Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

Liability Orders...Government wants to substantially increase Attachment of Earnings Orders...Seeking help from HMRC.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2985 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

Your above comment came a day before the news report this morning that Google has paid Corporation Tax this year of just £5k.

 

Yes - it is not a new area of discussion by any stretch of the imagination. It would also be a huge vote winner for any political party who tackled the issue. Of course the wealthy public school educated will never implement it as it will cost them too much.

 

I've heard argument re Council Tax that there is an element of being seen to collect the taxes. I agree with that entirely, but still think there are huge, untapped revenue streams the government could use which should, rightly, be a priority.

 

As for Council Tax, my personal feeling, and I know not everyone will agree with me, is that the more bailiffs can be taken out of the picture, the better. It stops bailiff corruption, and it stops any cottage industries / businesses springing up to profit off the back of bailiff issues.

 

I have a problem with what BA mentioned previously about tax payers in employment being given another chance, by asking for the details of their employer. What about people on benefits then? The people with the lowest income. Will they, yet again, be ridden over roughshod and thrown to the bailiffs, their hefty charges and bully boy tactics? I hope not sincerely - once again the poorest, and often most vulnerable in society being made to pay via the most frightening method, and the method most open to abuse; that cannot be right and hopefully will not be allowed to happen. These people are being hit hard enough with the current cruel austerity measures, they don't need another thrown into their lap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Someone in Scotland, I think it was for the SNP did a calculation a few years ago. You change Council Tax to a "local" income tax, recovered at source from your employer, just the same as Income Tax/Nat Insurance etc. This would result in 100% collection of Council Tax, and would also save each authority millions since no Council would need a Council Tax Arrears department, the council tax department as a whole would only need a couple of admin bods to deal with potential problems, the self employed, etc and there would be absolutely no need for a Council Tax Benefit department, again saving fortunes, and ridiculous expensive accounting procedures, of removing the benefit from 1 account, into another. If your not working, your not paying council tax, easy.

 

A typical weekly figure of Council Tax is about £20 a week per household. The new system would do away with Bands which are extremely unfair (why should someone on a low income be paying a tax based on the value of the private home they are renting, they wont see the value, the owner will) Under the new system, the tax would be £5 a week. So even if 4 adults live together in a home and are all in full employment, their combined weekly tax would still not be any higher than before. There are then lots of follow on benefits, court time freed up, end of committal to prison, except for self employed, stuff like that.

 

That sounds very like the Poll Tax which ended up with riots in Scotland and Margaret Thatcher being ousted from Office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish!

More like £30 - 40

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 have a problem with what BA mentioned previously about tax payers in employment being given another chance, by asking for the details of their employer. What about people on benefits then? The people with the lowest income. Will they, yet again, be ridden over roughshod and thrown to the bailiffs, their hefty charges and bully boy tactics? I hope not sincerely -

allowed to happen. These people are being hit hard enough with the current cruel austerity measures, they don't need another thrown into their lap.

 

Reviewing some of the background information behind this surprise Consultation, it is interesting to read that one major local authority had reported that the number of summonses issued by them had increased significantly over the past two years (since the introduction of CTS) to approx 87,000 for the year 2014/15. Following the Liability Orders, 25,000 accounts were referred to bailiffs and this figure was almost half what it was two years ago.

 

Most importantly, the same local authority reported that whilst approx 25,000 accounts were referred to bailiffs, the number of cases subject to attachments against benefits was at the highest level in seven year (12,000 accounts).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the mess and delays the local coucils (mine in particular) have in assessing somebody for council tax the whole thing needs re-looking at.

 

My local council can't work out why I am NOT unemployed (I've told them I am living on some savings) and why I won't claim other 'relevant' benefits. I've told them I have an aversion to claiming benefit as they screwed up last time I needed to claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is THIS still accurate? If so, it has a big implication for the ability to deduct from benefits via an AOE?

 

If your question concerns the actual amount of deductions then yes, the information is indeed correct. The link is of course only in relation to taxpayers who are in paid employment (as opposed to those who are only in receipt only of benefits).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is THIS still accurate? If so, it has a big implication for the ability to deduct from benefits via an AOE?

It still means the bailiff in effect for people on zero hour contracts also

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

With taxpayers on zero hour employment contracts I do not believe that attachments can be possible.

 

They are unfortunately BA....people whose income fluctuates due to the frequency of work (common for people on zero hour contracts or freelance workers, for example), the amount may change month on month.....but still applicable.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are unfortunately BA....people whose income fluctuates due to the frequency of work (common for people on zero hour contracts or freelance workers, for example), the amount may change month on month.....but still applicable.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Andy, thank you so much for clarifying this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Local authorities would even like tougher sanctions to apply to those who do not pay their council tax. One prominent Revenue's Manger has a 'wish list' with Liability Orders made subject to CCJ's so that the debt appears on the taxpayers credit report !!! I disagree entirely. Being unable (for one reason or another) to pay council tax should not affect a person's credit rating for 6 years !!! Mind you......if this 'wish list' were ever implemented (which could never happen) the courts would be overrun with taxpayers submitting an N245 to vary the court order and to pay the judgment by way of nominal affordable payments.

 

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/18022/online-news/government-calls-for-views-to-improve-council-tax-debt-recovery-

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Prominent"? when was a "Revenue Manager" ever prominent lol :p

 

He seriously doesn't think that the potential to go to Prison for months, if not years without ever having the choice of a real trial by a jury of your peers isn't "Harsh" enough? I feel this is someone who should not be allowed in any high level decision making on the future of these matters, clearly some daily mail drone.

 

Are the Management Drones mentioned in the article genuinely real people, or is the article an April Fools?

 

Because I find it absolutely terrifying that these people's job involves supposed expertise in Council Tax, and running C Tax departments and expect and are getting perhaps even a big say in the future of it's collection.

 

Yet they don't even know that Student's are Exempt from Council Tax!!!!!!

 

“1. Make landlords liable. In Brighton & Hove we have a large number of students and an even greater number of short term lets. I wrote to my MP years ago suggesting that a simple way to improve council tax collection was to make landlords liable.

 

I don't disagree at all with making Landlords liable, expecially as many still give tenants contracts stating the landlord will pay the tax, knowing full well it is down to the tenant, and the landlord has no intention of paying it, it was just a [problem] to get them to sign up. But Student's don't pay it, so how do you make a Landlord pay something that is not even owed?

 

Incidently, I believe strongly that Students SHOULD pay something towards council tax, especially considering how large a drain they are on local services, in University Towns.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because I find it absolutely terrifying that these people's job involves supposed expertise in Council Tax, and running C Tax departments and expect and are getting perhaps even a big say in the future of it's collection.

 

I speak to local authorities on a very frequent basis and I can assure you that most of them take the view that council tax must be paid and if you cannot pay...the enforcement agent should take your goods. Most are not sympathetic at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I speak to local authorities on a very frequent basis and I can assure you that most of them take the view that council tax must be paid and if you cannot pay...the enforcement agent should take your goods. Most are not sympathetic at all.

 

Not a good mix with their lack of knowledge!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

....One prominent Revenue's Manger has a 'wish list' with Liability Orders made subject to CCJ's so that the debt appears on the taxpayers credit report !!!

 

"
Barrie Minney, senior enforcement manager at Brighton & [Hove] City Council and chairman of the Local Authority Civil Enforcement Forum
."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how a CCJ could be recorded when the liability order is issued by the magistrate.s court.

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

"
Barrie Minney, senior enforcement manager at Brighton & [Hove] City Council and chairman of the Local Authority Civil Enforcement Forum
."

He is also very supportive of 'in house' bailiff operations and this subject (amongst many other interesting ones) will feature at the yearly LACEF conference in Manchester next month.

 

http://www.cdspconference.com/LACEF

Link to post
Share on other sites

I speak to local authorities on a very frequent basis and I can assure you that most of them take the view that council tax must be paid and if you cannot pay...the enforcement agent should take your goods. Most are not sympathetic at all.

Conwy CC amongst others would see someone evicted for rent arrears, and send the bailiffs after them even to the B & B or park bench as they would regard Council Tax as higher priority than the debtor keeping a roof over their heads. as to:

 

"2. My personal favourite; liability orders should be registered as a County Court Judgment (CCJ). It’s the biggest question we get – ‘will this affect my credit rating?”

 

No No and thrice No should this be allowed, as the £1 liability of NELC fame would be subject to a CCJ under that head. Ludicrous.

Edited by brassnecked
typo

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

Conwy CC amongst others would see someone evicted for rent arrears, and send the bailiffs after them even to the B & B or park bench as they would regard Council Tax as higher priority than the debtor keeping a roof over their heads. as to:

 

"2. My personal favourite; liability orders should be registered as a County Court Judgment (CCJ). It’s the biggest question we get – ‘will this affect my credit rating?”

 

No No and thrice No shoul;d this be allowed, as the £1 liability of NELC fame would be subject to a CCJ under that head. Ludicrous.

 

People like them are the ones I dream will lose their jobs and fall into debt, let them experience the worst of the situations they and their ilk have created, and inflicted on people.

 

Someone who raises a "target" or bit of "income" over the lives and well being of people simply shouldn't be in local authority employment.

 

Until the British People go "French" these useless, vastly over promoted, halfwits will continue to act as tyrants in our lives, and make them worse.

 

But then, in this time of Budget Cuts and Economic Woe, Council's constantly refuse the most obvious cuts that would save a lot of money with absolutely NO effect on services.... scrapping most levels of Management. Ceredigion Council have a "Budget cut calculator" in a whiny attempt to show how hard it is and its been fixed to make you feel guilty, take just a couple of grand off the social services budget, and suddenly poor children are starving and being raped! no joke, the amount of cut they claim this would begin to happen is ludicrously low.

 

I bet, when I was working for Leeds Council's building services as Admin/Data Entry, I did more actual real, useful, worthwhile work in a week, than the likes of Barry Minnie do in 6 months to a year.

 

We don't need people like Minnie, they have no place, they drain resources, for no discernible benefit.

 

Just more workshy middle management who's minions do all the work, but they get all the pay, and cost local authorities and the tax payers millions in wages and golden handshakes.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't even go near the overpaid cosseted Council CEOs Caled.

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

And don't even go near the overpaid cosseted Council CEOs Caled.

 

It's a serious discussion that needs to be had regarding local and central civil services, when the current economic woes began kicking off, a good few private companies finally woke up and realised what a drain the layers of management were, especially when those managers pretty much brought zero income to the company, just drained from it.

 

I have seen an Out of Hours Unit Manager, being paid 24 grand plus to "manage" the Out of Hours staff, but chose to work 10am-4pm monday to friday, so us stuff never actually saw her, ever. We did all the work, all the admin, we even organised the rota ourselves, she did nothing at all, there was literally nothing for her to do, yet they chose to waste 24+ grand of taxpayers on her.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"2. My personal favourite; liability orders should be registered as a County Court Judgment (CCJ). It’s the biggest question we get – ‘will this affect my credit rating?”

 

I think that he knows that it is a comment that is unpopular but it will be very interesting indeed to hear comments from the many other many local authorities who will be present at this years' LACEF conference. I am also particularly interested in the agenda regarding the subject of DVLA access and local authorities being responsible for external bailiffs.

 

I will be attending again this year and hopefully will have some information that I can share on here.

 

http://www.cdspconference.com/LACEF

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...