Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

jacobs and council tax- urgent **Taken back by Council**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3489 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 daughter received a notice of enforcement yesterday dated 6 October wanting £280 by next Wednesday. This relates to an old liability order and she had entered into a payment arrangement with the council whereby the original amount owed was added on to this years bill and weekly payments were to be made.

 

This problem arose when the bank cancelled the DD in error and 2 payments have been missed.

 

She rang the council to explain the situation and to request they take the debt back. She said she would pay the 2 arrears with next weeks payment on Monday via the post office (approx £45). She also reminded them that she was a single parent on a zero hour contract and couldn't pay what she didn't have.

 

The council employee told her she would "try and get the debt back" and went to call Jacobs. After the call she said that they wanted £100 and the council couldn't make them change their mind.

 

I advised that she should ring the council back and remind them that they were in charge of Jacobs and not the other way around.

 

She followed my advice but got nowhere. She spoke to someone else who stated that Jacobs dealt with all arrears anyway (presumably without liability orders also) so it was up to them how much they could ask for.

 

My daughter said she would not pay £100 because she didn't have it, but would bring the payment plan up to date and would pay the council direct.

 

Later today I intend to email the council on her behalf with details of the conversations so she has a paper trail. However, I'm concerned that they're just trying to obtain more fees and will slap the next stage fees on because she won't give in to their demands.

 

Any advice on this would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has she tried contacting her local Councillor(s)? Best initial contact is by phone. According to my calculations the Notice of Enforcement is defective anyway as I make the day it has to take effect from to be Saturday 18 October. When does the LO date from & have Bailiffs visited previously?

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter received a notice of enforcement yesterday dated 6 October wanting £280 by next Wednesday. This relates to an old liability order and she had entered into a payment arrangement with the council whereby the original amount owed was added on to this years bill and weekly payments were to be made.

 

This problem arose when the bank cancelled the DD in error and 2 payments have been missed.

 

She rang the council to explain the situation and to request they take the debt back. She said she would pay the 2 arrears with next weeks payment on Monday via the post office (approx £45). She also reminded them that she was a single parent on a zero hour contract and couldn't pay what she didn't have.

 

The council employee told her she would "try and get the debt back" and went to call Jacobs. After the call she said that they wanted £100 and the council couldn't make them change their mind.

 

I advised that she should ring the council back and remind them that they were in charge of Jacobs and not the other way around.

 

She followed my advice but got nowhere. She spoke to someone else who stated that Jacobs dealt with all arrears anyway (presumably without liability orders also) so it was up to them how much they could ask for.

 

My daughter said she would not pay £100 because she didn't have it, but would bring the payment plan up to date and would pay the council direct.

 

Later today I intend to email the council on her behalf with details of the conversations so she has a paper trail. However, I'm concerned that they're just trying to obtain more fees and will slap the next stage fees on because she won't give in to their demands.

 

Any advice on this would be appreciated

 

Can you confirm the date of the Notice of Enforcement and the date by which payment must be made.

 

The problem that your daughter will have is that whilst a payment arrangement may indeed be made during the period outlined in the Notice of Enforcement there is actually no legal obligation that the proposal must be accepted and in fact....in most cases they will be guided by the terms outlined in their contracts with the local authorities. Having seen many contracts myself I am surprised to see so many councils insisting that a payment arrangement should not exceed 3 months.

 

What your daughter needs to do as quickly as possible (and certainly before the date outlined in the Notice of Enforcement) is to write to Jacobs (by email) to outline her circumstances and to make a sensible affordable payment proposal.

 

At this present time, the only bailiff fees that have been charged are £75. She needs to avoid a personal visit (and the debt increasing by another £235) and this is why she needs to address the matter right now by making a payment proposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an old LO she agreed a payment plan directly with the council, not sure of the date but I think Jan 2014. Jacobs has not visited at all on this one, first contact as stated above. She has 2 other LO, one being paid via Jacobs and the other via attachment order through her zero hour salary. I previously checked all 3 and they are owed. I thought I'd sorted them all out for her but this one is a bank error.

 

I know that the council has to chase payment but they seem to ignore the guidelines (National Standards 2014 and Guidance on Enforcement of Council Tax Arrears).

 

 

 

 

Has she tried contacting her local Councillor(s)? Best initial contact is by phone. According to my calculations the Notice of Enforcement is defective anyway as I make the day it has to take effect from to be Saturday 18 October. When does the LO date from & have Bailiffs visited previously?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice of Enforcement 6 Oct, received 9th and they want paying either 15th or 16th, I haven't got the letter in front of me but will ask my daughter for it.

 

Now I understand what your saying but her overdraft is up to its limit, has 2 other LOs, rent arrears and various other debts. She has stopped paying all other non priority debts but literally can only pay the arrears and get back on track. The council have been told about her circumstances and spoken to Jacobs who will not accept less than £100.

 

I can see them just slapping on the next fee, but it won't make any difference as she can't pay what she hasnt got.

 

Can you confirm the date of the Notice of Enforcement and the date by which payment must be made.

 

The problem that your daughter will have is that whilst a payment arrangement may indeed be made during the period outlined in the Notice of Enforcement there is actually no legal obligation that the proposal must be accepted and in fact....in most cases they will be guided by the terms outlined in their contracts with the local authorities. Having seen many contracts myself I am surprised to see so many councils insisting that a payment arrangement should not exceed 3 months.

 

What your daughter needs to do as quickly as possible (and certainly before the date outlined in the Notice of Enforcement) is to write to Jacobs (by email) to outline her circumstances and to make a sensible affordable payment proposal.

 

At this present time, the only bailiff fees that have been charged are £75. She needs to avoid a personal visit (and the debt increasing by another £235) and this is why she needs to address the matter right now by making a payment proposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know that the council has to chase payment but they seem to ignore the guidelines (National Standards 2014 and Guidance on Enforcement of Council Tax Arrears).

 

Regular posters on here will know that I have posted very often about the National Standards and the fact remains that the NSEA 2014 is guidance only and cannot replace legislation.

 

New bailiff regulations were implemented on 6th April this year and very specifically provide that an enforcement agent MUST send a Notice of Enforcement and that a Compliance fee of £75 is applicable.

 

If Jacobs already have one account for your daughter then I would assume that she has already outlined her income and expenditure to the company and accordingly, they should already be aware of her inability to pay unreasonable amounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to know the exact date on the Notice of Enforcement and the precise date (and time) by which payment must be made as it is my understanding that all enforcement companies have agreed a period of 14 days on their letters. I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if Jacobs used a different number of days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She's not asking them to drop the £75 as iv explained to her the new legislative requirements since April 2014.

 

I know guidelines don't have to be followed but would it be worth quoting them anyway whilst pointing out they already know about her personal circumstances? The only way she can pay £100 by Monday is by trying to take out a pay day loan which I will advise her against.

 

If she pays the arrears and they proceed with the next £235 stage, arent they just doing it to gain commission unfairly. She won't let them in anyway and in any case she doesn't have anything of value (no car either). Plus if they make threats of further court section with the possibility of prison, won't they look silly if she's making payments based upon her ability to pay?

 

 

 

Regular posters on here will know that I have posted very often about the National Standards and the fact remains that the NSEA 2014 is guidance only and cannot replace legislation.

 

New bailiff regulations were implemented on 6th April this year and very specifically provide that an enforcement agent MUST send a Notice of Enforcement and that a Compliance fee of £75 is applicable.

 

If Jacobs already have one account for your daughter then I would assume that she has already outlined her income and expenditure to the company and accordingly, they should already be aware of her inability to pay unreasonable amounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter told me I was dated 6 October, received 9 October and payable 15 or 16 October. Will have exact date later when my daughter calls around, but she did say they want paying next week.

 

Do you have anything definite re the 14 day period for me to quote?

 

It is important to know the exact date on the Notice of Enforcement and the precise date (and time) by which payment must be made as it is my understanding that all enforcement companies have agreed a period of 14 days on their letters. I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if Jacobs used a different number of days.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very confused as to why the council are insisting on £100 by Monday when she has until the 16th to outline a payment proposal !!!

 

How much is your daughter currently paying to Jacobs under the other Liability Order?

 

Also, how much is being deducted from her salary?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other LO £20 per month.

 

The attachment of earnings amount varies depending on how much she earns as its a zero hour contract and my understanding is that they can only take a certain percentage. She has to work 16 hours PW on average to claim WTC which she does by the skin of her teeth. So sometimes its as low as 4 hours or no hours and then she's begging for hours to get her average up. Not ideal.

 

As to the N of E she's just phoned and confirmed dated the 6th Oct, payable Wednesday 15 Oct 6pm.

 

I am very confused as to why the council are insisting on £100 by Monday when she has until the 16th to outline a payment proposal !!!

 

How much is your daughter currently paying to Jacobs under the other Liability Order?

 

Also, how much is being deducted from her salary?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK spoken to my daughter again and the council verbally advised that Jacobs has stated that they will only hand the debt back if she pays them £100 by Monday (by that I mean pay Jacobs). Nice bit of blackmail.

 

I intend to talk to the council today before they close to discuss the situation and what they've said during the 2 phone calls. Any words of wisdom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorted.

 

Council took account back after I spoke to them, discussed the guidelines and pointed out that she was already paying 2 other LOs. Apparently they didn't know about the other LOs and she should have reminded them of this, although same council! I did mention that shes a single person on a zero hour contract and that I had previously written to them and informed them of this.

 

Anyway this LO added on to this years CT and paying weekly. She won't have paid it all when the next bill starts but they will carry what's left over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...