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 1905 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 would just add that any offer at Compliance Stage must be considered against the goods of the debtor.

 

If the debtor has sufficient goods to more than cover the debt and enforcement fees if sold, the offer should be rejected and the matter enforced.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

I would just add that any offer at Compliance Stage must be considered against the goods of the debtor.

 

If the debtor has sufficient goods to more than cover the debt and enforcement fees if sold, the offer should be rejected and the matter enforced.

 

Would you threaten a businesses goods while they were trading with customers present, when the warrant was for a liability owed by a private person, who was just an employee of the business ? The EA was shown evidence of the company ownership/who owned the goods and they were aware that the warrant related to an unpaid parking ticket of a private person.

 

Does not sound correct to me.

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 would just add that any offer at Compliance Stage must be considered against the goods of the debtor.

 

If the debtor has sufficient goods to more than cover the debt and enforcement fees if sold, the offer should be rejected and the matter enforced.

 

So accepted practice would be if, say I owed £650 for CTax and I have £650 worth of goods you could seize in my house, but did not have £650 I could immediately get my hands on, rather than accept three monthly payments to clear the debt, you'd reject this and look to enforce in other ways? This despite me offering a reasonable repayment option.

 

This is totally wrong surely. It goes against the whole spirit of the TCGA doesn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We enforce judgments through the High Court, not parking fines, council tax etc. The work is different and therefore a different approach is needed.

 

My comment was in relation to the lengthy discussions on repayment not the original post in this thread.

 

The key point is it always comes down to assets. The High Court writ itself commands the HCEO to seize the goods of the debtor and raise thereform the sums owed to the creditor. If a reasonable repayment plan is offered and the EA is satisfied that the goods will not disappear then a short repayment plan may be accepted, with the creditors agreement. However, some creditors refuse repayment plans entirely, it is not always down to the EA.

 

Each case is dealt with on its merits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would just add that any offer at Compliance Stage must be considered against the goods of the debtor.

 

If the debtor has sufficient goods to more than cover the debt and enforcement fees if sold, the offer should be rejected and the matter enforced.

 

How would the EA know what the debtor had at compliance ?

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

Yes it is an interesting question, here is another.

What would be the point of a compliance stage which gives the debtor chance to make an offer of payment and avoid the enforcement visit if this can only be considered when the value of goods has been assertained.

 

Also one might ask,what is the purpose of a two stage enforcement procedure ?

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

The TCGA doesn't seem to look right with High Court then DB, as EA/HCEO will want to make an Enforcement visit to assess the goods in the debtors Private Residence for that water bill, but has no automatic right of entry, rather than look at an I&E and an offer based on it, they will hope there is a car they can grab when they call.

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

I think it is a question of altering long held practices.

 

As said,"The High Court writ itself commands the HCEO to seize the goods of the debtor and raise thereform the sums owed to the creditor"

 

However section 62 of the TCE says:

(2)The power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money, and any power conferred by a writ or warrant of possession or delivery to take control of goods and sell them to recover a sum of money, is exerciser only by using that procedure.

 

The days of turning up out of the blue and saying I have a writ give us your money or we will take our goods has ended, now the writ must be enforce using the procedure.

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

Looks like some HCEO EAs will have to modify their methods possibly DB then to ensure compliance with TCGA

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

I must echo Ba's sentiments though. We are very fortunate to have the input of HCEOs and EAs on here, it is pointless going on about the regulations if we do not know what is happening in the real world.

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 must echo Ba's sentiments though. We are very fortunate to have the input of HCEOs and EAs on here, it is pointless going on about the regulations if we do not know what is happening in the real world.

Absolutely agree, they do indicate what is the reality from an EA perspective.

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
  • 2 weeks later...

Update:

 

I have received a letter from the Defendant's solicitor raising two issues:

 

1. The documents now served are therefore prima facie out of time. (They say they received the documents 5 days after the intended date of delivery?)

 

They are asking me for a reason why the documents got delayed.

 

2. In addition the Particulars of Claim served do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16 as they have not been verified by a Statement of Truth.

 

They have however attached a copy of their N9 response pack with box 1 (I intend to defend all of this claim).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you will have now and probably no way out. They will use every trick in the book to defend and they will use solicitors specifically who deal with bailiff law. I can see this getting verybdrawn out, and possibly, very very expensive. Last one of these I saw, costs were awarded as although it was a smalls claims issue, the claim was done that way to avoid the proper court procedure and costs were awarded. I think in the region of about £4000.

 

Maybe you will win, but I doubt it. The correct processes, even as a third party, would have been an eac2 complaint. If upheld, then sue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is a question of altering long held practices.

 

As said,"The High Court writ itself commands the HCEO to seize the goods of the debtor and raise thereform the sums owed to the creditor"

 

However section 62 of the TCE says:

(2)The power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money, and any power conferred by a writ or warrant of possession or delivery to take control of goods and sell them to recover a sum of money, is exerciser only by using that procedure.

 

The days of turning up out of the blue and saying I have a writ give us your money or we will take our goods has ended, now the writ must be enforce using the procedure.

 

Essentialy, this confuses LA work with civil claimants. A civil claimant does not have to accept an arrangement and can specifically tell the EA upon asking them to carry out the writ that no arrangements are to be made. The only acceptable arrangement is to repay the entire debt before the expiry of the noe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

got thugged, your thread became a debate about the legislation, without you being given totally clear advice.

 

What is clear is that the Enforcement companies are interpreting the new legislation in different ways.

 

Not sure where you are with your issue and what steps to take. The bailiff advice site you linked to (DWB) is not recognised by CAG. It contains interesting advice, but should be treated with extreme caution. Some of it, is very similar to FMOTL.

 

What actions have you taken ?

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
Essentialy, this confuses LA work with civil claimants. A civil claimant does not have to accept an arrangement and can specifically tell the EA upon asking them to carry out the writ that no arrangements are to be made. The only acceptable arrangement is to repay the entire debt before the expiry of the noe.

 

I dont think so, LA's are civil claimants, and what ever way you cut it the HCEO and the bailiff enforcing an LA liability order, have to use the same procedure.

 

If the creditor will only accept a full payment then goods can be taken under control and time given to raise the sum required there is no difference.

 

If the debtor refuses to pay, goods can be taken under control and stored elsewhere, but this does not trigger any sale fee. Because the bailiff did not attend with the intention of taking goods for sale.

 

Goods can be taken from the debtor and secured elsewhere. They can then be taken from there for sale, this then triggers the sale fee.

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
Is any of the advice given on this website correct at all?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Bailiffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers/pcnlegal.html

 

It deals with all regulations applicable and is not some fotl thing.

 

 

Very little and no it doesn't not by a long way

 

OOps just noticed the link has been changed, I am sure everyone knows what i mean, I am not of course referring to CAG

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...