Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi,   I've recently cancelled a direct debit with this gym and requested to cancel my gym membership but had gone through the same ordeal as previous users on this forum.   I was persistent enough (having read the forums) to have the staff at the gym terminate my membership on their system. See attached image for proof of documentation. Additionally, I have sent Harlands and the gym an email with the image informing them that gym membership has been terminated. I have been given reassurance that they CANNOT reverse the termination.    My question is: 1) Am I still expected to pay that extra 1 month of gym membership? (I was informed this was so, but I requested for an official documentation that states this policy via email without agreeing to pay) 2) Is the screenshot sufficient proof that the membership has been terminated? (date cancelled and time stamp are clearly stated)   Many thanks for the help!
    • Well If I pay British Gas £90 a month they’ll be paid off in about 17 months. That’s a long time but if it’s gunna effect my credit rating until November 2023 why bother paying it off early?    Ive worked out too the PDL default will be 6 years old on the 22/01/2020 so is there a point even doing anything with it? If it gets removed after 6 years does that mean I won’t have to pay it back?    Thanks  Andrew 
    • Minor developments:   a) Notification received that case has been referred to County Court at Chesterfield and we've to await the Judge's directions re allocation etc.    b) The letter I sent on 20th August to the agent (Lambert Smith Hampton) that manages the Berkeley Precinct and has its address on the board at the entrance, has been returned by the Royal Mail National Returns Centre, with a sticker saying the "addressee has gone away"!!   Don't they have an obligation to change the signage if they move, and why wouldn't such a large company have their mail re-directed?   The letter requested assistance in obtaining a copy of the contract between VCS and the landowner. I'm a bit mystified, but have found an additional address, so I could resend the letter and give it another try. 
    • urm.. FmoTl twaddle me thinks followed here
    • 123 Abc efg   22/09/2019 Dear Sir,   Re:  v xyz. Case No: 123456   CPR 31.14 Request   On (date) I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the county court of Salford.      I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest and counter claim all of your claim.   Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of [each of the following / the] document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:     1: The agreement/overdraft Facility Confirmation and Terms and Conditions from that date. You will appreciate that in an ordinary case and by reason of the provisions of CPR PD 16 para 7.3, where a claim is based upon a written agreement, a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement the original(s) should be available at the hearing. Further, that any general conditions incorporated in the contract should also be attached.   Failure to prove the above will render any claim unenforceable pursuant to section127 and 61b(3) CCA1974   2: The Demand/Termination Notice (Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974   3: Notices of Sums in Arrears under running account credit CCA2006 sec 86C   4. Notice of Assignment *   You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are disclosed at your earliest convenience.. Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy. Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.   Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party.   In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.   If you are unable to comply with this request and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request please confirm in your response.     Yours faithfully   Xyz. is this ok to send. and recorded delivery.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1812 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

Hello

 

I had a parking ticket from the council and more fees added so was £240 and

 

 

i agreed to pay £24 pw but missed 4th payment yesterday as changing job and forgot.

 

And now had notice of attendance £500 total bill owed pushed through letterbox.

 

Shall i ring and offer £50 pw , any advice appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicholas,

 

Without some 'background' information it is difficult to provide accurate advice. For instance:

 

When the agreement was made with Excel was this after receiving a Notice of Enforcement?

 

Do you still have the car that was involved in the contravention?

 

In some cases, vehicles are excluded from being 'taken into control' with a maximum value of just £1,350 applying. It is generally accepted that this is 'auction' value. Does your vehicle come into this bracket? If the vehicle is worth more than £1, 350 please do NOT provide the value on the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply.

 

Yes agreement to pay by 10 weekly installments after notice of enforcement.

 

Yes still have car is worth just £350.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicholas,

 

 

 

Without some 'background' information it is difficult to provide accurate advice. For instance:

 

 

 

When the agreement was made with Excel was this after receiving a Notice of Enforcement?

 

 

 

Do you still have the car that was involved in the contravention?

 

 

 

In some cases, vehicles are excluded from being 'taken into control' with a maximum value of just £1,350 applying. It is generally accepted that this is 'auction' value. Does your vehicle come into this bracket? If the vehicle is worth more than £1, 350 please do NOT provide the value on the forum.

 

 

 

£1350 applies to a vehicle coming under a tools of the trade claim only. That will only be accepted if the defendant can prove the vehicle is for his or her SOLE use as a tool of the trade. If others have permission to drive then its not for sole use and can be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

£1350 applies to a vehicle coming under a tools of the trade claim only. That will only be accepted if the defendant can prove the vehicle is for his or her SOLE use as a tool of the trade. If others have permission to drive then its not for sole use and can be removed.

 

In fact, under the new regulations that came into effect on 6th April 'exemption' also applies to vehicles if they are for use PERSONALLY BY THE DEBTOR in either of the following:

 

In the debtor’s employment,

 

In the debtors business, trade, profession,

 

In the debtors study or education,

 

As mentioned above the new regulations only came into effect six months ago on 6th April. The enforcement industry have always maintained that 'exemption' is only applicable to 'tools of the trade' and this is due to the wording under the old regulations. The fact of the matter is that some (in fact a lot) of bailiffs have difficulty actually adjusting to the new regulations.

 

Under the new regulations there is more protection for exemption.

 

If a vehicle has been 'taken into control' then it is a simple matter of informing the enforcement company under CPR rules within a set number of days and outlining the reason why the debtor considers the vehicle should be exempt. As long as the application is worded correctly and is submitted within the strict time period....the vehicle will be released.

 

So far.....I have not come across one rejection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the exemption apply for a commute to work at unsocial hours or where there is no viable alternative as in no bus etc?


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, under the new regulations that came into effect on 6th April 'exemption' also applies to vehicles if they are for use PERSONALLY BY THE DEBTOR in either of the following:

 

 

 

In the debtor’s employment,

 

 

 

In the debtors business, trade, profession,

 

 

 

In the debtors study or education,

 

 

.

Thats never changed. If an asset was used for the defs employment, study, education or own business, then we wouldn't take it. But commuting to work, or commuting to college etc is not in use the defs employment or education.

 

I would imagine that if a case can be made for no other alternative, I.e unsociable hours, then it may fall into that category and become exempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A significant change to the regulations (and frankly a welcome one) is that when a challenge is made (using the procedure under the new CPR regulations) the actual decision as to whether or not the vehicle is considered to be exempt is NOT for the bailiff to decide......

 

It is now the creditors responsibility under the new regulation to make that decision. Furthermore, the LA cannot...and must not outsource that responsibility to the enforcement company !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A significant change to the regulations (and frankly a welcome one) is that when a challenge is made (using the procedure under the new CPR regulations) the actual decision as to whether or not the vehicle is considered to be exempt is NOT for the bailiff to decide......

 

It is now the creditors responsibility under the new regulation to make that decision. Furthermore, the LA cannot...and must not outsource that responsibility to the enforcement company !!!

 

So if the bailiff or creditor remove a low value vehicle and such removal means debtor cannot work or get to work, therefore putting them onto JSA, they might look bad when challenged?

 

In OP's case then they need to show a good re4ason why it should not be taken beyond the fact that without keys and V5 it would probably only fetch 30 quid or so at auction.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if the bailiff or creditor remove a low value vehicle and such removal means debtor cannot work or get to work, therefore putting them onto JSA, they might look bad when challenged?

 

In OP's case then they need to show a good reason why it should not be taken beyond the fact that without keys and V5 it would probably only fetch 30 quid or so at auction.

 

BN.

 

First point is that only a bailiff may remove (and not a creditor). Secondly, household items are only ever removed in less than 1% of cases and that is why a motor vehicle is such a easy target. However, most companies (there is one exception that springs to mind !!) are not interested in taking 'low value' vehicles.

 

This is mainly to do with the way in which 'proceeds' from the sale of a vehicle are apportioned:

 

The auctioneers receives settlement for their commission and expenses.

 

Next the enforcement agency recovers the Compliance fee of £75.

 

Lastly, the balance will then be split on a pro rata basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a 300 quid motor fetching £35 or so wouldn't even pay the auction fees. Sorry I meant the bailiff removes and the creditor tells them to take it even though bailiff informs creditor it isn't worth towing.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So a 300 quid motor fetching £35 or so wouldn't even pay the auction fees. Sorry I meant the bailiff removes and the creditor tells them to take it even though bailiff informs creditor it isn't worth towing.

 

Auction value is significantly less. I dont know of any company that would take a vehicle that was valued at just £300. Even a value of £600-£700 is not of interest.

 

The enforcement officer would much prefer to enter into a sensible payment arrangement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auction value is significantly less. I dont know of any company that would take a vehicle that was valued at just £300. Even a value of £600-£700 is not of interest.

 

The enforcement officer would much prefer to enter into a sensible payment arrangement.

I think you would find that Jacobs or JBW would, in all probability.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure they want £500?

By my calculations you started off with £240, less £72 [3x £24]=£168 plus £235 for the bailiff visit should be £403.

 

Therefore you should write asking for a breakdown of how they arrived at all their fees including the days on which they were incurred. In addition, as only a

bailiff can charge the outlandish charge of £235, I would insist that they provide name of the bailiff who attended and put them to strict proof that it was that bailiff that visited. [Quite often, bailiff companies send out one of their office dogsbodies to deliver demands and those people are not entitled to charge for their visit at all].

I personally feel that in circumstances where no contact is made by the bailiff, then they should not be able to charge that amount. As I

understand it, the reason for that charge is that they bailiff is supposed to levy on goods and that charge is to reflect the time it takes to list the items that have

been levied on and then complete the paperwork.

Usually, once an arrangement is broken all the money is then due so you might find your offer of £50 refused. But do not make an offer that you know you will be unable to adhere to until it is paid off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good point Lookinforinfo, so a request for breakdown of fees would be in order, Excel are another nasty crew like Jacobs, but I would make sure the council are aware that their agent's fees seem not to add up under the new system, and that your car would cost more top take and sell than it is worth, so would increase not reduce the debt if Excel took it.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you would find that Jacobs or JBW would, in all probability.

 

In fact you are wrong on both. Instead of the initial "J"....look at "N"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact you are wrong on both. Instead of the initial "J"....look at "N"...

 

Thanks Perhaps the two I mentioned have changed a little unlike N :wink:


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello

 

I had a parking ticket from the council and more fees added so was £240 and

 

 

i agreed to pay £24 pw but missed 4th payment yesterday as changing job and forgot.

 

And now had notice of attendance £500 total bill owed pushed through letterbox.

 

Shall i ring and offer £50 pw , any advice appreciated

 

From reading your query again you appear to be saying that you were due to make the weekly agreed payment of £24 on 29th September and then received a Notice of Attendance the day after increasing the debt to £500.

 

When the agreement was made with you were you told that payment had to be made on a specific day of the week?

 

This seem harsh to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a full time student at univ and drive 56 miles round trip per day to attend.My car is on HP - reading about the new law that came in April does that meant my car cant be touched and where do I find info and print out on this law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...