Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Particulars of Claim (for Reference - not to be submitted with defence)   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 1.The Claim is for the sum of £2722 arising from the Defendant's breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no xxxxxxxxxxxx   2.The Defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3.The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX BARCLAYCARD) Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1.The sum of £2792 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 denied. Whilst I have had dealings with Barclaycard  in the past I cannot recall the specifics of the alleged agreement.   4. Paragraph 2 is denied .I have no knowledge of who the claimant is nor have I been provided with any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   5.Paragraph 3  is denied.I am not aware of service of a Default Notice by the original creditor or Legal Assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars of claim .   6. It is denied that any amounts are due under any agreement.   7. On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors by way of a CPR 31:14 request sent via 1st class recorded post on 19/11/2019.Further to the above I sent Hoist Finance UK Holdings 3 LTD a section 78 request via 1st class recorded post on 19/11/2019.  To date, neither Howard Cohen nor Hoist Portfolio are yet to furnish me with the requested information .   8.Therefore with the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to   a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; c) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to Sec 87 (1) CCA1974. d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   9. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   10. On the alternative, if 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 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974.6.   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. (Defence mainly taken straight from Micky the Hippo's similar defence)
    • On the MCOL site. I hadn't submitted the defence, but it was mostly filled in. I just left it on. I'll submit it by 15:00 today unless I hear otherwise. 
    • The letter from Drydens is asking me to respond to their letter:   "we will have no alternative but to apply to the Court to lift the stay on the proceedings in order to progress the legal action commenced against you."   Obviously I don't want to ignore it. 
    • 2. within 28 days from the date of service of this order, the claimant is to file and serve a copy of the agreement and guarantee referred to in the particulars of claim and reply to the defences field   The claimant has been ordered to send you a copy.
    • From your upload page 6......points 6 and 9  and 10.
  • Our picks

josephbloggs

Husband & wife found guilty of obstucting an enforcement agent

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1783 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

http://dukesdebtadvice.co.uk/2015/01/19/obstructing-an-enforcement-agent/

 

The offence of ‘obstructing a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent’ is now becoming recognised

and used by Police after the law was introduced last April as part of

the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (para 68 of Schedule 12).

 

In one of the first cases to be brought to court in England since the new regulations were passed,

2 people – a husband and wife from Cheshire – were found guilty.

 

 

The pair were convicted of intentionally obstructing an Enforcement Agent,

namely Mark Bytheway of Dukes Bailiffs when he visited their home on 10th June 2014 to recover unpaid Council Tax.

 

The husband and wife were also found guilty of Dangerous Driving and Criminal Damage

in an incident which saw the Enforcement Agent’s vehicle damaged, rammed by another car and the keys taken.


None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOes it go into any detail of the circumstances? Or are we just meant to believe a one sided view from the bailiff?

 

In any case there was NO reason for anyone to ram his car and take the keys. That is stupidity at the highest level.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's going to be a huge difference between this case, where they've rammed into the EAs car to a situation where someone quietly refuses an EA entry.

 

Let's remind ourselves - it is not an offence to refuse to allow an EA enter, nor is it an offence to ask them to leave. If they try to barge past you, they commit the offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the couple actually have a post on CAG about the actions of the bailiff i can remember reading something similar to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It it known what the obstruction was? I assume it was not for refusing entry unless the EA had a Court Order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds more like he was attempting to remove a car and it got out of hand. not a refused a peaceful entry so it must be obstructing an enforcement agent


:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must have been very serious given that they were ordered to complete 180 hours community service and pay fine and costs of £1,500.

 

The wife was also disqualified from driving for a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did the couple actually have a post on CAG about the actions of the bailiff i can remember reading something similar to this.

 

You might be thinking about this one where the debtor was jailed for 9 months. In this case the debtor chased the bailiff in his car.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?431366-Judge-jails-debtor-for-9-months-for-chasing-bailiff-in-his-car.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is by far the worst and seems to be as a result of dreadfully misleading information on the internet. The debtor posted on a forum only a few weeks offering to pay a fee of £500 (I believe) to anyone who may have information about the same bailiffs !!!

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433030-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiffs are known to view forums daily and I would like to make a critical post about 'clamping' of a vehicle.

 

Yesterday I spoke with 3 debtors whose vehicles had been clamped at their properties and in each case, the debtor only became aware that their vehicles had been immobilised when they left the property to go to work (or in the case of one debtor...when she left to take her daughter to school). In each case, a sticker had been left on the vehicle but the statutory Notice of Immobilisation was not left with the debtor. Accordingly, there was no way of knowing whether any of the vehicles had been left clamped for the minimum period of two hours.

 

Thankfully in two of the cases bailiffs removed the immobilisation devices and agreed payment arrangements.

 

The third case is one that I have posted about on the 'Can't Pay//we will take it away' thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the notices (on the window) not have times on them?

 

The beauty of mobile phones means that debtors can simply take a picture of the sticker and send a copy. In each case there was no time given on the stickers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I thought the stickers were notices themselves and the EA needed to list the time of impounding. Space to write the time and not filled in? Or no box on the paperwork to fill in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bailiffs are known to view forums daily and I would like to make a critical post about 'clamping' of a vehicle.

 

Yesterday I spoke with 3 debtors whose vehicles had been clamped at their properties and in each case, the debtor only became aware that their vehicles had been immobilised when they left the property to go to work (or in the case of one debtor...when she left to take her daughter to school). In each case, a sticker had been left on the vehicle but the statutory Notice of Immobilisation was not left with the debtor. Accordingly, there was no way of knowing whether any of the vehicles had been left clamped for the minimum period of two hours.

 

Thankfully in two of the cases bailiffs removed the immobilisation devices and agreed payment arrangements.

 

The third case is one that I have posted about on the 'Can't Pay//we will take it away' thread.

 

i would be interested in your opinion on a potential situation debtors could find themselves in based on this.

obviously aside from the "notice of immobilisation" there should be the "notice after entry or taking control of goods on a highway" form. as you said they weren't left on 3 peoples situations.

clearly it should be left but hasn't. what do you think the reason is for this?

at first i was thinking could it be because the EA doesn't know whether he will have to remove or not so doesn't want to have to redo the paperwork including the removal fee, BUT then i realised they could add it on to the removal form.

 

anyway, i was thinking what should an enforcement agency do when one of their anpr vans claps eyes on a car and clamps it but the car is registered 100's of miles away, how would they go on posting the statuatory forms then?


None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i would be interested in your opinion on a potential situation debtors could find themselves in based on this.

obviously aside from the "notice of immobilisation" there should be the "notice after entry or taking control of goods on a highway" form. as you said they weren't left on 3 peoples situations.

clearly it should be left but hasn't. what do you think the reason is for this?

at first i was thinking could it be because the EA doesn't know whether he will have to remove or not so doesn't want to have to redo the paperwork including the removal fee, BUT then i realised they could add it on to the removal form.

 

anyway, i was thinking what should an enforcement agency do when one of their anpr vans claps eyes on a car and clamps it but the car is registered 100's of miles away, how would they go on posting the statuatory forms then?

 

Hopefully tye ANPR vans will be weighed in at the scrapyard end of problem. perhaps they are being creative within the new regulations to maximise their infliction of terror on the debtor, to make them beg steal or borrow to pay them there and then before they remove a clamp.


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...