Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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 3643 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

My son has just paid his business rates by credit card after the bailiff levied on goods.

The original debt was over £4000.

 

After a visit to the council it was reduced to £2888.

 

I paid the bailiff an amount of £3489 Making a difference of £601.

 

When I enquired as to what the extra fees were for I was told Enforcement.

 

Today on the phone I was advised that the fees were 101 for charges and £500 because the debt was over £3000 .

 

I have been looking into this further and found this web site and the chrges just dont compare what do I do now. I have paid

http://www.bdl.org.uk/images/02_EW_NDL_Bailiffs%20and%20Council%20Tax.pdf

Any help would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Legislation and Regulations concerning the enforcement of Business Rates

- NNDR

- are broadly similar to those for Council Tax.

 

He needs to ask them for a breakdown of the fees they have charged.

 

How many times has the Bailiff visited?

 

What goods were levied on exactly as described on the Notice of Seizure?

 

What paperwork have you been left?

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges.

 

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were Certificated at.

e - the date of the Certification.

 

This is not a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

 

Send them something like the above. Best done initially by email followed by a copy in the post.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also worth getting the correct details from the Council. You need to speak to someone at the Council and ask the following questions:

1 - how many Liability Orders they have against you

2 - the dates they were obtained

3 - the addresses they were for

4 - the period of time each covers

5 - how much each one was for

6 - how much is still outstanding

7 - the dates they were passed on for enforcement

8 - the dates & amounts of any payments

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that the company have applied an 'attending to remove' fee to the account. The amount is simply dreadful. Fortunately, the present situation is that the local authority are wholly responsible for the fees and charges of their AGENTS and accordingly, all enquiries should go to the council. May I ask which bailiff company this was?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that the company have applied an 'attending to remove' fee to the account. The amount is simply dreadful. Fortunately, the present situation is that the local authority are wholly responsible for the fees and charges of their AGENTS and accordingly, all enquiries should go to the council. May I ask which bailiff company this was?

 

Equita

Link to post
Share on other sites

Council must be infested with Capita which means any complaints must be to Head Of Revenues, CEO, Elected Leaser as when you phone the council you will be speaking to a Capita minion.

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

In some perverse way I am pleased to read that Capita have charged a fee of £500 for 'attending to remove' and this because under the new regulations that take effect on 6th April the fee that they can legally charge is set by law at £235. Given that this company have for a very long time been charging fees far in EXCESS of this demonstrates one thing very clearly........

 

They will very likely be the FIRST company to abuse the fee scale.

 

It is already a known FACT that Equita have been responsible in many cases that I have seen over the last 7 years of dating a letter as much as 4-5 days earlier and sending it by TNT mail. The letter arrives on the same day as the visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capita PLC should be investigated and compulsorily wound up. Oops too many vested interests would lose out so that's a no no then.

 

But yes they must be watched very closely, for multiple fee charging and fees in excess of the new scale.

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 have checked further and we have 1 letter with a ref number no date no amount Delivered by hand in large red letters and headed bailiffs removal . I have discussed this further with my son . The original debt the bailiff had was over 4k on the one and only time he met the bailiff he argued that the figures were wrong and in fact the bailiff called the council and it was amended . He actually called me last night not a nice person and advised that charges listed on websites and by the CAB were all rubbish. The payment was made on the phone and my son paid the figure he asked for to get him off his back. There is or never has been any paperwork from the bailiff which shows any charges or in fact any sums at all. Do we write to the council or the bailiffs. Have we any chance of getting any of this money back ??? WE have CCTV footage of his visit which shows that no paperwork was handed over . I really appreciate your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 3 - send to Bailiffs

 

Post 4 - contact Council

 

Any response from Equita will be like drawing teeth. They have form for dragging their heels and not complying with requests for confirmation. You could make the Council provide all the information but I guarantee they will say the Bailiffs have done nothing wrong. One thing to be aware of is of anyone suggesting you do a chargeback on any card payment as this could leave you open to further charges/fees.

 

Do you have answers to what I posed in Post 2.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have got no notice of seizure. Nothing to say what the charges were for only verbal from Bailiff when he said 101 was for charges and £500 as the debt was over 3k. I have requested info from Bailiffs but so far nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK that's good so far. Equita do tend to drag their heels over things so you may have a little wait for it to come. The 14 days listed for receiving details is what we believe to be a reasonable time for them to produce details but has no bearing on how long it actually does take.

 

You can help jolly things along by contacting your local Councillor(s) over this. As it is for business premises you get 2 bites of the cherry - 1 Councillor(s) for where the business is located & the other for where you live.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Bailiffs enforcement fee on business rates - extortionate
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...