Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah that is what I think not going to look a gift horse in the mouth plus got other issues right now with the virus and my job 
    • Thank you dx and you advice is well received.    will remember about the 'quote' thing and it seems you already know a lot about this site.   RT    
    • Don't worry about the warranty. You will be covered under the Consumer Rights Act which requires that goods be of satisfactory quality and remain that way for a reasonable period of time. However, there may be a dispute as to whether the problem was caused by a defect in the glass or some outside force such as some object hitting it. You say that you have found other instances of the same thing happening. I suggest that you start gathering screenshots of those – and it would even be helpful if you could contact the people involved. Also, if you find people talking about this on the Internet then post the links here so we can have a look. If you can get sufficient evidence that this is something that is happening to people's vehicles – the same vehicle as yours not other manufacturers, then you have a good chance that you can persuade a judge that there was a defect. What is the cost of replacing the glass roof?
    • I am unsure if I have already written these points, but this thread is called general points , and unless the OP objects, here are some.   Firstly, there are two separate kinds of warning notice issued when a credit card or credit agreement is defaulted. One is for credit referencing the other is to enable the termination and enforcement of an agreement. These are completely separate entities, which may or may not apply to the same date.   The one sent to the debtor warning about the impending mention on the file, gives 28 days normally although it is an advisory notice and cannot be challenged, it does not have to be given for an entry to be made on the CRA.   The notice sent from the creditor giving notice to take action is however statutory, under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act, it gives 14 days to pay.   A statute barr is a method of limiting the amount of time for the creditor to take an action in court. In contract law, this period is generally 6 years.   To be clear this is the maximum time allowed between, the cause of action(for simplicity the default). and the date of the action itself in court. Therefor if you PDL has had an action was brought in six years, the statute Barr no longer have any relevance.    If the case was lost it would be a debt under a judgement, not under a default, if it was won, there would be no default to record.   Again for clarity, you cannot use a default date on a credit file to sow a default notice date under the CCA 74, as said different things.   Regarding an overdraft. There is no requirement to comply to part 5 of the CCA on tacit overdrafts. This is because of a declaration made By the governor back in 1983, part 5 contains section 85.   As far as the start date for SB is concerned, section 6(not5)applies in that,  instead of a default notice the date on the first full demand to repayment is recorded and used as the cause of action, that is when the SB starts, again nothing to do wih the date on the CRA file.
    • just type please don't use quote  it makes finding replies so difficult.   they cant simply change the signs/free hours without council permission...and that has not been applied for nor granted.   sit on your hands await if/unless PAPLOC   don't forget the next stages as i'm sure you've read as you say. lots of scary letters from DCA's   remember a DCA is  NOT A BAILIFF on ANY debt ..no matter what it's type. and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt either   dx  
  • Our picks

Leakie

Why do the EA's not have to show a warrant

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1436 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

In a few threads it has been stated that the EA does not have to show a warrant or copy of

 

It would save a lot of problems if they presented either of the above

why do they not need this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a few threads it has been stated that the EA does not have to show a warrant or copy of

 

It would save a lot of problems if they presented either of the above

why do they not need this?

 

I have written in the past on this same subject. To reiterate, approx 18 months ago an individual wrote to HMCTS on this same subject and received a very detailed reply. For ease of reference, I have broken down their response into separate headings:

 

When is a distress warrant/warrant of control 'generated'?

 

"It is not necessary to generate a distress warrant at the time of its issue; the relevant details can be produced (and provided to the debtor) subsequent to its issue (or indeed subsequent to its execution) but such relevant details should be recorded at the time of issue"

 

Who issues the distress warrant/warrant of control?

 

"Designated Fines Officers have the power to issue Distress Warrants/Warrants of Control under schedule 5 of the Courts Act 2003, a court hearing is not required for this sanction to be issued".

 

Is the bailiff/enforcement agent required to have the warrant in his possession?

 

"It is not necessary for the CEO or the AEA to have the distress warrant in his possession when levying the distress. The legislation simply requires a written statement to be shown to the debtor on demand. In addition, the CrimPR requires arrangements to be made for the debtor to see the warrant if he so requests".

 

Does the distress warrant/warrant of control need to be a paper document?

 

"The references in the above CrimPR to a “warrant” are not necessarily to a paper document, but can include an electronic version".

 

Does a warrant need to be produced?

 

"It is not necessary for a formal “warrant” to be produced; what is of**importance is that specific information must be recorded, by some means, at the time the warrant is issued. In particular, the legal basis on which the warrant is issued (for example, a record of the decision authorising the issue of a warrant (made by the court or the fines officer) and when that decision was made). In addition, the information required by CrimPR 52.7(1) should be recorded".

 

Recording the date and time that the warrant was received.

 

"The reference to the CEO or AEA recording on the warrant the date and time at which it is received (rule 52.7(2) can be satisfied by electronic means. Assuming the request to execute is sent to the CEO or AEA electronically there will be an automatic electronic record of when it was received".

 

Requesting to see the distress warrant/warrant of control.

 

"As regards the position where the debtor asks to see the warrant, what rule 52.8(2) of the CrimPR envisages is that the debtor will be taken to the relevant office and shown the relevant details on the computer screen. Alternatively, a copy of the electronic data held can be printed and provided to the debtor or the details replicated in some other documentary form (whether it be entitled a “warrant” or not).

 

"What is of importance, is, as stated above, that the requisite information is already held. That information can then be subsequently shown to the debtor/replicated when a request is made by the debtor".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BA and I appreciate, you have posted this before.

 

But what is the reason for the above, apart from making it easier for the everyone but the Debtor.

It is not necessarily known by every one who is in this position.

 

If I had not been informed of this I would have may be not believed the person knocking at the door if you are not aware of the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is not necessarily known by every one who is in this position.

 

If I had not been informed of this I would have may be not believed the person knocking at the door if you are not aware of the debt.

 

I am glad to have been of assistance. All that I have ever tried to do is to provide accurate information regarding bailiff enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BA

But is it too make it easier for the powers too be,

It would save a lot of problems if a warrant was given to the Debtor,

even if it was only a copy,

At least they would be able to check it out.

 

Just because it is in TCE it does not mean it is the right thing to do,

as they say some times the law is an Ass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks BA

 

It would save a lot of problems if a warrant was given to the Debtor, even if it was only a copy,

At least they would be able to check it out.

 

I have attached a formal copy of a warrant of control in relation to magistrate court fines.

 

As can be seen, the warrant is a legal document that is addressed to the enforcement agent. It is not addressed to the debtor. However, as mentioned in an earlier, post, the debtor can make an appointment or visit the court to view a copy.

Warrant of Control. Magistrate Court Fines 2016.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legislation regarding production of warrants is here:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/125D

 

[F1125D Execution by person not in possession of warrant.

(1)A warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies may be executed by any person entitled to execute it even though it is not in his possession at the time.

(2)A warrant to which this subsection applies (and which is not a warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies) may be executed by a constable even though it is not in his possession at the time.


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

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...