Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • 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

HCEO visit 2 days after we paid original ccj saying we owe their fees - help please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3769 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

we had a visit from a HCEO for a CCJ debt to a supplier - this ccj has been paid in full- only a couple of days before their visit , but never the less paid.

the debt (CCJ dates back to 10/2013)

The original debt was about £900 , this was reduced every couple of weeks by £150 or so ( what ever we could afford really), final payment being made on 11th which was a few days before they even turned up.

so we were of the opinion had satisfied the CCJ.

then the visit from the HCEO saying he had come to collect £1010 for the debt.

I told him we had paid the CCJ in full to the client prior to his visit, & showed him the remittance advice from the bank from a few days earlier.

he said we still owe for the HCEO fees as they were instructed in November to collect,and his visit fees + their fees are valid., I told him we would not pay as i didnt believe we owed anything, He said pay it and take it up with the office if we were not happy.

We didnt pay, he left after spending about 15mins on the phone in his van,

Today we get a letter from his office saying we owe £1010 under a high court writ of FIFA ...

he has no WP , the debt was paid before he attended. what is this FiFA.

 

I phoned their office only to be told the payments I paid to the creditor only serve to reduce the amount and we still owe their fees,how can this be the case if they never visited or informed us.

 

Are they trying it on ?

 

any advice please.,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the HCEO visited you at any point prior to this visit, levied on goods/property?

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the HCEO then has not 'earned' the fees claimed.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I will give you more advice.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will probably find that the HCEO is levying for the 'execution costs' which are legally due under the writ. These will either be £60 or £111.75 (if the claimant has used a solicitor).

 

The HCEO can legally levy for these costs but some of his fees should be reduced to reflect the payments you have made.

 

Could it be that you did not keep the claimant up to date with your payments you made?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct question for HCEOs, for future reference under the circumstances described, where claimant aware, and debt paid in full BEFORE HCEO visit, where can the fees be justified?

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

I'll make an assumption as to how I think this has panned out.

 

You have paid direct to Judgment Creditor who has willingly accepted payments. I would suspect the HCEO has been instructed by the JC's solicitor because they have failed to keep said solicitor up to speed with what has been going on. In my view you have done nothing wrong as it appears to be lack of communication between Judgment Creditor & solicitor and if any fees are due then the HCEO should be directed to his issuing party.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still like to know what my real options are

what is my best course of action if these HCEO do turn up asking for their fees.

i was unaware they were involved until their vist after I had made payment to the client.

Are they allowed to come and threaten, add fees etc for their fees ??

the way i see it is that they should have acted sooner - but id like to know where i stand

I do not want to give them anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry only just seen this today.

If the judgment is paid in full before the Form N293A is sealed (date of certificate) then the HCEO can charge no fees to the debtor.

If the N293A is sealed by the issuing court and a writ is obtained then technically the execution costs are outstanding. These can be enforced.

The problem is that these costs will only be £60 or £111.75 making the fees charged for an HCEO attendance seem hugely disproportionate. It would be sensible for the HCEO to withdraw from enforcement, allow the debtor to pay the execution costs and charge the creditor his fees/abortive charge.

As I stated earlier the HCEO can legally levy for the outstanding execution costs but some of his fees should be reduced to reflect the payments you have made.

The sensible thing to do would be to contact the creditor, see if he has paid for a writ and make that payment immediately. I'm surprised you haven't contacted the creditor already given what has happened.

You really need to sort this prior to another attendance. That will be no good for anybody and will likely cause you unnecessary stress and money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification HCEOs looks like the creditor was hedging their bets, or the solicitor went for HCEO whatever. Either way HCEO has acted in good faith, so someone should pay for the work done.

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

How are the execution fees calculated and how do find out what they are without inviting a load of hassle ?

i suppose that if the fee is only £60 or so - ill pay it, but only if i have to and only to avoid more fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The execution costs are set. They are £60 as standard but a solicitor may claim another £51.75 also which if used will make them £111.75.

Some small HCEO 'franchises' state on their websites that a creditor may claim the £51.75 but that is wrong and illegal. The £51.75 is set out as a 'solicitors fee' under the CPR rules.

Are you sure you paid the creditor everything that was owed including the court costs?

My advice is to contact the creditor ASAP to ensure that everything that was due has been paid and within the timescales required.

If it has then he will need to pay the HCEO for their time and efforts. Probably an abortive fee of £60 plus VAT but if he's had payment without telling them they could demand a lot more. Either way, his problem not yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...