Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Regulation of Enforcement Agents (Collection of Council Tax Arrears) Bill 2015-16


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3016 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

This new bill seems to have escaped debate on any of the forums. It was introduced last month in the Commons under the ten minute rule and is due for second reading on the 11th March

 

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/regulationofenforcementagentscollectionofcounciltaxarrears.html

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151028/debtext/151028-0001.htm#15102833000002

 

Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): I beg to move,

 

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the use of bailiffs and other enforcement agents by local authorities to collect council tax arrears; to establish a code of practice for enforcement agents; to create an independent bailiffs ombudsman to administer the code and to investigate and adjudicate complaints; and for connected purposes.

 

This Bill deals with two interrelated problems which, taken together, are pushing too many people into a debt trap by forcing them to borrow more to pay council tax arrears and unaffordable bailiff fees. The first problem is that local councils are too ready to call in the bailiffs when people fall into arrears on their council tax bill. This is despite guidance that is meant to encourage local authorities to look towards establishing affordable repayment plans in such situations and thus avoid the bailiffs. The Bill gives people a stronger right to challenge councils to offer an affordable repayment option before instructing the bailiffs.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Enforcement Industry isn't going to like it, but how increasing a debt can help repay it is beyond me, as in a £1 Council tax arrears turned into £400 as per some councils.

 

The fees do not help a hard pressed debtor to address diddly squat.

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 JSA and ESA claimants having to pay some of their council tax now, even upto and more than 25% on top of Bedroom Tax they are unable to pay so will meet the bailiffs sonner or later, or be a mere Sanction away from the bailiff. Anything that keeps the bailiff away is good.

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 agree BN, I think some of the things here are well overdue and well worth pursuing. It is quite common practice to go for things which you know may be knocked out at committee when drafting a new bill, after all you may just sneak a measure through.

 

Some of the comments I find a bit hard to agree with, but as you say the overall aim of the bill is to be applauded IMO. Certainly worth keeping an eye on.

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

To determine whether much importance is given to the subject under debate it may assist viewers to know a little about the background to these 'Ten Minute Rule Bills'.

 

Twice a week in the Commons backbench MP are given an opportunity to produce a bill of their own and they are allowed to give a speech lasting just ten minutes to explain the purpose of their proposed bill. Securing a slot to introduce a ten minute rule bill is incredible difficult. If the bill is approved by the House at this first reading stage, it joins the queue of private members' bills waiting to receive a second reading. By way of example, approx 60 PMB's have a '2nd reading' at the end of this week.

 

However, the government will only rarely ever allow a ten-minute rule bill to progress far enough to become law and in fact, none have done so in the past 10 years.

 

MPs tend to use this procedure as a way of gaining opinion and publicity for a particular issue and this in itself may affect legislation indirectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is noteworthy that in her speech in October, the MP who is sponsoring this 'Ten-Minute Rule' Bill (Yvonne Fovargue) made a number of references to the recent report compiled by the CAB. She is a staunch supporter of the CAB and in fact had been a former branch Manager. A couple of years back she had also been awarded the Citizens Advice Parliamentarian of the year award. She is very popular with the 'advice sector'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes BA although the Bill has virtually no chance, it is good that flaws in the new Regulations are being considered. I would expect nothing less from a high profile ex CAB Manager turned MP.

 

If it were to be adopted or taken mainstream the Enforcement industry would no doubt be gathering a strong opposing lobby , to have it talked out.

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

Yes BA although the Bill has virtually no chance, it is good that flaws in the new Regulations are being considered. I would expect nothing less from a high profile ex CAB Manager turned MP.

 

If it were to be adopted or taken mainstream the Enforcement industry would no doubt be gathering a strong opposing lobby , to have it talked out.

 

There is a chance that a more streamlined bill will emerge from committee, personally I do not envisage any major changes to the enforcment regime, not yet. Many regard the TCE as a success and many others feel that it still has not had time to prove itself either way. I think that a lot of the points regarding enforcment are poorly researched to be honest.

I do not think that anyone will argue against the proposition that liability orders are issued to quickly(or perhaps they will). .I believe this is where more effective control should be applied.

I also disagree with the direct association with high interest credit, but perhaps that is for later in the debate.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes BA although the Bill has virtually no chance, it is good that flaws in the new Regulations are being considered. I would expect nothing less from a high profile ex CAB Manager turned MP.

 

If it were to be adopted or taken mainstream the Enforcement industry would no doubt be gathering a strong opposing lobby , to have it talked out.

 

As I have said earlier, in the past 10 years there has not been one case yet where a Ten-Minute Rule Bill became law. Accordingly, these bills (as goods as they all are) are used as a 'platform' to bring a particular matter to the attention of MP's and may well assist the MP proposing the bill to gain media attention for a subject that is important to them.

 

The problem that we have is that the MP is calling for a code of practice for enforcement agents; and an independent bailiffs ombudsman to administer the code and to investigate and adjudicate complaints. At this present time we not only have the National Standards for Enforcement Agents but we also have a 2nd guidance that was issued in 2013 by the then minister; Eric Pickles.

 

On the matter of an 'independent bailiffs ombudsman' we already have the Local Government Ombudsman who adjudicates complaints regarding council tax and bailiff enforcement. I cannot see any possibly at all that the government would be willing to use taxpayers money to set up another Ombudsman's service.

 

In fact, it was the the intended introduction of an 'independent complaints body' that was wholly responsible for the considerable delay in implementing Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

It is important to also not lose sight of the fact that when the legislation was introduced, the regulations specified that the enforcement agent must use statutory forms. In the case of the Notice of Enforcement, these must include the name and contact details of recommended 'non fee charging' organisations (such as Stepchange and the Citizen's Advice Bureau). Accordingly, commonsense alone would dictate that these organisation would naturally receive more enquiries (and complaints) than before the 2014 regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

on that liability orders are issued to quickly(or perhaps they will). .I believe this is where more effective control should be applied.

I also disagree with the direct association with high interest credit, but perhaps that is for later in the debate.

Have to disagree DB, as a Community Councillor I have been faced with a fairly large number of families being visited by bailiffs being pushed further into debt when the bailiff suggested they borrow to pay them, and the debtor went to Wonga etc. This needs discussion on another thread. It is obnoxious for bailiffs to suggest further debt just to pay 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

Hi BN

 

It is a fair point. But i was not talking about the enforcment, i was talking about the debt being incurred, The bill is a little confusing in the areas because it seeks to tackle matters both before and after the enforcment.

I took her to mean that people borrow money from payday loan companies to pay CT and arrears before enforcment, in my experience this is not true.

 

People borrow money to pay for unexpected expenses which in turn lead to being unable to pay other bills, not specifically to pay council tax, as CT is a recurring bill which is generally accounted for, Perhaps I should have been clearer but it was only an off the cuff remark.

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

This new bill seems to have escaped debate on any of the forums. It was introduced last month in the Commons under the ten minute rule and is due for second reading on the 11th March.

 

In case anyone is watching the Parliament channel to listen to the live debate they may wish to know that the Bill has been withdrawn from today's list.

 

Whether or not it will be re-introduced at a later stage, only time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone is watching the Parliament channel to listen to the live debate they may wish to know that the Bill has been withdrawn from today's list.

 

Whether or not it will be re-introduced at a later stage, only time will tell.

 

It is a bit unfocussed if you ask me.tries to address too many different issues for one bil.

Just noticed on your quote. I said last month, of course the bill was introduced last year. Oops.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The dependence on the hopelessly biased CAB survey wouldn't have helped either.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...