Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Today , after a lotof years i recieved a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we havent had any contact from you in a while".  The velvet fist, followed by  a veiled threat to get their preferred debt collectors involved. Yep dead right. In 1992/3 I took out a Student load under duress from DHSS. uP TO 2000 I hadsucessfully gotten deferment on low income. But rarther thansign on as unemployed,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondance ceased from them, circa 2001. To date  I have had no correspondance from Student Loans. I was made  redundant in 2009 and  reached 65 in 2012 , at which age the loan should have been cancelled. Now ,today, 12 years on retirement and 11 ( at least years after last contact) I get a letter with veiled threats. Do I , as I smell a scam a) ignore it and hope that Erudio will think that this phishing attempt has failed or b) respond with a statute barred letter or c) remind them of legal terms that loan should be cancelled 12 years ago or d) combination of b) +c)      
    • But I'm not mixing and matching. Sure, when researching I do check multiple avenues, but when speaking, I will open a single post. The Fb post was made in March, it is now June, time has passed, and when the suggestion was made, no further information was given on how I should progress beyond "send a letter", which has meant that I've needed to start another stream - this one, but only after taking the time to research first.
    • hes not turning you away he is simply saying that you should stick to one channel of advice. he is perfectly happy with that channel being this forum, and he will help you   all he is saying, and I agree, is that you should stick to one help channel, not mix and match 3/4
    • As long as we are clear . Do the reading and post your letter of claim in draft form as requested and we can go from there.    
    • Hold on @BankFodder, that was a bit harsh. I spoke with the EVRi complaints Facebook group to begin with, a user on that group told me to send a letter but didn't give any specifics. Here at CAG, I was looking more for specific help as I've never raised such a claim before, and wanted to be sure that my claim was correct, which is why I've researched information with the other groups too, to be sure; but you seem to have assumed that I've made some form of contact with the other groups, such that I find your comments and tone to be very unfair. And I do know a thing or two about forums, that forum users are unpaid volunteers, I happen to be a Tableau Ambassador, and so perform a very similar role helping others in an unpaid capacity  
  • 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

Council Tax arrears and whether to allow a bailiff into your home


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3838 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

Yesterday I received an enquiry from a debtor where a Walking Possession had been signed and the bailiff (from Bristow & Sutor) had attempted to charge the debtor an 'attending to remove' fee of £400 !!!!!

 

Given that the statutory fee scale clearly provides that an "attending to remove" fee may only be "reasonable" there can be little doubt that £400 could ever satisfy this criteria.

 

The extraordinary level of reports about excessive "van fees" is of very serious concern and in fact, examples have recently been sent to DCLG (The Department of Communities and Local Government). The samples include another example where an Equita bailiff attempted to charge a Westminster debtor £750 'van attendance' ( at an INITIAL visit !!!)

 

In light of the recent £400 'van fee' I decided to start a new thread this morning outlining what debtors need to be aware of regarding a bailiff visit for unpaid council tax.

 

It would seem that the Moderators have decided to post the thread as a STICKY !!!! Thank you.

 

A copy of the STICKY can be read here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?412530-Council-Tax-arrears...should-you-let-a-bailiff-into-your-home-(25-Viewing)-nbsp

 

PS: Just had a query where Equita are charging debtors £312 "attending to remove" fee for a 1st visit for an unpaid PCN !!!

 

What on earth is the bailiff industry doing !!!!

Edited by tomtubby
Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth is the bailiff industry doing !!!!

 

Trying to make as much money as they can during recessionary times.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PS: Just had a query where Equita are charging debtors £312 "attending to remove" fee for a 1st visit for an unpaid PCN !!!

 

What on earth is the bailiff industry doing !!!!

 

I think we have seen this before and not just for PCN's either. It is the Bailiffs front loading all the fees and if challenged claim them as "potential" fees that could be charged. I wonder how many pay it though as I would guess they don't come clean and say " you don't owe that much".

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiffs are being bailiffs, some of them are duplicitous lying porcine beings with no compassion or maybe they are Lizards as per the rantings of David Icke

 

Whatever they are the industry, and it is disengenuous to call debt collection an "industry" it is a function, it is out of control, and several companies involved in it need a severe slap, or even closing down, Capita come into the too big for the public good and democracy category, and should be closed imho.

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

OOPS....

 

Since posting the STICKY I have received emails from 3 local authorities and 2 bailiff companies !!!! It would seem that some LA's are VERY WORRIED. Pleased to hear it.

 

I am also pleased to hear that one local authority has reviewed their Contracts with their 4 bailiff providers and is satisfied that they can each charge a MAXIMUM of £125 for an "attending to remove".

Link to post
Share on other sites

OOPS....

 

Since posting the STICKY I have received emails from 3 local authorities and 2 bailiff companies !!!! It would seem that some LA's are VERY WORRIED. Pleased to hear it.

 

I am also pleased to hear that one local authority has reviewed their Contracts with their 4 bailiff providers and is satisfied that they can each charge a MAXIMUM of £125 for an "attending to remove".

 

Hopefully the ATR will be applied to a visit subsequent to the one where they don't get a levy, or where they actually attend after a levy.

 

Were the bailiff companies as happy as someone who lost a quid and found a shilling?

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 anticipate a LOT of problems in the next few months before the new fee scale and new regulations are implemented.

 

Bailiffs know that the fee scale will be TRANSPARENT and if goods are actually removed the fees that can be charged will be minimal.

 

We are still waiting for the fees scale to be officially released and the date is supposed to be by the end of December. There are some "snags" being ironed out and I will start a new thread later today (or tomorrow) with the latest gossip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TT-They rarely remove goods anyway.

 

 

The "transparent" fees will allow the bailiffs to conduct business lawfully without the need to abuse legislation.

 

 

If they have to remove goods for peanuts in a handful of cases, this will more than be made up by letter fees & visit fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A timely and excellent sticky tt.

One wonders at the facts that make those that contacted you worried.

As for the 'what are they doing ? question, a cynical person may conclude they are trying to get as much cash as they can to spend at Christmas. For certain the outrageous charging we are seeing goes beyond my logic.

As Ian says the published figures will reveal much.

I have to add that publishing them in the 'Christmas lull' gives me pause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...