Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1904 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

HI Grumpy, firstly I resemble your remark regarding accountants.

 

I have a question though. According to the TCE the removal for sale fee can only be added to the amount outstanding if the visit was made to remove for sale, since the visit was the enforcement stage (first visit)then the only fee that could be charged would be the enforcement stage fee.(not the £110)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/5/made

 

©the sale or disposal stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the property for the purpose of transporting goods to the place of sale, or from commencing preparation for sale if the sale is to be held on the premises, until the completion of the sale or disposal (including application of the proceeds and provision of the information required by regulation 14).

 

Both stages can be charged on the same attendance. We just move from enforcement to removal.

 

And all three stages can be charged on the same attendance on high court writs on the first attendance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank you to everybody who has replied so far.

 

However, I am not yet clear whether the bailiff's lifting Limited Co's goods were correct or not? I had a couple of documents on the table addressed to the Limited Co which I showed even to the police but they were adamant and even suggested that if I stop "officers of the court" they will arrest us!

 

I can't see of any possible reason where I could've stopped them other than to pay whatever they asked for!

 

So if my Ltd co's claim is valid, what should we put in the particular's of claim?

 

Many Thanks

 

That is where it is tricky. They did not take any goods from the limited company. Money was taken from the till and given to them under duress. You need someone more legally knowlegeable in these matters to look at your case and tell you what you can do.

 

I believe it is wrong what they have done, but I am not confident of the court claim you could make against them. It would have almost been better to have had them take goods from the limited company and then the limited company could have made a third party claim for them back.

 

A judge may not have any sympathy for your case and people have come a cropper having to pay the enforcement companies legal costs.

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
That is where it is tricky. They did not take any goods from the limited company. Money was taken from the till and given to them under duress. You need someone more legally knowlegeable in these matters to look at your case and tell you what you can do.

 

I believe it is wrong what they have done, but I am not confident of the court claim you could make against them. It would have almost been better to have had them take goods from the limited company and then the limited company could have made a third party claim for them back.

 

A judge may not have any sympathy for your case and people have come a cropper having to pay the enforcement companies legal costs.

 

I would say the first stage would be a formal 3rd party claim to the EA on the monies taken.

 

If that is refused, then it goes to interpleader.

 

If the OP decides to take direct court action through the county court, i can see it being thrown out as there is a specific process for 3rd paty claim which is handled through the county court and trying to side step that may antagonize the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say the first stage would be a formal 3rd party claim to the EA on the monies taken.

 

If that is refused, then it goes to interpleader.

 

If the OP decides to take direct court action through the county court, i can see it being thrown out as there is a specific process for 3rd paty claim which is handled through the county court and trying to side step that may antagonize the court.

 

Please could you tell me how to go about doing " a formal third party claim"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the reply - it's always interesting to see the replies from those at the chalk face. You misunderstood my comment I think. I did not state debtors should be given a chance, my concern was that any fees incurred should be kept to a minimum, so getting a CGA would be cheaper for the debtor than charging an additional £110 for removal (pending your answer to Dodgeball above).

 

Surely most businesses are able to produce receipts and invoices for the goods? If they can't, heaven help them when they do their tax return.

 

I'm simply not in a position to know whether your comment about many businesses disappearing overnnight is true, but I would doubt many would do it over an £82 bill.

 

Yes, cheaper all round until those goods go missing. Which they often do.

 

Everyday we see businesses that are open to the public and one that are not that dont even have public and employee liability insurances on display. All invoices and all documents are often held by accountants etc and can be difficult to get hold of at short notice.

 

We see A LOT where the businesses have just up and gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both stages can be charged on the same attendance. We just move from enforcement to removal.

 

And all three stages can be charged on the same attendance on high court writs on the first attendance.

 

Not the opinion of John kruse Grumpy and the act does seem to support the interpretation that the fees for removal can only be charged on attendance to remove, not the enforcement stage.

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
Not the opinion of John kruse Grumpy and the act does seem to support the interpretation that the fees for removal can only be charged on attendance to remove, not the enforcement stage.

 

Yes, but the attendance to remove ends when no payment has been forthcoming and the only way to proceed is to remove. It then moves from the enforcement stage to the removal and sale of controlled goods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
URL Removed to get past the spam filter

 

Thank you for the link. I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear, they have already taken the cash and not the goods! They were taking the goods away but in order to avoid business disruption and to save embarrassment in public, we had to give them cash from the till. Again cash which belonged to the Ltd Co

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but the attendance to remove ends when no payment has been forthcoming and the only way to proceed is to remove. It then moves from the enforcement stage to the removal and sale of controlled goods.

 

I see your point, but this is not the interpretation I have read on Johns bulletins, he says that this is being widely abused by many EAs.

 

He says and I can see his point, that the point of the £235 fee is to ensure that a control goods arrangement is made prior to removal for sale, and the wording of the act removes the ability for the ea to charge the final fee in order to encourage this.

 

If I were the op I would not challenge the enforcement but I would challenge the sale fee as personally i do not think it was due.

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 could somebody tell me on what to put in particulars or claim? It's last day tomorrow.

 

This is a small court claim for the money that was handed from the limited company to the enforcement agent, due to the threat of limited companies goods being taken, when it was a liability owed by a private person ?

 

I think this will be difficult to argue. Who took the money from the till and what is their role in this limited company ? Were they the same person who owed the money to the enforcement agents ? If they were a director of the limited company or had permission to take money from the till, they were taking the money themselves from the business to settle the amount owing.

 

I am not sure what argument you can make about goods being taken or the threat of. This would be the crux of your case. You really need to state the law that applies to the situation. According to the EA who posts here, I think they have said the EA did not do anything wrong.

 

In this situation you might decide not to continue with the claim, as it may not be worth the hassle. Even if you got the money back, the person who owed it, would be pursued again. Perhaps there is another way of making a complaint and disputing what the EA has charged.

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

I agree with the above, I am unsure what it is you are claiming for, it is the EAs job to recover the money and this they did, I am afraid that this is the way any court would look at this.

 

As said I would dispute the £110 fee though.

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 agree with the above, I am unsure what it is you are claiming for, it is the EAs job to recover the money and this they did, I am afraid that this is the way any court would look at this.

 

As said I would dispute the £110 fee though.

 

If you register a private car to a business address, you are risking an EA company coming to the business looking to take control of goods there, if they cannot gain payment. The EA won't know how the company was set up and won't take the word of the person trying to avoid payment. My understanding is that EA's can enter into business premises in a way that they could not do so with a persons private home.

 

I don't particularly like the way EA's act in these circumstances, but cannot see a way of claiming the money back by legal argument, when the money was handed over.

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

Yes the fine was due I take it, the enforcment letter received so that fee was due they attended to enforce so that fee was due, really everything else is irrelevant, as harsh as it may sound.

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

Has the OP actually answered the question about it being a private car being registered to the company address? Apologies if I missed it.

 

Also, if it was registered to the business address, was there a good reason for it? Sadly, while I still think a CGA ought to have been sought, and the practice of going straight to removal is highly questionable, when private goods get 'mixed up' with company assets then things will get confused.

 

"The purpose of taking control is to provoke payment through the threat of goods' sale and removal rather than those steps actually being taken. " (John Kruse 'Taking Control of Goods')

 

The above quotation would seem to reinforce what I have said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Has the OP actually answered the question about it being a private car being registered to the company address? Apologies if I missed it.

 

Also, if it was registered to the business address, was there a good reason for it? Sadly, while I still think a CGA ought to have been sought, and the practice of going straight to removal is highly questionable, when private goods get 'mixed up' with company assets then things will get confused.

 

 

 

The above quotation would seem to reinforce what I have said.

 

I address went wrong on the V5, it should've been registered to the property above it, so 99a and not 99. This is where it got messed up.

 

So, am I right in saying that the money that we had to hand over to bailiffs to get our goods back is acceptable?

 

Also, I am not sure whether I should be pursuing this any further? I could be seen in the video holding invoices which clearly reflect the company name!

 

Yes it is indeed a private car, paid for by private individual. I am not sure how I can prove that we had no choice but to let them pick up goods as they wanted.

 

The TEC warrant of control is issued to the council for a sum of £82 which was already paid to the council?

 

Can I disagree to the bailiff fee or could they charge whatever they wanted to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I address went wrong on the V5, it should've been registered to the property above it, so 99a and not 99. This is where it got messed up.

 

So, am I right in saying that the money that we had to hand over to bailiffs to get our goods back is acceptable?

 

Also, I am not sure whether I should be pursuing this any further? I could be seen in the video holding invoices which clearly reflect the company name!

 

Yes it is indeed a private car, paid for by private individual. I am not sure how I can prove that we had no choice but to let them pick up goods as they wanted.

 

The TEC warrant of control is issued to the council for a sum of £82 which was already paid to the council?

 

Can I disagree to the bailiff fee or could they charge whatever they wanted to?

 

You could phone National Debtline tomorrow about what happened and see what they say. I don't think they have acted correctly, but as the car was registered to the business address, I can see why they threatened business goods to obtain the money due. I just think that it might be difficult to get a court to order the EA to give the money back.

 

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/information/bailiff-action/Pages/default.aspx

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

EAC2 complaint. If you feel that the EA acted incorrectly, then file the complaint and if the court upholds it, then you have grounds to sue, although his bond would pay out anyway so you wouldnt need to. Just have to be VERY mindful of the costs that may be awarded should your complaint fail as they MAY be able to counter sue for costs.

 

Cant see a money claim working if you have circumvented the normal comlaints procedure.

 

And i would say they did act correctly, as although you as a director were putting forward a third party claim by offering invoices, the EA can remove the goods and put them in secure storage if they want to and then wait for the clients to admit or dispute the claim. Its NOT for the bailiff to admit or dispute the claim. They attended the WARRANT address and met with the DEBTOR who, to avoid removal of assets that may or may not have been his, paid.

 

Although there are questions about adding the removal fees on the first visit, this is an industry standard where there are goods to satisfy the debt and payment is not forthcoming, then the case will be escalated to removal stage.

 

Im afriad this IS how it works and to question it, you are going to have to take it to an EAC2 hearing for a judge to determine whether the EA was right or wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I address went wrong on the V5, it should've been registered to the property above it, so 99a and not 99. This is where it got messed up.

 

So, am I right in saying that the money that we had to hand over to bailiffs to get our goods back is acceptable?

 

Also, I am not sure whether I should be pursuing this any further? I could be seen in the video holding invoices which clearly reflect the company name!

 

Yes it is indeed a private car, paid for by private individual. I am not sure how I can prove that we had no choice but to let them pick up goods as they wanted.

 

The TEC warrant of control is issued to the council for a sum of £82 which was already paid to the council?

 

Can I disagree to the bailiff fee or could they charge whatever they wanted to?

 

This debt relates to an unpaid parking charge notice. Therefore on the warrant of control will be the vehicle registration mark of the car that was involved on the initial contravention. Do you still have this car and was it at the premises on the day that Andrew James visited?

 

It is most regrettable that the car was wrongly registered at DVLA and that your OoT was rejected.

 

I am not at all comfortable with the charging of £110 (not just in this case but in many others as well) and I do know that the Ministry of Justice are keeping an eye on these charges so as to ensure that we do not return to the old days when bailiffs routinely charged an 'aborted removal fee'.

 

What does need to be taken into consideration however (and this is by far your best solution) is that if the bailiff now charges such as fee (£110) it can ONLY be on the basis that THEY themselves have been charged such a fee. In other words......if challenged (and that is what you are doing) they have to be able to provide EVIDENCE that they have incurred this charge. This should take the form of an invoice etc from a third party provider with the date when they were called to your premises.

 

Could you post back regarding the vehicle that was involved in the contravention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This debt relates to an unpaid parking charge notice. Therefore on the warrant of control will be the vehicle registration mark of the car that was involved on the initial contravention. Do you still have this car and was it at the premises on the day that Andrew James visited?

 

It is most regrettable that the car was wrongly registered at TEC and that your OoT was rejected.

 

I am not at all comfortable with the charging of £110 (not just in this case but in many others as well) and I do know that the Ministry of Justice are keeping an eye on these charges so as to ensure that we do not return to the old days when bailiffs routinely charged an 'aborted removal fee'.

 

What does need to be taken into consideration however (and this is by far your best solution) is that if the bailiff now charges such as fee (£110) it can ONLY be on the basis that THEY themselves have been charged such a fee. In other words......if challenged (and that is what you are doing) they have to be able to provide EVIDENCE that they have incurred this charge. This should take the form of an invoice etc from a third party provider with the date when they were called to your premises.

 

Could you post back regarding the vehicle that was involved in the contravention.

 

BA, I disagree. The £110 or sale stage fee can be charged as soon as the removal process starts. Whether thats waiting for a tow truck, an auctioneer or removal company OR the EA starting to list items to put into his own vehicle to be taken to auction. No requirement to provide proof of being billed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say the first stage would be a formal 3rd party claim to the EA on the monies taken.

 

If that is refused, then it goes to interpleader.

 

If the OP decides to take direct court action through the county court, i can see it being thrown out as there is a specific process for 3rd party claims which is handled through the county court and trying to side step that may antagonize the court.

 

I would not wish to have this thread go 'off topic' by discussing the Formal Third Party Claims and Interpleaders (which are thankfully as rare as hens teeth) but the subject of the procedure that should be taken if the debtor has a dispute about goods that may have been taken by the bailiff is clearly one that is deserving of another thread which I would be willing to start in a day or so.

 

This is a subject that I am very passionate about indeed.

 

When the Taking Control of Goods 2013 regulations were introduced in mid 2013 the entire industry (advice sector and enforcement sector) were shocked to see reference to an Interpleader. Following those regs I wrote various media articles and made representation to many government agencies including the Civil Procedure Rule Committee insisting that the regulations should have consisted of a 'preliminary' stage (now commonly referred to as a 'Formal Third Party' claim. I was delighted (and very proud) to hear that my suggestion had been taken on board. It was not possible by this time to amend the legislation and instead the change was introduced under section 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

A copy of my article on this subject is outlined in post 6 and my proposal in post 5 of the following thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?418396-Third-Party-Goods-Interpleaders-and-the-serious-potential-to-damage-the-new-Bailiff-Reforms-on-6th-April

Link to post
Share on other sites
This debt relates to an unpaid parking charge notice. Therefore on the warrant of control will be the vehicle registration mark of the car that was involved on the initial contravention. Do you still have this car and was it at the premises on the day that Andrew James visited?

 

It is most regrettable that the car was wrongly registered at TEC and that your OoT was rejected.

 

I am not at all comfortable with the charging of £110 (not just in this case but in many others as well) and I do know that the Ministry of Justice are keeping an eye on these charges so as to ensure that we do not return to the old days when bailiffs routinely charged an 'aborted removal fee'.

 

What does need to be taken into consideration however (and this is by far your best solution) is that if the bailiff now charges such as fee (£110) it can ONLY be on the basis that THEY themselves have been charged such a fee. In other words......if challenged (and that is what you are doing) they have to be able to provide EVIDENCE that they have incurred this charge. This should take the form of an invoice etc from a third party provider with the date when they were called to your premises.

 

Could you post back regarding the vehicle that was involved in the contravention.

 

Hi

 

The car in question is on HP and it was not on the premises, since the premises doesn't have any parking with it.

 

Edit 1 : Yes still own the car and I am not the director this company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

The car in question is on HP and it was not on the premises, since the premises doesn't have any parking with it.

 

Edit 1 : Yes still own the car and I am not the director this company.

 

Perhaps the way forward is to do the EAC2 complaint against the EA that attended. You are not a director the company premises they visited, the EA threatened to take your employers goods and under duress money was taken out of the businesses till to pay the EA. You gave the EA proof that it was a limted company they were attending and the warrant was not for a director of that company. Therefore it was wrong to threaten that companies goods while they were trading, with customers present.

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

 

Edit 1 : Yes still own the car and I am not the director this company.

 

On what grounds were you able to justify handing over money from the till of the Ltd company if it is not yours? Surely the company would not be very happy about this - in fact I would have thought it would leave you on very dubious ground.

 

I understand the pressure EA's put on you to pay, and if they believe the stock is yours and start removing you're caught between a rock and a hard place. Andrew James are also (or certainly were a few years ago) a most appalling bailiff company with which to deal. With me, the lies and downright dishonest methods they used to collect their client's money were dreadful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...