Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Debtor charged under section 68(1) of TCEA 2007 with "intentionally obstructing a bailiff".


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3474 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

seems like the bailiff was not certificated.

 

This morning an owner of a tyre business realised for himself not to rely upon the HMCS register when evidence was provided that the bailiff (from Equita) had been granted a certificate on 29th July !!!

 

The correct procedure is to request a copy of the bailiff certificate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

me thinks so too. but Ive been following this story on "that" site & printed of a copy. i think bailiff had no cert thats why refused to show when asked. and i think bailiff was the one who assaulted so thats why debtor cleared. just looking at facts and applying logic. the way i see it, if no cert debtor cleared, if have cert debtor done for.

 

tt, what regulation u taking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What site?

 

A site that swears black is white, in effect but we can't post a link on here

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

me thinks so too. but Ive been following this story on "that" site & printed of a copy. i think bailiff had no cert thats why refused to show when asked. and i think bailiff was the one who assaulted so thats why debtor cleared. just looking at facts and applying logic. the way i see it, if no cert debtor cleared, if have cert debtor done for.

 

tt, what regulation u taking about?

 

I have been posting on this forum since 2007 and anyone who knows me will know that I will always ask questions to establish the background as this is vital to ensure that an accurate response is provided. What I will not do and have never done is to guess. There is no evidence at all that the bailiff was not certificated and neither is there any evidence that the bailiff assaulted the debtor. This is speculation and is best avoided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto. What regulation?

 

I think TT is referring to the taking control of goods regulations ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

or the fees regs i suppose.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think TT is referring to the taking control of goods regulations ?

 

Thank you Dodgeball

 

The actual legislation is Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/made

 

Firstly, the regulations (Schedule 12 of TCE 2007) are quite specific in that the ‘amount outstanding’ consists of the amount of the debt from the local authority /magistrates court and the amount of bailiff fees owed up to the point of payment.

 

If payment is made of less than the ‘amount outstanding’ then that payment MUST be apportioned in accordance with regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This regulation provides that payment must first be allocated towards discharging auctioneers fees ( if goods had been sold at public auction).

 

Next the enforcement agents Compliance Fee (of £75) is recovered and regulation 13.4 states that following payment of the Compliance fee the payment (referred to in the regulations as ‘proceeds’ must be applied on a pro rata basis towards the original debt (referred to as ‘the sums to be recovered’) and any remaining amount in respect of enforcement agents fee and disbursements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

i thought perhaps the fees regs, I think reg 4 states something like the fee is due on the inception of the stage, and not on its completion. Since this fee is payable if the rest of the stage is completed or not it makes sense that it wold be debited first.

I was a bit confused by the question to be honest, the regulations are as you say settling in now and the agencies are getting used to them and the tsk of interpreting in the way they were meant it be used, it is just the way the legislation is drafted. There can be no other interpretation.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry TT, but I cannot see in those regs you quoted where it says that if you pay the creditor direct, the creditor must pass on any fees. It only talks about money taken in the course of enforcement or the sale of goods, (auctioneer fees etc). That reg seems to be clarifying what happens if the proceeds do not reach the debt amount.

 

It clarifies that first the auction fees are deducted and then the compliance fee and then the remainder split pro rata. In any case, that reg only applies if the enforcement stage has commenced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Dodgeball

 

The actual legislation is Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/made

 

Firstly, the regulations (Schedule 12 of TCE 2007) are quite specific in that the ‘amount outstanding’ consists of the amount of the debt from the local authority /magistrates court and the amount of bailiff fees owed up to the point of payment.

 

If payment is made of less than the ‘amount outstanding’ then that payment MUST be apportioned in accordance with regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This regulation provides that payment must first be allocated towards discharging auctioneers fees ( if goods had been sold at public auction).

 

Next the enforcement agents Compliance Fee (of £75) is recovered and regulation 13.4 states that following payment of the Compliance fee the payment (referred to in the regulations as ‘proceeds’ must be applied on a pro rata basis towards the original debt (referred to as ‘the sums to be recovered’) and any remaining amount in respect of enforcement agents fee and disbursements.

 

This is what confused me, where does tt say that there is such a regulation, i see where she says that the regulations have been in place thne i see whee she says that they are being used in this way, perhaps you could copy the post for me.

 

The point being made is tht the regulations are in place and this is the way they are being implemented. There is no regulation to state tht they cannot be implemented in this way in any case.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think bailiff was the one who assaulted so thats why debtor cleared

 

tt, what regulation u taking about?

 

 

Missed this also, was the bailiff arrested for this assault, what leads you to believe that an assault took place, the police obviously did not think so or they would have made an arrest against the bailiff wouldn't they ?

 

More seriously there is a matter which needs to be resolved here, and that is what measures can the debtor take to stop the bailiff when he is acting beyond his powers. If they for instance push past someone on their first visit and the debtor resists, can he then invoke this i order to kid the debtor that if he does resist he can be arrested, we know legally he should not be able to, but do the enforcement authorities.

 

I get the feeling that when something like this occurs(and i notice there is another instance of this involving a clamp) the police will make an arrest and then look at the legislation later, usually because they do not know how it works and who really is liable.

Edited by Dodgeball
clarificatin

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the cut on the finger and the bailiff admitting it was the evidence?

 

The debtor stated that his finger was cut but I did not see anywhere that the police arrested the bailiff for assault. Consequently, the police must have satisfied themselves that the injury to the finger not not serious enough to warrant a charge of 'assault'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debtor stated that his finger was cut but I did not see anywhere that the police arrested the bailiff for assault. Consequently, the police must have satisfied themselves that the injury to the finger not not serious enough to warrant a charge of 'assault'.

 

Attempted theft of a mobile phone !

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

Missed this also, was the bailiff arrested for this assault, what leads you to believe that an assault took place, the police obviously did not think so or they would have made an arrest against the bailiff wouldn't they ?

 

More seriously there is a matter which needs to be resolved here, and that is what measures can the debtor take to stop the bailiff when he is acting beyond his powers. If they for instance push past someone on their first visit and the debtor resists, can he then invoke this i order to kid the debtor that if he does resist he can be arrested, we know legally he should not be able to, but do the enforcement authorities.

 

I get the feeling that when something like this occurs(and i notice there is another instance of this involving a clamp) the police will make an arrest and then look at the legislation later, usually because they do not know how it works and who really is liable.

 

hahaha wanted to say, read the thread guys, but no longer there hahahaha

 

from the thread bailiff admitted assault

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debtor stated that his finger was cut but I did not see anywhere that the police arrested the bailiff for assault. Consequently, the police must have satisfied themselves that the injury to the finger not not serious enough to warrant a charge of 'assault'.

 

there is gbh & abh & comon assault if i touch u without your permission that is assault

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry TT, but I cannot see in those regs you quoted where it says that if you pay the creditor direct, the creditor must pass on any fees. It only talks about money taken in the course of enforcement or the sale of goods, (auctioneer fees etc). That reg seems to be clarifying what happens if the proceeds do not reach the debt amount.

 

It clarifies that first the auction fees are deducted and then the compliance fee and then the remainder split pro rata. In any case, that reg only applies if the enforcement stage has commenced.

 

Your above comment is almost identical to that read daily on 'debt avoidance' websites that make a full time job of seeking to find the proverbial 'gootcha' clause in regulations that allow them to avoid payment. I will address the answer in a separate post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is gbh & abh & comon assault if i touch u without your permission that is assault

 

I am completely lost by this argument. The debtor may consider that he was assaulted as his finger was cut but the police did not consider it was assault and consequently, NO assault charge was made against the bailiff. How much clearer can this be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Dodgeball

 

The actual legislation is Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

 

Firstly, the regulations (Schedule 12 of TCE 2007) are quite specific in that the ‘amount outstanding’ consists of the amount of the debt from the local authority /magistrates court and the amount of bailiff fees owed up to the point of payment.

 

If payment is made of less than the ‘amount outstanding’ then that payment MUST be apportioned in accordance with regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This regulation provides that payment must first be allocated towards discharging auctioneers fees ( if goods had been sold at public auction).

 

Next the enforcement agents Compliance Fee (of £75) is recovered and regulation 13.4 states that following payment of the Compliance fee the payment (referred to in the regulations as ‘proceeds’ must be applied on a pro rata basis towards the original debt (referred to as ‘the sums to be recovered’) and any remaining amount in respect of enforcement agents fee and disbursements.

 

 

then why regulation 17 talk about outstanding amount and fees separates? this taking xontrol of goods regulations is so complex

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your above comment is almost identical to that read daily on 'debt avoidance' websites that make a full time job of seeking to find the proverbial 'gootcha' clause in regulations that allow them to avoid payment. I will address the answer in a separate post.

 

Don't know why you didn't answer in that post!! Just saying that I can't see where it says it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am completely lost by this argument. The debtor may consider that he was assaulted as his finger was cut but the police did not consider it was assault and consequently, NO assault charge was made against the bailiff. How much clearer can this be.

 

like u say, dont assume, how u know bailiff not charge? u the bailiff tom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am completely lost by this argument. The debtor may consider that he was assaulted as his finger was cut but the police did not consider it was assault and consequently, NO assault charge was made against the bailiff. How much clearer can this be.

 

It's not unfair to say that the police are often scared of bailiffs, believing they are 'the courts', and acting on an authority the police have no right to question. However as we have seen, bailiffs lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3474 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...