Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Done.   I wont be able to send the SAR until the end of the month for TT as I wont get paid until then and I'm a little out of pocket as its my first month working after a spell of no work. Wil that be an issue?   Also what's to stop people jsut selling ficticious debts off? As far as I know, a telecoms provider can't charge you when you move and they can't supply, meaning that a large proportion of that debt is ficticious?
    • Good evening DX100   Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.   Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff   The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review) The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges . It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-               a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.               b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.               c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.               d.    Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.               e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.     10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence. Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you. In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.  
    • Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response. Thanks @BankFodder   I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?
    • Hi UncleB, thanks for responding. I did call them back and it appears to be hit & miss with Devitt and dependent upon which Customer service agent you get.   Spoke with a very pleasant lady and told her that I, like them recorded all calls and gave date time of call and specific time at which a green card was stipulated in order for me to take out the policy.   *Two days later a hard copy of the green card landed on my doorstep. *Free of charge too.
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 25 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2064 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 All

 

I am a first time poster.

 

I had a charge for not paying my fine for the congestion charge, and tbh have let the thing snowball to the point that Task enforcement arrived this morning and clamped my car on private property (driveway) and sneakily slipped a bit of paper and drove off. I did ring them and offered to pay half the fine as this is all i have. But heh hoo they denied it.

 

Points.

 

The car is on finance

I did and always have a removal of implied access of entry. She acknowledged this when i told her.

 

Thank you for time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Task enforcement arrived this morning and clamped my car on private property (driveway) and sneakily slipped a bit of paper and drove off. I did ring them and offered to pay half the fine as this is all i have. But heh hoo they denied it.

 

Points.

 

The car is on finance

I did and always have a removal of implied access of entry. She acknowledged this when i told her.

 

Thank you for time.

 

They can be as "sneaky" as they like, as long as they still act lawfully. They aren't exactly likely to phone you in advance and say "we are going to turn up early, before you might move the car to go to work, so we are giving you advance warning so you can move it"!

 

"Car is on finance" : as in HP (where you don't yet own it) or Personal Contract Plan (where you own it)?

 

As for " did and always have a removal of implied access of entry." : Irrelevant if the bailiffs had a Warrant of Control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did and always have a removal of implied access of entry. She acknowledged this when i told her.

 

Thank you for time.

 

I am just being curious as to the reason why you would always have such a notice displayed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
removal of implied access of entry

 

FOTL rubbish, there is no such thing. Don't believe what you read on other sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi All

 

 

Points.

 

The car is on finance

I did and always have a removal of implied access of entry. She acknowledged this when i told her.

 

Thank you for time.

 

A car that is on finance is not always considered exempt and each case has to be looked at separately. For example, what type of finance and whether there is an 'equity' in the car.

 

A debtors private driveway is not considered 'private land' at all. A supermarket car park, out of town shopping outlet, hotel car park etc are considered 'private land'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you do not own the car, so is it Hire Purchase ?

 

You will have to come to an arrangement, there is no other choice. If you can't pay it all at once, then make the best offer you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Conniff yes its on hire purchase. The amount is for £412.00 i did offer her £200.00 as this is all i can get. She declined it and said she can only bring it down to £312.00. I know the debt needs to be paid but unfortunately i don't have that extra £112.00. Just looking at other options at the moment. I did find this article on the internet.

 

Bailiffs and police officers try to tell you that you commit an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

 

This is NOT true.

 

The law actually says - "A person who without LAWFUL EXCUSE - destroys or damages any property belonging to another".

 

That means if the clamping of your vehicle is unlawful then you have lawful excuse to cut off the wheel clamp.

 

Its as simple as that!

 

 

 

The clamping of your vehicle is ILLEGAL if it is:

 

 

 

1. Not yours, leased, or on finance and the final payment is not made. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says "an enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor."

 

2. Used in your employment work or education, or other exemption under Regulation 4 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. Regulations don't require you to have "business insurance" on your vehicle. That is a myth originating from bailiff companies. The law only requires "third party" security. Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

 

3. Used for carrying a disabled person having a disabled badge. Regulation 4(1)(d) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. The badge does not have to be in the car when it was clamped. (See below).

 

4. Being used by someone when it was clamped. The law says (Regulation 10) "Circumstances in which the enforcement agent may not take control of goods" - Regulation 10(2) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 says "Where an item which belongs to the debtor is in use by any person at the time at which the enforcement agent seeks to take control of it".

 

5. Clamped before 6am or after 9pm. Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

 

6. You have not received the statutory Notice of Enforcement, Regulations 6 & 7 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and Paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

7. There is no principle debt, for example, the debt has been paid, or quashed, or the bailiff is using a wheel clamp as a leverage to obtain a fee. The law says "where the debtor pays the amount outstanding in full" - "No further step may be taken under the enforcement power concerned" - Paragraph 58(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. and "Fees and disbursements not recoverable where enforcement process ceases" - Regulation 17.1 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 . "Enforcement agents must not seek to enforce the recovery of fees where an enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable" - Guideline 31 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014.

 

8. You did not know about the original debt until you received a bailiff. Law is depending on the type of debt involved.

 

Magistrates' court fine: Section 14 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980

 

Council tax: Regulation 23 or Regulation 33 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

Civil Traffic debt: Part 75.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules

 

High Court Enforcement Debts: Run this checklist and apply to set aside the writ.

 

 

 

9. The bailiff does not have a certificate. He commits a further offence under Section 63(6) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Check here to see if he has a certificate.

 

10. Clamping on private land commits an offence under Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. See also Paragraph 211 of the explanatory notes, and this Parliamentary confirmation document. It can be reported in writing to the police. You can also make a civil claim against the creditor under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Private land includes private roads not adopted by the council and shopping centres.

 

And thanks again for all your support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never believe what any police person tells you in connection with this, if they are present they are only there if there is likely to be a breach of the piece, they know nothing about debt collection or bailiffs so should not be involved at all in any of that.

 

You need to ring them again and tell them how much you can afford or meet the bailiff when he calls and come to an arrangement with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you receive a "Notice of Enforcement" from Task? How long did they give you to contact them? When did you receive their letter and how many days after you received the letter did they clamp your car?

 

Please do not think about cutting off the wheel clamp at the moment. The only possibility thay you have is that the bailiff has clamped your car which is on hire purchase. However in a recent judgement, a Judge

stated that some hirers did have a financial interest in the car [perhaps they had paid a deposit larger than the fine owed for example]. So to cut off the clamp could lead to you having to pay out several thousand

pounds in fines and Court costs and if you read some of the other threads on this site [bailiff section] you will see for yourself.

 

A better option would be to use your finance company to put pressure to bear on Task. As the car belongs to the Finance company they should be able to apply to the Court to have the clamp removed.

You are having an expensive lesson in ignoring a PCN-please do not compound it by cutting the clamp or relying on Freeman of the Land websites.

 

it would help if you wrote back with the details of the letter you received from Task as that might be another avenue to help your situation. To summarise-we need the date of their letter, the date you received it-

the dates within which you had to contact them and the date they clamped your car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just looking at other options at the moment. I did find this article on the internet.

 

Bailiffs and police officers try to tell you that you commit an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

 

This is NOT true.

 

The law actually says - "A person who without LAWFUL EXCUSE - destroys or damages any property belonging to another".

 

That means if the clamping of your vehicle is unlawful then you have lawful excuse to cut off the wheel clamp.

 

Its as simple as that!

 

 

 

The clamping of your vehicle is ILLEGAL if it is:

 

 

1. Not yours, leased, or on finance and the final payment is not made. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says "an enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor."

 

2. Used in your employment work or education, or other exemption under Regulation 4 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. Regulations don't require you to have "business insurance" on your vehicle. That is a myth originating from bailiff companies. The law only requires "third party" security. Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

 

3. Used for carrying a disabled person having a disabled badge. Regulation 4(1)(d) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. The badge does not have to be in the car when it was clamped. (See below).

 

And thanks again for all your support.

 

You need to be very careful with information given on the internet.

 

In this particular case, the information given is not only nonsense but more seriously, the person that wrote it caused a debtor to lose an important court case that not only cost him legal fees of £3,200 but more importantly, a court judgment that ruled that a vehicle that is subject to hire purchase can be taken. This judgment is presently causing extreme difficulties to many other debtors. The following thread provides details of the case.

 

In addition, (and due entirely to heavy work commitments) I have not as yet had time to start a new thread regarding yet ANOTHER legal case that the person who wrote the article was involved with and in this case, the debtor also lost in court and has been ordered to pay significant court costs. A copy of the Judgment has just been obtained and will be exhibited with the new thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bailiffs and police officers try to tell you that you commit an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

 

This is NOT true.

 

The law actually says - "A person who without LAWFUL EXCUSE - destroys or damages any property belonging to another".

 

That means if the clamping of your vehicle is unlawful then you have lawful excuse to cut off the wheel clamp.

 

Its as simple as that!

 

I can't see the connection between 'damage or destroy' and placing an immobilisation device on the car ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't see the connection between 'damage or destroy' and placing an immobilisation device on the car ?

 

They are trying to say that if the clamping is unlawful, this gives them lawful excuse to damage the clamp to remove it : thus preventing them committing criminal damage to the clamp.

 

Whether this would stop them being arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted : (any or all stages) - is a different matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They are trying to say that if the clamping is unlawful, this gives them lawful excuse to damage the clamp to remove it : thus preventing them committing criminal damage to the clamp.

 

Whether this would stop them being arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted : (any or all stages) - is a different matter.

 

Who decides that the clamping was unlawful ?

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
Who decides that the clamping was unlawful ?

 

A succession of people might ,but once the 2nd in in line decides the previous was wrong (& that the clamping was lawful & the damage to the clamp without lawful excuse) it gets passed to the next in line who might stop the process or agree the (clamping lawful / damage to clamp unlawful) .... but in the end (if it comes to it) the last of the line gets to decide ;)

 

The person who claims the clamping was unlawful, the owner of the clamp who calls the police, the constable who arrests the person who damaged the clamp, the charging officer, the CPS, and then the courts!

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...