Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the property is not yours you are not on the deeds you are/were not ever on the mortgage..   stop trying to do their job in scamming you.        
    • Capital assessments are based on the:   amount or value of the asset at the time of the application outcome of checks carried out to protect against fraud As with income assessments the partner's share of the equity is included in these calculations - unless there is contrary interest. Just found the above in the law society website.  So am I screwed.  So confused.   
    • I am bound to say that their alleged contract is probably the weirdest I have seen. Considering it is supposed to be a serious legal contract to set out the conditions under which CEL manage the parking on land that does not belong to them it leaves a lot to be desired.   For a start it does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice which is   7.3 a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.   So no mention of hours: no mention of types of vehicle restrictions: no mention of who is responsible for the erection and maintenance of signage   and much more serious -no mention that CEL have to comply with the BPA Code of conduct-that one is listed on 7.1.    All it states is that the operator can pursue outstanding PCNs in accordance with the COP but that is not the same as saying that CEL will abide by the CoP which it must say.   Also AFAIK the only entity that can pursue for trespass is the land owner regardless of what this quasi agreement says. There is also no mention of the financial aspect of the arrangement nor how the long it lasts and what notice is required for either side to terminate.     It might be worth writing [not emailing ] to Medburn Estates asking them to confirm if this is the only agreement with CEL and whether they think it right that CEL have not received planning permission for their signs from the Council rendering their signs illegal which is more serious than unlawful and therefore all PCNs issued are worthless and should not have been issued as it is impossible to form a contract with motorists when the signs are illegal.   Also that as CEL are their agents Medburn Estates LTD are responsible for the actions of their agents. You could also ask them to cofirm that the signature on the paper is that of their Director, Anthony Brown and whether their copy has a counter signature of a CEL representative.   Carry on that CEL are taking you to Court and as another Judge has asked a Landowner to appear in front of him to explain their contract, whether it might be in the best interest of Medway to have a serious conversation with CEL to avoid any possible  embarrassments in your  [ie Laluna] Court appearance.   I have not looked much at your WS though it is looking good.   I would have mentioned that as they failed to comply with  Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.   that they are in breach of their agreement CoP with BPA to keep to all the legal requirements in running their parking  operations.   It calls into question their right to apply for motorists data from the DVLA.   I would wait for their WS to arrive so that you can pick holes in that too. however watch that if they are late that you send yours off just within the Court guidelines.   What you are tying to do with your WS is to put your side of the case plus put CEL in as bad a light as possible for them to  decide that they don't really want to go to Court after all.
    • UncleB - where you write "This could lead you to facing the Bank in Court..."   1stly -  would that mean now?  by remote hearing?  Or when the courts open after the summer?   2ndly - Does the application for set aside automatically prevent the B hearing going ahead?   3rdly - Will sending in an application to have the B petition set aside mean that I have to disclose an address for service?   I can only give a mailing address   4thly - Could having an early (remote) set aside hearing potentially quicken up the process for the bank if I am obliged to give them a suitable place for service?  At the moment I assume the hearing was adjourned for lack of physical service.   I want/ need to get a set aside.  But don't want to shoot myself in the foot.  
    • Where I have sight of a letter which states the following: "a) the case is removed from scheduled date and time on the court list forthwith    b) the case will be re-listed on the 1st open date after x few months, a date to be advised" Is there any way a hearing would be any earlier than suggested?  Lockdown closed courts but may they open early?    Could the bank ask it to be brought forward even with lockdown still in place officially til end July?    Would that depend on them physically serving a b petition?   Could the 1st open date be any time up to Christmas with such a potential back log of cases?  
  • Our picks

    • View this quiz Employment status during COVID-19
      What do you do if you’ve been told not to come to work due to the current crisis.  Watch the video here or on the Youth Consumer Service Instagram page.

      Did you learn anything? Do the quiz
       
       
      Submitter BankFodder Type One Right Answer Time 5 minutes Total Questions 8 Category The Youth Consumer Service Submitted 15/05/20  
      • 0 replies
    • One Parking Solutions - Damning judgement. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421148-one-parking-solutions-damning-judgement/
      • 63 replies
    • View this quiz Coping with extreme hardship
      Life can be tough when you're entering the world of work and in the present virus crisis, things are even more difficult.

      Watch the video below or go to the Youth Consumer Service Instagram page . Afterwards, you can see if you've understood the points which are being made by taking the quiz.
       
       
      Submitter BankFodder Type One Right Answer Time 5 minutes Total Questions 8 Category The Youth Consumer Service Submitted 15/05/20  
      • 1 reply
    • View this quiz: Pre-pay meters
      An explanation of how some gas and electric companies offer emergency quarantine support.

       
      Watch the video here – or go to the Youth Consumer Service Instagram page and watch it there. Then come back here and do the quiz
       
       
      Submitter BankFodder Type One Right Answer Time 5 minutes Total Questions 6 Category The Youth Consumer Service Submitted 15/05/20  
        • Like
      • 1 reply
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1779 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

Yes definitely worth it :)

Its a bargaining tool you can use, although a CCJ being involved does make it more tricky.

 

Wonder if Anglican have been reading the thread ^__^

 

Anglian Water along with Southern Water have a track record of gaining CCJ's then making sure the debt is above £600, so they can enforce through the High Court. Marston are acting as HCEO here not bailiff, although both are now classed as EA. High court Enforcement should be banned for sums under £7,500 imho.

 

The problem is if Anglian call off Marston, Marston can chase them for the fees I think.


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine that Anglian are a big client and therefore, marstons may roll over and play dead if told to by their client.

Got to be worth pushing Anglian to call them off and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is if Anglian call off Marston, Marston can chase them for the fees I think.

 

I don't think so. The enforcement power would be as dead as the parrot in the Monty Python sketch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's not what you want to hear but the fact is that due to ignoring Marstons you are now lawfully liable for the fees. You don't need me to tell you that you could have avoided this.

 

Pay them the £1,700 you have and make an arrangement for the balance which will be split pro-rata between Anglian Water and Marstons.

 

If you feel the fees charged are incorrect, you can apply for an assessment of their fees in the High Court but you must ensure you are 100% correct or you could face their solicitors costs in defending it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in legal services department of another water company that shall remain nameless and my inkling is that Anglian Water are being cute (and naughty) as they should refer you to Marstons with the writ being in place.

 

 

They have probably seen that nothing has yet been collected and figure that you paying them direct is good result as they payment will not be split.

 

 

An abortive writ fee would be payable by them but they clearly feel this is worth it to get the debt settled and in reality they can withdraw without much fuss and minimal reason as to why so Marstons will be none the wiser as I don't suppose for a minute that they will tell them about your payment.

 

 

This would be a good result for you but you must confirm they are withdrawing the account from Marstons (get it on email or in writing) and when/if that happens the fees die at that point as the abortive writ fee is payable by the Claimant and the HCEO cannot have their cake and eat it so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why exactly DO Utility Companies prefer to use HCEO's for personal debt? When dealing with a personally owed debt, then the HCEO has no more powers than an EA.

 

Even the various "Bailiff Porn" shows at the start big up how much more powerful and important and special HCEO's are than EA's but then, when they toddle off to visit a personal debtor, have to admit that in personal debt they have no more powers, like they have with commercial debt.

 

Just seems very odd, unless they hope to trick the debtor into panicking thinking they have more powers, or its to punish the debtor by increasing enforcement fees.


[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why exactly DO Utility Companies prefer to use HCEO's for personal debt? When dealing with a personally owed debt, then the HCEO has no more powers than an EA.

 

Even the various "Bailiff Porn" shows at the start big up how much more powerful and important and special HCEO's are than EA's but then, when they toddle off to visit a personal debtor, have to admit that in personal debt they have no more powers, like they have with commercial debt.

 

Just seems very odd, unless they hope to trick the debtor into panicking thinking they have more powers, or its to punish the debtor by increasing enforcement fees.

 

The fact is that a normal bailiff company with Certificated EAs cannot enforce a judgment.

 

To do that you have to be either a County Court Bailiff or an HCEO (using a Certificated EA).

 

As the CCB's are pretty much useless it makes absolute financial sense to use an HCEO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact is that a normal bailiff company with Certificated EAs cannot enforce a judgment.

 

To do that you have to be either a County Court Bailiff or an HCEO (using a Certificated EA).

 

As the CCB's are pretty much useless it makes absolute financial sense to use an HCEO.

 

Typical ludicrous British way of doing things, state debts enforced by private contractors, and private debts enforced by state contractors.

 

I wouldn't have thought in powers terms a HCEO is no better than a CCB unless like i say its in hope the debtor doesn't understand and panics.


[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience (10+years) I would say effectiveness is the only reason.

 

 

The Country Court Bailiff (with the greatest of respect to them doing a tough job) simply do not collect as high a percentage of judgments as a HCE company and will rarely remove goods unless you firstly agree to indemnify their costs.

 

 

Also the cost of a High Court writ is less than a Warrant of Execution in terms of fees payable so that is another reason.

 

 

I agree if dealt with in the ways advised on this site they are bound by basically the same rules except of course in the case of a commercial premises.

 

 

Believe me that many water companies have been and continue to look at alternatives to litigation as it is not in most cases very productive and I would give a good guess that roughly 25% of claims issued result in the judgment being paid in full however it is unfair on customers that do pay their bills not to take some form of action otherwise of course no-one would pay it.

 

 

More recently water companies are using DCA's more and more rather than court action and reporting on credit files as well as Orders to Attend, Third Party Orders and Charging Orders as an alternative to bailiffs.

 

 

Not sure what the answer is really but I believe water is included in council tax in Scotland and non payment of that is clearly a different proposition however not sure how that all works to be honest especially with commercial customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about power, it's about a financial incentive to recover what's due under the judgment. It won't be long before the CCBs are disbanded and all judgment enforcement is issued through HCEOs. They have long been ineffective and with the new government looking for cuts it makes absolute sense to give all creditors the enforcement service they deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with HCEO with that as the HCE companies we use/have used remit vastly more to us as Claimant than the court bailiff and also there is a lot more details provided in the EA's reports too.

 

 

The most you usually get from the court bailiff is a form that says unable to meet defendant or defendant gone away and this for the money you pay for the warrant is not great in all honesty.

 

 

As an example the biggest problem I come across by far is in the case of restaurants or takeaways who have miraculously changed owner between Judgment and Enforcement and in the case of the HCEO they at least will investigate and require documentation to clarify this and the court bailiff simply does not do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most pointless CCJ for water that I saw was for a rural property with a borehole and a septic tank, 5 miles from the nearest main, Waterco tried to bill them for supply, were ignored they got a default CCJ, and it was set aside on appeal, as they had no contract with the farmer for supplying his property.


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep would agree that is pretty pointless especially if no supply to the property, perhaps it was a split area where fresh and wastewater companies are different, as communication between water companies in those circumstances is not always great...

 

 

There is no contact for supply of water services as they are payable (or not) by statute though in the case you detail above if there is no supply then there are of course no charges payable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The County Court Bailiff is a salaried employee of HMCTS and gets paid regardless of what Judgments he collects on or not as the case may be, he has no need to extend himself to produce results. The HCEO & his attending Enforcement Agent only gets paid on results.


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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The private bailiff is therefore on the same crack as a Crapita TVL goon, chasing money for commission in many cases

 

reminds me of an O'Jays song from the 1970's For the Love of Money, the difference being the EA is not able to gain criminal prosecutions on the people they visit, unless they lie to plod and get the debtor done for Obstruction.

 


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It won't be long before the CCBs are disbanded and all judgment enforcement is issued through HCEOs.

 

Careful now HCEO...

 

There are a lot of hoops that you guys need to jump through first to satisfy the advice sector........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I work in legal services department of another water company that shall remain nameless and my inkling is that Anglian Water are being cute (and naughty) as they should refer you to Marstons with the writ being in place.

 

 

They have probably seen that nothing has yet been collected and figure that you paying them direct is good result as they payment will not be split.

 

 

An abortive writ fee would be payable by them but they clearly feel this is worth it to get the debt settled and in reality they can withdraw without much fuss and minimal reason as to why so Marstons will be none the wiser as I don't suppose for a minute that they will tell them about your payment.

 

 

This would be a good result for you but you must confirm they are withdrawing the account from Marstons (get it on email or in writing) and when/if that happens the fees die at that point as the abortive writ fee is payable by the Claimant and the HCEO cannot have their cake and eat it so to speak.

 

Are you saying that at least with the utility company you work for, payments made directly to yourselves as opposed to the EA are NOT passed on to the enforcement company, and thus not split pro rata as per the regs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact is that a normal bailiff company with Certificated EAs cannot enforce a judgment.

 

To do that you have to be either a County Court Bailiff or an HCEO (using a Certificated EA).

 

As the CCB's are pretty much useless it makes absolute financial sense to use an HCEO.

 

Why do say CCB's are useless?

 

Is there something in the pipeline regarding getting rid of them so HCEO's get the work? If so, what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that at least with the utility company you work for, payments made directly to yourselves as opposed to the EA are NOT passed on to the enforcement company, and thus not split pro rata as per the regs?

 

The enforcement company has not collected any debt in these circumstances. Why would they split payment pro rata?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The enforcement company has not collected any debt in these circumstances. Why would they split payment pro rata?

 

I don't intend getting drawn into this as it's been discussed at length on many different fora. I refer you to the discussions on this site regarding this issue. Whether or not you agree with them is an issue for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I refer you to the discussions on this site regarding this issue. Whether or not you agree with them is an issue for you.

 

Without any reference to a specific discussion (or post(s)) I can only assume you are referring to the advice regarding paying bailiffs (or engaging with them) that appears to be given from someone with a financial interest in giving that advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without any reference to a specific discussion (or post(s)) I can only assume you are referring to the advice regarding paying bailiffs (or engaging with them) that appears to be given from someone with a financial interest in giving that advice.

 

You are free to assume as you wish. I reiterate I don't intend getting drawn in as this has been discussed at length on many different fora.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that at least with the utility company you work for, payments made directly to yourselves as opposed to the EA are NOT passed on to the enforcement company, and thus not split pro rata as per the regs?

 

 

 

Nope in all cases of enforcement that have been referred to the HCE company we would refer them to said company and no payment would be accepted, not even full payment of Judgment.

 

 

What I am saying is that if a payment were to be accepted under those circumstances by the water company then the process of withdrawal is usually no more than an email so the HCEO would be none the wiser as to why it's being recalled.

 

 

Not saying this is what AW are doing but they are certainly wrong if the information by the OP is correct as they should be referring the matter to Marstons end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the hceo was aware, then as per the agreement with the client, a % invoice would probably be raised.

If the hceo was not aware and enforcement withdrawn, only a limit abortive fee would be raised.

There is nothing to stop the hceo being informed that payment direct had been made and they are to continue to enforce for their fees and probably interest and transfer fees too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...