard, Asset link is now the creditor, and it is down to them to provide the agreement.  That needs to go into the witness statement. They have not provided the agreement contrary to directions of the court and request the court strike out the claim as to the original court directions.
    • I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me.    Defense I filed:  1.       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 r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2.       The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023. 3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule. 4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post. 5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. 6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: - a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) 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.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • 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

levy on car (under finance agreement and tools of trade) **Result & Refund**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3925 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

Hi,

Currently having long winded discussions with Rossendales.

 

They levied my car (didnt knock on the door) in 2010 which was 2 years into finance agreement) I sent them copies of agreement which they claim not to have had. Council tax for which there was a liablilty order is paid, but Rossendales are chasing me for levy fee and van attendance fee.

 

Car is not yet paid off as due to financial difficulties we have about £900 outstanding.

 

It is also essential for my work as a school visitor as i visit schools on a daily basis throughout the whole of Yorkshire.

 

i have just received a letter stating that they will apply for permission from the finance company to take my car, clear the finance and take their fees. Can they do this? As I understand it the finance cannot take my car without a court order, so how can they give permission for someone else to?

 

Surely the liability order was for council tax and NOT the extortionate bailiff fees? HELP please? :|

Edited by honeybee13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That is the point, it should have been paid off last november but still isnt and we have around £900 still owing. Rossendales are claiming that as they have levied the car they can get finance companies permission, clear the outstanding finance then take their fees. They seem to be ignoring the fact that is is essential for my work (as they do)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you asked for a copey of there're fees, they can only charge so much I think it's £28 for first visit and £18 after that for other visits they can not charge for a levy if they haven't take goods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bailf can not take the car only if the finance company want then to and then it's a reposeson order and they need all the paper work for that and you must be informed of this by the finance company, they can not levy on the car for any other debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bailf can not take the car only if the finance company want then to and then it's a reposeson order and they need all the paper work for that and you must be informed of this by the finance company, they can not levy on the car for any other debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. i have in fact paid them £73 in fees (in an automated call where it connected me to a payment line and I abandoned the call before confirming any payment due to card fees, but apparently a payment of 373 was taken anyway). I understand I would be liable for fist and second visits totalling £42.50. They are chasing me for £152, which is the outstanding amount of their fees for the levy and van attendance. I could pay then fees but it chokes me to do so because of the underhand way they have dealt with this. They are adamant that they have a valid levy. ;(

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the finance company collude with tossendales to do this they are in Breach Of contract with yourself, and would be liable to refund all payments you have made under the agreement if you took them to court. Dossendales are trying it on again.....

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

Thanks everyone. I am aware of the fact that the finance CANNOT take back my car without a court order, but was unsure as to whether they could assign 'ownership' to the bailiff. Thinking about it iits logical that they cant. Bailiffs do tend to rely on you not knowing your stuff and intimidating you into paying up. As my council tax is clear and up to date, I am under the impression that the bailiffs would have to take me to court to get these fees? Liability order was for the amount owing in CT. I just cant help having the niggling feeling that they will attempt something shifty :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that some finance companies are more agreeable to allowing a bailiff to take and sell a vehicle providing that an undertaking is made to pay the outstanding finance.

 

This is especially the case if you are in arrears with the finance agreement.

 

I'm not sure how this plays out regarding a levy under CT though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that some finance companies are more agreeable to allowing a bailiff to take and sell a vehicle providing that an undertaking is made to pay the outstanding finance.

 

This is especially the case if you are in arrears with the finance agreement.

 

I'm not sure how this plays out regarding a levy under CT though.

 

Problem for the finance company if they allow this they may well lay themselves open to action for Breach Of Contract

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

Problem for the finance company if they allow this they may well lay themselves open to action for Breach Of Contract

 

I'm not sure it would be a breach if the debtor was behind with their payments. If the finance company is happy to release it's 'ownership' on an undertaking of payment I personally can't see an issue with this. Happy to hear any other thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it would be a breach if the debtor was behind with their payments. If the finance company is happy to release it's 'ownership' on an undertaking of payment I personally can't see an issue with this. Happy to hear any other thoughts.

Ploddertom also mentioned it would be a breach of contract in another thread, I will try to track it down. As the bailiff is not a party to the contract between lender and finance company, there is no implied right to treat with the bailiff, and they could leave themselves open to litigation to recover all monies paid under the agreement,, that is how I understand it under contract law. I will look for precedent under this head.

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

Surely that cant be right? So if I get my son to phone up and say he will pay the outstanding arrears they could sign it over to him? Surely not?

 

Edited to add:

If my contract says they cannot take the car back without a court order then surely that is applicable in all situations? The levy is for unpaid council tax which has now (long since) been paid and it is fees which are (as far as I know) NOT subject to the liability order? If it wasnt for the arrogant bully boy tactics i would probably have paid their fees, but they have got my back up with all the underhanded stunts they have pulled. I do appreciate all this advice, so thanks gain to you all ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we are from this thread @ ploddertom post #29 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?382996-Bailiff-removed-car-which-is-on-hire-purchase/page2

 

"If for some reason the Finance Co & bailiffslink3.gif reached an agreement then the purchaser can then have the Finance Co for Breach of Contract and would be entitled to every payment made back."

 

It is also possible that the bailiff or HCEO could also be liable jointly and severally with the finance company, for these monies and any other consequential loss as a result of the seizure..

 

If the bailiff removed and sold the vehicle and the finance company did not agree, then the bailiff would be guilty of theft per se, inter alia from the time of seizure.

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

It is as I thought according to that thread. he only thing making me doubt my position is the fact that I have not yet paid it off. It was due to end Nov last year and I still owe £771. I have rung them but there is no-one available in their finance specialist department so I requested a call back. I suppose it might be in their interests to say they can as they will assume that will make me clear off the arrears quicker? Bloody hell!!!! Ever wanted to drop a bomb on someone lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...