Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3263 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

hi all im new here and looking for a bit of advice with bristow and sutor bailiffs.

 

the story so far is

 

a few years ago i got into some trouble with council tax and got chased by the bailiffs for it.

I ended up getting threatened so much by them on the door and on the phone that i asked my mum to help me pay off the bailiffs

and i would give her the money monthly, which she was kind enough to do.

 

Im now in trouble again as i was made redundant last year and had my third child all in a matter of a few weeks

so my head was all over the place as you can imagine,

i had to wait ages for my redundancy to come though and by the time it did the council had already sent the debt to the bailiffs.

 

I have had a few visits off of them but each time i have just plainly told them they are not coming in,

 

i have rang the council who has put a hold on bailiff action untill this friday 21/09/12

telling me i must come to an arrangement with the bailiff by then or action will continue.

 

My problem with this is i feel my househol d falls into the vulnerable category

as my daughter who is one suffers from acute asthma and reflex anoxic seizures

and is a very poorly girl most of the time.

 

The council are aware of this as i have told them of the acute asthma but she has only just been diagnosed with the seizures,

I was hoping to get the council to take the debt back and arrange something with them

as the bailffs want way more than i can afford as im unable to work because of my daughters conditions

and the amount of meds she needs on a daily basis.

 

Should i ring the bailiffs or not ?

 

i was going to record the conversation to show the council the type of people they have working for them

as every time in the past i have phoned they have threatened me and told me to pay the full amount or nearly 500 a month .

 

any advice is very much appreciated.

thank you for you time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi KW

 

welcome to CAG..

 

your household is clearly vunerable.

 

it should NOT be with the bailiffs.

neither should anything be added to the debt.

do not speak to the bailiff at all.

 

write a formal complaint to the council CEO and your MP..

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx thank you for replying,

 

how would i go about making a complaint to my local mp ? and would this really make a difference as

 

 

everytime i have spoken to the council they make it sound like its not their problem any more

and i should just deal with the bailiff which is really stressing me out and my heart drops everytime the door knocks even though i know their on hold at present.

 

 

Im not sure how well the enforcement regulations are adhered to so im not certain the vulnerability situation will work.

 

 

any help much appreciated.

x kw

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there, in accordance with the National Standards for Enforcement Agents the bailiffs would need to treat the situation with a greater degree of sensitivity. In relation to vulnerable situations the guidance states the following:

 

Vulnerable situations

Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with. The appropriate use of discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance could cover every situation, therefore the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern. If necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.

Enforcement agents must withdraw from domestic premises if the only person present is, or appears to be, under the age of 18; they can ask when the debtor will be home - if appropriate.

Enforcement agents must withdraw without making enquiries if the only persons present are children who appear to be under the age of 12.

Wherever possible, enforcement agents should have arrangements in place for rapidly accessing translation services when these are needed, and provide on request information in large print or in Braille for debtors with impaired sight.

Those who might be potentially vulnerable include:

the elderly;

people with a disability;

the seriously ill;

the recently bereaved;

single parent families;

pregnant women;

unemployed people; and,

those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.

 

You should certainly write to the local authority to see if they will take the debt back, if they refuse to do so then the best way to communicate with the bailiff would ALWAYS be in writing. It's vital that you never let the bailiff in to the property and keep doors and windows locked and secure. If you have any assets which are kept outside - such as a car - you should ensure that these are well hidden a good few minutes walk away.

 

The bailiffs can legitimately add their visit fees of £42.50 (this covers two visits) to the debt. It's important to note that if a reasonable arrangement cannot be made with the bailiff, and so long as they cannot gain entry, the debt should eventually be passed back to the council; so often it could be a waiting game. From the information provided it doesn't seem like there would be grounds for a formal complaint unless it can be proven that both the bailiff and council haven't taken your vulnerable status into consideration. Bailiffs do not have to withdraw just because a household may be classed as vulnerable but they should ensure that their behaviour is in adherence to the rules.

 

Whats really important to keep in the front of your mind is that so long as the bailiff doesn't gain peaceful entry to the property they only have two options:

1) They can ask for the money

2) They can pass the debt back to the local authority

 

If you manage to get a reasonable repayment arrangement sorted with the bailiff ensure that you request a breakdown of their fees and charges to ensure that you may no more than the £42.50 that they can legitimately add to the debt. If the bailiff refuses an offer of payment ensure that you keep the money you wanted to offer to one side so that you can pay it to the local authority once the debt has been passed back.

 

We've a useful fact sheet that goes in to further information about bailiffs and council tax, you can read it here:

 

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=02_bailiffs_and_council_tax

 

Best wishes,

 

NDL.

For Free, Confidential and Independent advice: 0808 808 4000

Monday - Friday 9am to 9pm // Saturday 9.30am to 1pm // 24-hour voicemail. Please leave a message to request an information pack. http://www.nationaldebtline.org // http://www.mymoneysteps.org

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

just thought i would let you all know,

 

 

i spoke to the council again regarding my situation and how unreasonable the bailiffs were being

and ended up threatening complaining to the local mp and

 

 

got a phone call straight away to help me sort out a reasonable amount which i can afford each month.

 

 

they also told the bailiffs not to turn up at my address as we are vulnerable

and to ring them first should i fail to make the payments,

which of course i wont as its the amount i could afford,

 

 

thank you for your advice it was very useful .

 

thanks all x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that does not happen as my partners car is on the drive after work till morning

and as this is our only means to get my daughter to hospital when required

i could do with out having it towed ! fingers crossed they got the message x

 

thanks again what a weight off my mind

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, as per PT watch out for a I didn't know, you still owe us fees random exploratory visit. If they do turn up film them with a mobile phone and get thet Formal Complaint in, for calling after the account has been removed from them.

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

thanks i will do that,

my sisters camcorder is fully charged and waiting by my door.

 

 

I also have proof of ownership on the camera just in case they fancy levying on it as it will be the only thing they see.

 

i would happily complain about this company and the way they conduct themselves on behalf of the council.

 

thanks

 

kw

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great result!

 

Best wishes.

 

NDL.

For Free, Confidential and Independent advice: 0808 808 4000

Monday - Friday 9am to 9pm // Saturday 9.30am to 1pm // 24-hour voicemail. Please leave a message to request an information pack. http://www.nationaldebtline.org // http://www.mymoneysteps.org

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hi all, I've posted on here before and found you to be very helpful and I'm at my whits end again with this. Any help and advice much appreciated.

 

Here goes

I've been paying the bailiff £87 a month since 2012 and they suddenly wanted more, 349 a week more!

I cant afford that and would not pay it either way but

 

 

I logged on to the bristow account online which states they have 4 active accounts, amounts as follows :-

 

1-£16.41 08/03/11

2-£928.19 02/07/10

3-£991.54 04/06/13

4-£917.18 29/07/13

 

I rang the council as a bailiff attended yesterday and had to speak through the door as I have a disabled daughter

and she would get frightened by these guys, and

 

 

council said I have 3 liabilities which are :-

 

£1007.10 08/07/11

£916.54 24/06/13

£540.18 29/09/13

 

I'm completely confused

so have a meeting with the council tomorrow to explain all this to me

but wondered what your thoughts were or anything I could use to get the council to take it back ?

 

Many thanks

 

Kbarwill

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you attend you meeting tomorrow please take any letters with you stating that there is a disabled person within the property

and ask the LA to have the account returned to them and to make arrangements to pay the debt off a different way.

 

You should also let the EA's office know that there is a disabled person within the home as well, again send proof.

 

Also can you confirm whether or not you are working or in receipt of benefits?

 

 

Like DLA for your daughter..

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

Hi, thanks for the reply.

 

My daughter does DLA for her condition,

I was receiving carers allowance to look after her but I'm working nights now so we have no childcare costs.

 

The council are aware of my daughters condition,

and the bailiff has been informed as well so apparently they will approach with caution !

 

 

What ever that is, he was not happy about being left talking through the door,

I was home alone with three kids and the dog growling at the door so he posted the standard red letter.

 

Not sure how helpful they will be but will have to see I guess .

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of,

they have a levy on my father in laws car,

which they have had proof of ownership

and the car was on hire purchase at the time also so it's invalid

which they know but it seems there not too fast to take the invalid fees off.

 

They are really starting to get on my nerves.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, all are pre April 14,

 

can they still come out and charge for the new fee schedule on liabilies older than April 14 ?

 

That's something I have seen no information on.

 

They have never been in my home or managed to levy on anything I own and never will.

 

Just starting to wonder if a complaint of the fees would fall on deaf ears at the council though.

 

Been paying this so long that all this again is so annoying.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the council do not help you

I would be involving the local MP and local councillors

You are a vulnerable household and bailiff action must stop

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

old and new threads merged for history

 

 

there should be no fees being added surely ?

 

 

clearly a vulnerable household.

 

 

I always thought this could not be with bailiffs back in the old days as this was the case?

 

 

not sure on the new rules mind.

 

 

still don't think they can pass it on again

I'm sure the bailiffs should not be involved at all?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally not worry too much about the discrepancies in the amounts the councils have on their records and the figures that Bristow & Sutor have given because it is for the council to calculate and they must do so.

 

The main problem (as far as I can see) appears to be a 'levy' upon your father in law's car. When was this levy put in place? Have the council been made aware of this levy? If so, then they should arrange for any fees associated with this to be removed. It is possible that 'attending to remove' fees have also been added under the old regulations but as I have stated above, this is for the council to look into.

 

Do you have a car yourself and if so, how much roughly is it valued at?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for the reply.

 

I'm learning to drive for my daughters sake and have a old Car on the drive roughly worth £200 I paid £100 for it, it's a great little car but worth peanuts, it was there the other day and they wasn't bothered as it's clearly not going to cover the costs so at least they didn't try to add charges for it.

 

Going to the council this afternoon so I will update to what outcome I get. I have health issues at the moment as well and this is all adding extra stress which is not needed so I will inform them of this as well, just hope I get an understanding person.

 

Thanks

Edited by kbarwill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

yesterday I saw the council and she couldn't do anything as its a different team I need to see so waiting for a meeting with them.

 

 

However I did ring to ask about the bailiff fees and they said they are as follows:-

Two compliance fees of £75 each

And an enforcement fee of £302

 

Do these seem right as I they only came out Monday and no letter prior to the visit

and the letter they left had no fees on or the amount owed just a big standard pay now demand.

 

 

all debts are pre April 14 so I'm very confused and just want to pay this now but not the wrong fees if I can fight them.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the enforcement/LO was before 6th april last year

 

 

and from earlier you say:

 

 

council said I have 3 liabilities which are :-

 

£1007.10 08/07/11

£916.54 24/06/13

£540.18 29/09/13

 

I cant see now how they can charge the enforcement letter fees listed?

or am I missing something?

 

 

read this

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421864-Guidance-The-Taking-Control-of-Goods-Regulations-2013-Transitional-Stage

 

 

as was posted above

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as what you owe & what you may have been charged appear to be at adds with each other and leads me to suggest you go back to basics to find out.

 

Here's a list of questions to ask the Council:

1 - how many Liability Orders they have against you

2 - the dates they were obtained

3 - the addresses they were for

4 - the period of time each covers

5 - how much each one was for

6 - how much is still outstanding

7 - the dates they were passed on for enforcement

8 - the dates & amounts of any payments

 

Turning to the Enforcement Co a letter similar to below should be sent - initially by email is best [email protected] - followed by a copy in the post.

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account(s), Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges.

 

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Enforcement Agent/Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Enforcement Agent(s)/Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Enforcement Agent(s)/Bailiff(s) was/were Certificated at.

e - the date of the Certification.

 

This is not a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...