Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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 3651 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

Simple question. Will a current walking possession agreement technically be useless after the 6th of April.

 

If a bailiff has to re-attend in the event of a default on an arrangement, can they use the walking possession from the old reg's to gain entry, or not?

 

My view is no, as the old reg's will be null & void, but I can't find the answer to my question in the new reg's.

 

So, any learned posters know for sure? :???:

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not in the new regulations. Section 66 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 preserves the current rules and regulations of the relevant debt recovery action where, before 6th April 2014, goods have been distrained or executed against, or made subject to a walking possession agreement. This means that if goods have been levied for council tax, business rates, parking penalties or a magistrates' courts fine before 6th April, then the new regulations will not come into force in respect of those cases - regardless of whether a walking possession agreement is in force or not. For magistrates' courts fines, of course, there is no such thing as walking possession.

 

 

So if, for example, you default on an arrangement made under a walking possession agreement for council tax in May, the bailiff may attend and remove or attempt to remove goods and charge the fees he would charge today. The new regs are simply not applicable on these cases. The removal fee would be what it is now, "reasonable costs" and probably a lot more than the future £110.00.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

blfuk1.

 

I had actually misunderstood the new regs on this and it was only yesterday when reading the regs again that 'the penny dropped'. I has wrongly thought that if a CURRENT case goes into default in May that the EA an charge the NEW fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we will have to be very careful to look at the OP timeline of events and ask the correct questions, as no doubt bailiff companies will as illustrated on that other thread be anxious to try to charge the new fees, and use defaulting an existing agreement as an excuse to apply the new rules whether lawful or not for that particular debtor. They will hope as usual that the debtor is unaware that in their case new rules don't apply.

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

Brassnecked.....you are absolutely correct.

This reinforces the opinion that complaints will soar, as on the face of it common sense would dictate that if the case is already with bailiffs and debtor is keeping them out and even payoing council direct, old fee scale applies even if they haven't visited yet. In this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421188-Jacobs-amp-Council-Tax-advising-they-will-charge-new-Fees

 

it looks like Bristow & Stupor have the case well before April 6th but will be applying new fees regardless

 

quoted from initial starter post

 

"I have received a letter from bristow and sutorlink3.gif who are trying to collect about 600 quids worth of council tax (although their letter says 700 and something now)

 

As of yet i have just ignored them, made no contact. Ideally i'd like it to be passed back to the council so i can just pay in installments. Worst case i could pay it off in full but i am self employed so try to limit damage to cash flow.

 

The letter says 'New enforcement process' and says i must pay in full within 5 days of the letter. It says failure to do so will result in them coming around to take my goods. They mention changes to the processes coming into effect as of the 6th of April. The letter reads as if they can now turn up at your house and drill the locks. They talk about locksmith charges on the back of the letter. "

 

Surely if they already have the case, this is prima facie proof bailiffs are ready to try to apply the new charges even in breach of the transitional arrangements by waiting to call after April 6th.

 

Interesting times ahead, and indicative of the care required to assess under which system the fees have been or should be applied.

Edited by brassnecked
context

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

Simple question. Will a current walking possession agreement technically be useless after the 6th of April.

 

If a bailiff has to re-attend in the event of a default on an arrangement, can they use the walking possession from the old reg's to gain entry, or not?

 

My view is no, as the old reg's will be null & void, but I can't find the answer to my question in the new reg's.

 

So, any learned posters know for sure? :???:

 

You need to read the Transitional Regs because they are valid and will continue to be dealt with under current regulations.

Edited by ploddertom
Removed Link until new Regulations come into force
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. but they make up for it by being allowed to charge extortionate fee's instead. if they gain a levy, then its a bonus for them.

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

Is there a list of the new fees schedule anywhere? I read earlier that they can now levy on tools of the trade worth over £1300.... Would that inlcude a Van? now that is scarey.......... and is the execution fee of £235? chargable upon each visit? so they could visit everyday and bump it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. but they make up for it by being allowed to charge extortionate fee's instead. if they gain a levy, then its a bonus for them.

 

Depends on what you mean by extortionate, I think it's well known on this forum that there are some Councils allowing their Bailiffs to apply unreasonable Attending To Remove Fees, some well in excess of £450. Those debtors under new regulations will actually be better off.

 

The term Levy will no longer exist under the new regulations and there is no charge for Taking Control of Goods. The Enforcement Stage Fee is charged simply by a visit to the debtors property.

 

Also they cannot apply a fee for each visit they make either. They can make five visits for example, but the debtor will only incur one £235 Fee. They will also have the Compliance Fee of £75 on top, which is charged by the company on receipt of the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new fee's that they will be allowed to charge are extortionate. There is no other word for them.

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

The new fee's that they will be allowed to charge are extortionate. There is no other word for them.

 

I agree on some debts they will be because of the extra 7.5% charged on debts over £1500, but wouldn't agree on all debts that it would make them extortionate.

 

There will be quite a number who are better off. No doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If thats the case then I would agree.. I have had a few run-ins with Bailiffs and there fees have often been more than the debt... For example. I was charged £450 a few weeks ago for a visit which lasted 18 minutes and was to try and levy my car.. I paid them 2k and they still added the £450 even though in my eyes they abandoned the levy.,...

 

I think they make them up as they go along :-x:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule number 1. bailiffs lie. All they are concerned about are their fee's, and with the new changes theyre guaranteed a nice big chunk of cash, even if they dont get payment of the debt. All they have to do is turn up.

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

As I have said on other threads during this week I have offered to provide easy to understand guidance and it will be provided in dedicated threads as opposed to being posted 'piecemeal' on separate threads. It will be best to limit questions for each new thread during this coming week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...