Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Don't bother with what Trading Standards tell you about this - we've had far more experience in dealing with gym m/ships over the years.   1. Have you cancelled the DD mandate - if so, when ?   2. When did you last use the gym, approximately.
    • I sent them their quote which outlined the 8-10 weeks start to finish.  Their response is also below.  I placed the order 1st Sept and would have been ok with a couple of weeks here or there as I know delays can be experienced due to others in the chain/weather etc but Feb was too much. I hadn't thought to contact the council re the Building Regs, will do that tomorrow.  At this stage I've only paid the deposit on credit card but it's £2k. The next payments are in stages and they will not accept cards.  Their advice re delays on 29/9 was in response to me asking if we had an install date.  The same day they were advertising for fitters. Their refusal to get their director to call me or make an appointment is making me nervous of continuing.  I woke this morning thinking I would go ahead as we hit it off when he came round but if his administrator has enough clout to stop me talking to him she must be a member of the family as well.     "We did advise a 8 – 10 week installation process from survey which was on the 07/09/2020 so working on this lead time your installation date is due on the week commencing 16/11/2020.   We then advised on 29/09/2020 there is unfortunate delays and I gave you a worst case scenario date as depending on the delivery times this could well be brought forward but we also have to consider we have a 2 week festive holidays.   You still have not been able to provide me with written confirmation that Collin, Davina or Lisa have stated this installation will happen before Christmas. So the delay is unfortunately 8 weeks with the potential of being sooner than this, I just can’t give you an exact installation date hence why I gave a worst case scenario."
    • Quick update -  Good news is that I have been told the car is complete and ready for pickup.  It ran a bit over so we agreed the swap is now tomorrow as I would never make it there before closing time with rush-hour traffic.   Bad news is I have potentially now found out the gearbox and brake fluid service has not been carried out.  We went through this yesterday, got a printout too suggesting it has been done but having just looked more into it, it didnt look right with 2 things standing out. For example:  Part Number: G060175A2, Description : Gear Oil, Qty: 1  This just kept standing out to me given my own Audi had 7 litres of it and they sell them in 1L bottles.   Looked up the part number and sure enough, its not gear oil but Haldex oil (part of the Quatro system).   Other thing that stood out was no filter on the sheet which is part of the service.     Have just dropped them an email so lets see what comes out of it but again sheet I have which is a PDI Requirements sheet (pre-delivery inspection) states:   Carried out MPC & oil service Haldex Reqs gear oil service Brake fluid change   I'm trying to remain calm
    • Hi.   Please don't hijack this thread, it's for advising the OP.   The best thing is to start a new thread of your own and then we'll advise you.   HB
    • Hey Andy, Dx,   With the deadline approaching to enter this defence i have amended as best i can. Can either of you help with it or point me in the direction of a similar case so i can get some ideas for myself? Or is the below ok? Considering i could of nearly perjured myself i would really appreciate it if you guys could take a look.   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.     3. Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is noted.   5. Paragraph 3 is noted.   6. Paragraph 4 is noted.   7. Paragraph 5 is noted. As i can't recall entering in to this financial agreement with Halifax i have asked them to prove that i had entered in to this agreement. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2227 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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.....

 

This is something that brings about at least three questions:

 

Firstly, is it lawful for a local authority to pass on a council taxpayer's payment (which he has made in good faith to reduce his liability) to a bailiff who has obviously not been successful in enforcing the debt?

 

Secondly, if it is lawful, do councils actually do this?

 

Lastly, if councils state that they do are the lying?

 

Birmingham City Council have this to say on the matter:

 

Once a debt has been passed to the enforcement agent for collection, and until such time as the debt is formally returned to the authority, payments must be allocated in accordance with The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 regardless of whether payment is made to the authority or to the enforcement agent. In the original example that you used (£420), the Enforcement Agent are allowed to take the Compliance fee of £75.00 first. The remaining balance of £345 is then subject under the regulations to being paid on a pro-rata basis. In effect, although Birmingham City Council would receive £189.31, whilst the Enforcement Agent receives £230.59, unfortunately this is in line with the new regulations and the allocation of this cannot be contractually changed between the authority and the Enforcement Agent.

 

Once a debt is returned to the authority, any outstanding fees owed to the enforcement agent cease to be recoverable by either party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dodge i think you are missing the point. No money or goods changed hands so there are no proceeds to be divided up.

 

Wouldn't be the first time, but not on this occasion. The debate moved on to the fee and its validity, or did you miss it.

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
There still has been no direction from anyone here that shows if the debt is at the compliance stage, which part of any legislation says that if you pay the creditor direct, they are legally bound to pay the £75 fee to the bailiff. This is what the bailiff's are no doubt arguing and the creditors are too ignorant of the legislation to challenge it.

Mark,

 

You are unable to grasp the fact that the Regulation 13 imposes a legal obligation to apportion the payment in the way outlined (which I have explained very clearly). How that Compliance fee is physically passed over to the enforcement agent is wholly irrelevant. What is clear is how the payment is to be allocated. If it is allocated incorrectly by the court or magistrate court then the enforcement company could take legal action against the creditor.

 

The fact remains, that Regulations 13 outlines the way in which the payment must be allocated. How it is actually done is in practice is of no importance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom, your advice about enforcement starting when instructed is not what the TCGRs says, unless you can show where i missed it.

 

You missed it all right. You need to start reading regulation 4 and 5 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) 2014. To make the task easier for you I have copied regulation 5 below:

 

 

Stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered – enforcement other than under High Court writs

 

5.(1)

The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

 

(a) the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;

Link to post
Share on other sites
Outlaw, i don't think we can take a councils own website to accurate when legislation.gov.uk says different.

 

That is also my opinion hence the 3rd of the 3 questions.

 

This is something that brings about at least three questions:

 

Firstly, is it lawful for a local authority to pass on a council taxpayer's payment (which he has made in good faith to reduce his liability) to a bailiff who has obviously not been successful in enforcing the debt?

 

Secondly, if it is lawful, do councils actually do this?

 

Lastly, if councils state that they do are the lying?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom, your advice about enforcement starting when instructed is not what the TCGRs says, unless you can show where i missed it.

 

"Enforcement" is the general term for pursuing a debt, as well as the specific term used within this particular regulation, as I am sure you are aware :)

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
This is something that brings about at least three questions:

 

Firstly, is it lawful for a local authority to pass on a council taxpayer's payment (which he has made in good faith to reduce his liability) to a bailiff who has obviously not been successful in enforcing the debt?

 

Secondly, if it is lawful, do councils actually do this?

 

Lastly, if councils state that they do are the lying?

 

Birmingham City Council have this to say on the matter:

 

Outlawla,

 

You more than anyone else will know from the astonishing work that you have done via FOI requests that almost every local authority that you approached interpret the statutory regulations in exactly the same way in which Birmingham are doing (who are the 4th largest local authority in the country).

Link to post
Share on other sites

me thinks u r forgetting one point. if the EA is not certificated the debtor is not guilty and case closed

 

if u paid attention the bailiffs name not being on register have come up a few times not just this case. i am sure you can find this out. after all tom is the bailiff, so tomtubby r u certificated?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Enforcement" is the general term for pursuing a debt, as well as the specific term used within this particular regulation, as I am sure you are aware :)

 

Legislation is so badly written that it confuses some people.

 

Enforcement includes a compliance stage where the EA company can charge the debtor a £75 fee. Unless the debt is paid including the £75 fee, before the next enforcement stage is reached, then further fees will become due per the law.

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
Uncle, i don't agree. The law on this is very clear.

 

Citizens Advice and numerous other organisations have looked through the legislation getting legal advice on it.

 

See CAB advice on this.

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/bailiffs_e/bailiffs__fees_and_charges_e/fees_bailiffs_can_charge_e.htm

 

You will see that the compliance stage is part of enforcement and incurs a £75 fee.

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
Tom, the date on the NOE isn't relevant. The poster said he didn"t get it until after he paid the council.

 

A person has been arrested and it is only right that you rely upon facts.

 

In fact, what the debtor said is that he did not even know about a Liability Order until after he had received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement but by this time he has paid the council tax debt to the council.

 

Now, common sense alone will tell you there is something wrong here. If as he says he did not know about a Liability Order then are we to assume that he has not paid the summons costs or the liability order fee as well?

 

All of these are simple questions (just like the dates on the notices) and should have been asked of him. If an error has been then it can be corrected. What we have now is that this poor debtor is facing paying between £1,500 and £2,500 for legal representation.

 

Once again, this case has proved how important it is to not ignore correspondence. If as he says the debt had been paid to the council and he then received a letter from a bailiff company then it is crucially important to make contact with either the local authority or enforcement company. Again, nobody has even bothered to ask the debtor whether he did this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Streetlaw, couldn't quote your post before you deleted it. You talk about compliance stage, first enforcement, second enforcement, disposal stage. That is for high court bailiffs. CT bailiffs have 3 stages - compliance, enforcement, disposal. Reg 13 as already referred to deals only with enforcement stage onwards.

 

No matter how many times TT says it, it still doesn't make it right. It states nowhere that any payment direct to the council at the compliance stage must be legally subject to a £75 deduction to the bailiffs. In fact legislation is clear that bailiffs can only take their fees from proceeds. A debtor paying direct can never be described as proceeds.

 

I'm not Mark btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Citizens Advice and numerous other organisations have looked through the legislation getting legal advice on it.

 

See CAB advice on this.

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/bailiffs_e/bailiffs__fees_and_charges_e/fees_bailiffs_can_charge_e.htm

 

You will see that the compliance stage is part of enforcement and incurs a £75 fee.

 

Correct. In case anyone is not aware, with CAB, John Kruse was the lead person advising them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
me thinks u r forgetting one point. if the EA is not certificated the debtor is not guilty and case closed

 

if u paid attention the bailiffs name not being on register have come up a few times not just this case. i am sure you can find this out. after all tom is the bailiff, so tomtubby r u certificated?

 

This is a serious thread and your contribution is zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Legislation is so badly written that it confuses some people.

 

Enforcement includes a compliance stage where the EA company can charge the debtor a £75 fee. Unless the debt is paid including the £75 fee, before the next enforcement stage is reached, then further fees will become due per the law.

 

Yes it does of course.Personally if find these regulations quite transparent, although i have been involved with the TCE since 2006.

 

The debt is sent for enforcement, the complication is some peoples minds begins because the regulations coin the phrase"enforcement stage" but is just a label for the stage where the EA actually makes the visit, really it is all enforcement(small e)

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
Streetlaw, couldn't quote your post before you deleted it. You talk about compliance stage, first enforcement, second enforcement, disposal stage. That is for high court bailiffs. CT bailiffs have 3 stages - compliance, enforcement, disposal. Reg 13 as already referred to deals only with enforcement stage onwards.

 

No matter how many times TT says it, it still doesn't make it right. It states nowhere that any payment direct to the council at the compliance stage must be legally subject to a £75 deduction to the bailiffs. In fact legislation is clear that bailiffs can only take their fees from proceeds. A debtor paying direct can never be described as proceeds.

 

I'm not Mark btw.

 

Really!!

 

You are 'clutching at straws' and know perfectly well that 'proceeds' include money.

 

What will be your next 'gootcha clause'....that money is only cash and does not include a debit card !!!

 

This thread was started to demonstrate that this debtor (and others) was wrongly advised that bailiff fees do not need to be paid and that if a bailiff company wanted to recover their fees that they would have to take civil proceedings in the County Court under section 92.8 of the County Courts Act 2003.

 

Strange.....that not one of the 'new posters' has even bothered to comment on this serious matter. Not one of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is that strange TT :)

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

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2227 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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...