Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello All   Update   As per post #83, I had mentioned that for some unusual  reason, there had been two deadlines from the court for responding, namely the 18th of January 2021 and 1st of Feb 2021.   With everyones great help I filed in the response by the18th of Jan 2021. I think I was bit concerned that the claimant, Mike Ashley may use the second deadline as a chance to add a supplementary statement in response to my defence.    Well, Mike Ashely has in fact does exactly this. He has responded and filed a supplementary witness statement and has responded to all the defence points. He has addressed most the issues I had raised in my defence.     His Supplementary WS is dated 30 January 2021 and his solicitors emailed it to me on the 17th of February 2021.   Not sure what to do, but he seems to have amended everything which i could have used as a loophole leaving me with the thought of , should we have waited till the 2nd deadline ie 1ist Feb2021 and submitted the defence rather than the 18th January 2021. this would have deprived him of the chance to response with a supplementary WS. Thats what really had a worried me and I raised it a few times on this platform.     Not sure now because he has kind of amended a few things, removed the incorrect exhibit ( where the signages had belonged to a different site, and called it a clerical error).   Will post his redacted supplementary WS later as at work now.   Thanks all
    • An eye-opening new report from the payment processor Worldpay found so-called 'mobile wallet' payments were used for just under a third of all online transactions in 2020. View the full article
    • Adding to all the other difficulties (address for service, proving an agreement, obtaining enforcement even if you succeeded) that have been raised: Has the obligation to repay yet arisen?   You say the agreement was repayment once the divorce settlement occurred, but then point out settlement has yet to occur!.
    • The Chancellor should use next week's Budget to simplify the Isa system and scrap the trend of having one for 'almost every day of the week', savings industry experts have said. View the full article
    • Work from home is "an aberration" that will be corrected as soon as possible says Goldman Sachs chief. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2172 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 paid a fine with the court for £145, albeit a few days late. For a speeding fine. My partner has his car clamped by the HCEO for an outstanding amount of £310. How can it be so high?

 

He has to prove he is the owner for them to remove the clamp but say they will do so today.

 

The car isn't mine but has been clamped because of the fact I owe £310.

 

What can I do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

£75 + £235

 

Compliance stage and enforcement stage.... So youve paid the fine direct to the court.

Have you spoken to them? I would do so this morning. See if they will call off and remove the extra charges.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's bs anybody paying for a car does not make you the owner only the log book.

I purchaste my car of my brother inlaw i did not get a recipe the log book is now in my name as I am the owner get backon the phone and tell them.

PHOTOBUCKET TUTORIAL IS NOW DONE HERE IT IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted the court who told me they cannot clamp my partners car and that I can make an arrangement to pay with the bailiff company. The bailiff did come and remove the clamp but is still insisting I pay the money tomorrow. He said once its gone past 7 days I cannot make an arrangement to pay.

 

Tragic thing is, if he came in, there's nothing worth taking at all. A cheap £200 tv which is about 6 yrs old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I contacted the court who told me they cannot clamp my partners car and that I can make an arrangement to pay with the bailiff company. The bailiff did come and remove the clamp but is still insisting I pay the money tomorrow. He said once its gone past 7 days I cannot make an arrangement to pay.

 

Tragic thing is, if he came in, there's nothing worth taking at all. A cheap £200 tv which is about 6 yrs old.

 

Is it possible for you to provide a bit more background on the matter.

 

When the bailiff came into the house did he get you to sign something called a Controlled Goods Agreement? If so, when was this and can you please list down the items that appear on the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Its not quite clear from your first post. Did you pay the court after the debt was passed to the bailiff or before. What notices had you received before you paid ?

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 contacted the court who told me they cannot clamp my partners car and that I can make an arrangement to pay with the bailiff company. The bailiff did come and remove the clamp but is still insisting I pay the money tomorrow. He said once its gone past 7 days I cannot make an arrangement to pay.

 

Tragic thing is, if he came in, there's nothing worth taking at all. A cheap £200 tv which is about 6 yrs old.

 

 

 

 

 

The EA cannot take control of goods that belong to someone else other than the debtor see here

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12 the section you want to read up on is part 10

 

 

Goods which may be taken

 

9 An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are—

(a) on premises that he has power to enter under this Schedule, or

(b) on a highway.

 

10 An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The EA may only take control of goods of the debtor. And a car being park on or at the property is to be assumed as the debtors until proof can be shown to the contrary.

Not only that, but there us a good chance the vehicle clamped could be the one the warrant relates too.

At the end if the day, the EA will never be in trouble with the company, or with the court, for seizing goods if has the reasonable belief that they are goods of the debtor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and he behaved perfectly properly in that regard in this instance.

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

Just because a warrant exits for a particular owner it does not prove tne new owner was the oowner at the time of the alleged offence does it or even if the current owner has anythimg to do with the outstanding debt.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because a warrant exits for a particular owner it does not prove tne new owner was the oowner at the time of the alleged offence does it or even if the current owner has anythimg to do with the outstanding debt.

 

Wonder how many people who have owned a car for 6 months or more have come home to find it clamped for another previous owners debt? JBW were doing just that with ANPR until recently.

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
The EA may only take control of goods of the debtor. And a car being park on or at the property is to be assumed as the debtors until proof can be shown to the contrary.

Not only that, but there us a good chance the vehicle clamped could be the one the warrant relates too.

At the end if the day, the EA will never be in trouble with the company, or with the court, for seizing goods if has the reasonable belief that they are goods of the debtor.

 

 

 

Again this statement is saying the EA has the last word If the debtor has the V5 in the name of someone else then this is still not proof the car belongs to either party, a very gray area indeed

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Act makes it clear the EA can seize property if they have a reasonable belief it is the debtors. If they do so incorrectly, the correct owner can easily get their property back. Where there is real conflict over the ownership it would go to interpleader. I believe this is how it works in reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again this statement is saying the EA has the last word If the debtor has the V5 in the name of someone else then this is still not proof the car belongs to either party, a very gray area indeed

 

Not a grey area at all. A V5 is NOT proof of ownership and is purely a registered keeper.

Proof of ownership.is often supplied in the way of a signed and named receipt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Act makes it clear the EA can seize property if they have a reasonable belief it is the debtors. If they do so incorrectly, the correct owner can easily get their property back. Where there is real conflict over the ownership it would go to interpleader. I believe this is how it works in reality.

Exactly how it works. Where we feel enough evidence has been supplied, we will leave the asset be. Where we do not believe the debtor or have some doubts, then we will let the client decide. If the clients agrees with the 3rd party claim, the asset will be released. If the client refutes the validity of the 3rd party claim, the it would be foe a court to decide via interpleader.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because a warrant exits for a particular owner it does not prove tne new owner was the oowner at the time of the alleged offence does it or even if the current owner has anythimg to do with the outstanding debt.

 

No, but if the car is at the address of the debtor, then we can assume it is an asset if the debtor. Even more so if it is listed on the warrant as the offending vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but if the car is at the address of the debtor, then we can assume it is an asset if the debtor. Even more so if it is listed on the warrant as the offending vehicle.

What if a car is parked outside the debtor's and someone is sat in the car, a third party say taking a phone call or looking for an address for a customer call and the EA tries to take control of that vehicle and won't be told even on being given proof of ID showing a different address and proceeds to clamp it? .Would the third party be entitled to cut off the clamp, I know I would. Or would the EA be able to get them done for obstructing him, remember this is a third party with no connection to the debtor.

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

The EA cant. He must have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle belongs to the def. On the defs drive, identified by a neighbour, private plate, id hanging from the mirror etc.

Certainly parked on the highway like you describe is not enough to take, or attempt to take, control of assets.

 

Obviously there are rogues out there that might, but the numbers are slowly but surely being whittled down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What if a car is parked outside the debtor's and someone is sat in the car, a third party say taking a phone call or looking for an address for a customer call and the EA tries to take control of that vehicle and won't be told even on being given proof of ID showing a different address and proceeds to clamp it? .Would the third party be entitled to cut off the clamp, I know I would. Or would the EA be able to get them done for obstructing him, remember this is a third party with no connection to the debtor.

 

No, criminal damage is still criminal damage. You might have a civil claim for losses if you were clamped and the EA was proven to have acted not in accordance with the regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, criminal damage is still criminal damage. You might have a civil claim for losses if you were clamped and the EA was proven to have acted not in accordance with the regulations.

Don't think the EA acted incorrectly in OP's case, as if partner is living with as if married, then the assumption is reasonable, if partner is non resident and V5 etc is to different address and partner is not registered to vote at OP address then dodgy.

 

As to criminal damage in a wrongful clamping, I would willingly do time on the principle he committed Tort unlawful interference with goods. Need a good long holiday anyway. That is me but I wouldn't advise anyone to cut off 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 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...