Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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 3566 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

Hiya all,

 

Have a massively odd situation,

 

Had a total bill for bailiff dated march of £6818.68 ( including costs )

Then in April of a total bill of £5649.28

 

I then questioned these and got a bill yesterday of £6303.40

And today a bailiff turned up ( they know I am on vulnerable list ) and the total id £6301.40

 

So my question is what do I do, every time I ask for clarification it changes price - and its a flip as to whether it is up or down

 

I will be in a position to pay in full next week but dont want to pay and find that I have either paid too much or that they come chasing in a few weeks time

 

I cannot understand how if the figure in March is accurate how it has gone down and how if the figure 2 days ago is that the bailiff has not added additional charges

 

Any help appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the debt for? is it for a CCJ?

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

It would sound like fees were added during a visit under the old regulations, withdrawn under the new regulations and reduced to £75, then a further visit has occurred adding Enforcement Stage 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya thanks for the reply

 

I could understand that but looking at my emails I have just noticed another one from last week in which the figure is £6102

 

Surely they cannot add fees onto the account for a anticipated further visit as they only turned up today

 

All the documentation says that interest is charged at £1.07 a day so cannot be that either

 

Just need to know what steps I need to take, is it justified to put in a complaint to them to verify the charges/ fees/ totals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will need to write to them and ask for a detailed breakdown of the fees charged. Once you have that it will be easier to understand the differences in fees and whether a complaint is justified.

 

It would be prudent to make a payment however (even if it is a lower amount) as if you do not it is highly likely a further visit will ensue and cost you further fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the original CCJ something you knew about? As for your "vulnerability" is this something you have advised the Enforcement Co of, and have you provided proof of same? What has been their response?

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hello all,

 

Just to give an update,

 

I did the above and sent further proof of vulnerability to them. I have received a proposal back with I am happy with.

 

However I have yet to receive an explanation for the varying totals and am still having issues as the proposal letter has a bill of £6900 which is £600 more than the bill I got 4 days prior in the post with no visits

 

So far they have had almost 28 days but are ignoring the question on the changes in totals so am not sure what else I can do

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would sound like fees were added during a visit under the old regulations, withdrawn under the new regulations and reduced to £75, then a further visit has occurred adding Enforcement Stage 1.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread I believe that this is the reason for the differences in fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies,

 

I have replied as above saying I am happy with the agreement offered and will pay as agreed however I need an explanation the difference in fees.

 

I can understand it being reduced due to the change in regulations but surely they could not have added the fees back on when no one had attended? - the fees were added way before a visit and also surely the new regs do not allow £600 to be added in 4 days with no attendance or explanation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right so I have had a breakdown in fees in which I have been charged an enforcement 1 of £481 and an enforcement 2 of £495 on the day an agreement was sent to me

 

So my question is can these be added if vulnerability was shown in the very first communication? Also can they have two enforcements when I have only had one person attend ever and they went straight away

 

More importantly I suppose is that I am not going to end up with any big charges on top of this?

 

The frustrating thing for me is that the offer they have given me based on my circumstances is exactly the same as the one I offered them when they first contacted me in Feb - and they rejected - based on my finances

Link to post
Share on other sites

The frustrating thing for me is that the offer they have given me based on my circumstances is exactly the same as the one I offered them when they first contacted me in Feb - and they rejected - based on my finances

 

Now that is interesting.

Calls into question why it was rejected first time and also if any of their subsequent fees are allowable

Link to post
Share on other sites

£75 compliance fee (letter fee)

£235 attendance

 

But in cases over £1500 a further 7.5% of the debt is also added.

 

So in your case

 

£310 + 7.5% (of remaining debt over £1500)

 

Hope this answers your question

Link to post
Share on other sites

But in cases over £1500 a further 7.5% of the debt is also added.

 

So in your case

 

£310 + 7.5% (of remaining debt over £1500)

 

Hope this answers your question

 

And no.

Only 1 enforcement fee is chargeable after April 6th

And certainly on one visit new or old regs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...