Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've just noted that in Section 4 of the ebay powered by packlink T&Cs, there is a link to a list of webpages for each Transport Agency including Evri. When clicking on this, it redirects to Evri's send terms and conditions, which says: Our contract with you When you send a parcel with us, you enter into a contract with Evri. These terms and conditions set out your responsibilities and our service commitments to you, along with some legal bits about our liability and how you will be compensated in the unlikely event that things go wrong. Link to Evri send T&Cs: https://www.evri.com/terms-and-conditions the extract highlighted in bold above is pertinent as in Evri's own T&Cs, by sending a parcel with Evri, the sender and Evri have entered into a contract. Screenshot of the above extract attached. Screenshot_20240524_030834_Chrome.pdf
    • Hi, Evri provided a copy of the Ebay powered by Packlink T&Cs in their WS/Court bundle - this is already uploaded in post #246 yesterday. I copy and pasted the actual wording of clauses 3b and 3c from there into my post #246. see points 3b and 3c in Section 3 (General) through this link to the T&Cs:  https://support-ebay.packlink.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360004768420-eBay-Delivery-Powered-by-Packlink-Terms-and-Conditions#h_01HFXQJBTB441YZGPB7CQP9KFV Screenshot attached below. I cant answer why its not been picked up before. In my opinion, this is called Ebay powered by packlink T&Cs so it could be intepreted to mean Ebay and Packlink's T&Cs rather than Packlink and the delivery couriers T&Cs. In regards to seeing Evri/Packlink's entire contract in original form, in my WS, Evri has been invited to provide this. They have not provided the contract in their WS/court bundle. Screenshot_20240524_024259_Chrome.pdf
    • yes, and he has since emailed them to say he wants it done with a hearing
    • Do I take it that you had already informed the court that you wanted the case settled on the papers rather than by way of a hearing before you came here and told us?
    • This is a very important find. I don't understand why nobody has picked up on this before. It's a shame that you have only just found it but please will you get a screenshot and also give us a link to the page which contains this and if possible a link to the actual passage. This makes a huge difference because if this is right that the third party actually has a direct contract with the courier company then they can rely on their consumer rights rather than commercial rights. Also as you seem to have pointed out, even if  their commercial contract does exclude third-party rights, the clause that you have found on the eBay site directly contradicts that And this should be pointed out to the judge.  Please will you screenshot the passage. Give us a link and then stand by for a response later on today. We will have to send this additional piece of information to the court and don't worry we will manage to do it before the 4:00 pm deadline. And in any event, you will certainly want to see the entire contract in original form and receive clarification as to when their third-party exclusion close was included in it.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3841 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

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting and what I suspected !!!

 

The fee scale for council tax enforcement was introduced in 1992 and slightly amended around 6 years ago. Accordingly as there has been NO change WHY did Chandlers attempt to charge an "attending to remove " fee at the very same time as "attending to levy" in 2013 and NOT in 2012 !!! Odd.

 

Does anyone know when Capita took over as "back office" provider for this particular local authority?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arent some of those levys unallowable? He is levying on sofa's and white goods.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Tomtubby but I'm confused. On all 3 of the distress notices I listed they added a "levy fee" and an " attendance / removal costs fee" at the same time. So i'm not entirely sure what you mean?

First i knew about Capita in swindon was about 2009/2010 as i was working in direct mail and they aproached me to work for them on their new council contract. could be just a coincidence,

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fee charged in each case for an "attendance" fee was £24.50 but frankly, I am certain that you will find that this fee is EITHER an initial visit fee of £24.50 or alternatively, a Head H fee ( not permitted).

 

From the info provided it is clear that until 2013, Chandlers have NOT properly charged you an "ATR" fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, I see, but charging it at the same time as a Levy fee. Is that allowed?

 

.

The regulations provide for a fee of £24.50 for "attending to levy" ( where no levy was made).....i.e. where the debtor came to the property and was unable to get a response. ALTERNATIVELY, if he was able to levy he could INSTEAD charge a "levy fee" (according to the scale of fees).

 

Therefore he can charge one or the other. However, he can visit the property at 7am the morning and charge £24.50 and then return at 6pm and if he is able to levy then he can charge a levy fee. It is not ethical to visit twice on one day but as an example he could do.

 

I have been addressing enquiries about bailiffs for many years and I will never "jump straight in" and accuse a bailiff or his company of wrongdoing until the facts are known and it is for this precise reason that you will see in almost every thread that I respond to that I will always ask many questions starting with the most important one being clarification as to the starting figure for the Liability Order.

 

Unfortunately, bailiff companies when responding to enquiries about fees charged to the account simply type a list of fees. This is NOT sufficient. What is required is the amount of fee charged and the date on which it was charged to the account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I see, but charging it at the same time as a Levy fee. Is that allowed?

 

There's a news article about council maladministration focussing on bailiff fees, specifically "Head H" and "Attending to Remove".

 

I believe reference numbers are provided for the relevant Local Government Ombudsman reports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I recieved this response from Chandlers:

Thank you for your email,

 

The below visits were for reference ******.

 

On Reference ******* the visits are as follows:

The certificated bailiff Mr C***** attended the property for the first time on the 01/07/2013 with the intention to levy distress, as no response was received a letter was left and a fee of £24.50 was incurred on the account.

 

On the 15/07/2013 the Certificated Bailiff Mr A******** attended with the intention to levy distress for a 2nd visit, after receiving no response a letter was left and a fee of £18.00 was incurred.

 

 

As we still received no response, on the 24/08/2013 the Certificated Bailiff Mr G***** attended with a van with the intention to remove goods and chattels. On this date he levied upon goods, for this lawful course of action a £57.00 fee was incurred. For attending the property with a van with the intention to remove goods a £250.00 attendance fee was incurred as no response was received.

 

Please find attached a copy of the Walking Possession Form that was filled in by Mr G***** on the 24/08/2013.

 

 

Regards

 

Chandlers Limited

 

I have no record or letter regarding the second visit and any one spot the difference between the amount of the attendance fee on the 24th?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing listed was the car on the drive!

 

 

There is the levy then, but he should have left a Notice of Seizure listing it on 24/08/13 the date he seized it, cannot have the ATR for same day, for " attending the property with a van with the intention to remove goods a £250.00 attendance fee was incurred as no response was received." did he come prepared to tow a car, or did he come in the usual Berlingo?

Edited by brassnecked

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

....For attending the property with a van with the intention to remove goods a £250.00 attendance fee was incurred as no response was received....

 

Apart from the reasons already stated, this attendance fee cannot be lawful....it's been imposed solely to make a gain for the bailiff. If as bailiffs state on their threat-o-grams they "will remove goods even in your absence", it would appear that no response is necessary so you're not telling me this bailiff attended with a van with the intention of removing goods.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

I emailed them and asked them just to confirm a couple of details today, this was the response:

 

Thank you for your email,

I can confirm that the levy and attendance fee was charged on the same day, the levy fee was charged for levying on goods and the attendance fee was charge for the attendance to the property with the intention of removing goods and chattels.

I can also confirm that the attendance fee applied was £250.00.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thats pretty clear. They still havent noticed the attendance fee is less than on the paperwork!

 

Perhaps the bailiff wanted to keep a little back for himself.

 

I notice the difference between the sum on the paperwork (£292.50) and the amount quoted in the email is £42.50 – coincidentally the aggregate of a first and second fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look what I got today from the CB register:

 

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your e-mail. There is a Mr G***** on our database but his certificate, granted at Bromley County Court, expired on 11thFebruary 2012. You may wish to contact Bromley County Court to see if another application has been granted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:oops:

txt Mr G and ask him when he was certificated and at what court ask him for his certificate ID no

 

 

 

e-mail head of revenues and ask him confirm the certificate details for their Bailiff Mr G

 

I have emailed the head of revenues and asked him to confirm but I am a bit aprehensive about making direct contact with Mr G***** :oops:

Link to post
Share on other sites

[email protected]

 

E-mail the court they may have missed him out when they sent the information you are asking if he has renewed or applied to renew his certificated ask them to provide details

 

If he has applied to renew his certificated what date did he do this ?

if he is certificated the date of certification name of employer if any ?

 

I was reading over your thread and I thought I had posted this (obviously not ) for future ref if needed

 

your post 17

 

Thank you for your email,

 

I can confirm that we are able to provide this information, however as your account is still out with Mr G*****.

I can see from the notes on your account that you are dealing with the council and refused Mr G***** access to your property.

 

As Mr G***** is still dealing with your account we are unable to intervene in the office and would not want to wrongly advise you of any recent information added to your account.

Please contact Mr G***** directly on 07********* to discuss your account and the charges applied.

 

Regards

 

Chandlerslink3.gif Limited

 

http://www.chandlers-bailiffs.co.uk/how_bailiffs_work.htm

 

click on how we do it and read how proud they are of real time response (I wonder why they couldn't give you real time information )

 

As a bailiff makes a call, any notes or information inputted on to their handheld computer is automatically downloaded by GPRS onto our database at our head office. This can be seen immediately by our office staff and can also be viewed by our clients via our Client Web which we provide free of charge. This provides the most up-to-date information to hand and also helps our clients in knowing if a customer is trying to contact them instead of the bailiff that has prompted the contact. Any fees and charges added to an account are also shown in Real Time, which brings the transparency

that we hope to gain by being open

and honest in our approach when dealing with clients and customers.

Our Real Time system gives our clients more than just access to view our database. They can change balances,

add notes, make amendments and put accounts on hold.

This is all done by logging on to our system via our Client Web with their own unique username and password. In addition, this feature will then send an update to the handheld computer of any bailiff who may be dealing with that particular account at the time. This system will help reduce unnecessary time and cost through faxing and phoning, helping in the constant need for change and contribute towards best value targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[email protected]

 

E-mail the court they may have missed him out when they sent the information you are asking if he h

as renewed or applied to renew his certificated ask them to provide details

 

If he has applied to renew his certificated what date did he do this ?

if he is certificated the date of certification name of employer if any ?

 

I was reading over your thread and I thought I had posted this (obviously not ) for future ref if needed

 

your post 17

 

Thank you for your email,

 

I can confirm that we are able to provide this information, however as your account is still out with Mr G*****.

I can see from the notes on your account that you are dealing with the council and refused Mr G***** access to your property.

 

As Mr G***** is still dealing with your account we are unable to intervene in the office and would not want to wrongly advise you of any recent information added to your account.

Please contact Mr G***** directly on 07********* to discuss your account and the charges applied.

 

Regards

 

Chandlerslink3.gif Limited

 

http://www.chandlers-bailiffs.co.uk/how_bailiffs_work.htm

 

click on how we do it and read how proud they are of real time response (I wonder why they couldn't give you real time information )

 

As a bailiff makes a call, any notes or information inputted on to their handheld computer is automatically downloaded by GPRS onto our database at our head office. This can be seen immediately by our office staff and can also be viewed by our clients via our Client Web which we provide free of charge. This provides the most up-to-date information to hand and also helps our clients in knowing if a customer is trying to contact them instead of the bailiff that has prompted the contact. Any fees and charges added to an account are also shown in Real Time, which brings the transparency

that we hope to gain by being open

and honest in our approach when dealing with clients and customers.

Our Real Time system gives our clients more than just access to view our database. They can change balances,

add notes, make amendments and put accounts on hold.

This is all done by logging on to our system via our Client Web with their own unique username and password. In addition, this feature will then send an update to the handheld computer of any bailiff who may be dealing with that particular account at the time. This system will help reduce unnecessary time and cost through faxing and phoning, helping in the constant need for change and contribute towards best value targets.

 

Thanks, I'm sure this will be useful.

I have asked the council and Chandlers to confirm his certification and I will text him tomorrow if I don't get an answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...