Final chance letter from Bailiff co. acting as on a PCN

[mikeymack2002]

If a debtor received a letter from the EA ASKING to pay with 7 days or they will recommend that the creditor takes other legal action against you. Does this mean

 

A. They are giving up trying to enforce?

B. They will return the debt to the OC

C. Do the fees (both) come off?

 

This is just a general question for no particular debt or reason it's just a question that is all....

 

Finally if the debt goes back to the OC can you then make an arrangement to pay with the OC without the compliance and enforcement fees attached (£75 + £235) which brings the debt total down by £310?

 

Or does the £75 fee stay payable? There are no figures involved or any name of an EA's company, it's so that I clearly understand this letter and what the consequences are of it! Why because I've just seen my 1st one and looking purely to understand.

[Bailiff Advice]

It would seem from what you are saying that the letter that has been received is not a statutory notice (in other words, is not a Notice of Enforcement). It is likely to be an 'advisory' note that has been left at a debtors premises to advise that a visit has taken place and that if the amount stated is not paid that the creditor can take other 'legal action'.

 

The wording on these 'advisory notices' range from company to company. If such a notice has been left, it does not infer that the enforcement company are looking to give up on enforcing the debt. In most cases, the enforcement company will not look at returning any debts before a period of approx 3-4 months.

 

If an enforcement company are satisfied that they cannot obtain payment or 'take control' of the debtors goods, then they may voluntarily return the account back to the local authority.

 

If the enforcement company return the account, then the power to enforce the warrant/liability order ceases and accordingly, all bailiff fees are removed.

 

The difficulty with trying to make a payment proposal direct with the council is that in most cases, the debtor is unaware that the account has been returned. Instead, what normally happens is that if a debt is returned by enforcement company 'A', the local authority would merely start the procedure again by referring the account to enforcement company 'B'. The debtor would then receive a Notice of Enforcement (from enforcement company 'B') and a compliance fee of £75 will be applied.

[fkofilee]

MM is this CT or another debt?

[mikeymack2002]

It is other I'm hovering in the background and have said check to see if/when it's been returned to OC then quickly make an arrangement to pay directly and before its sent out again for enforcement.

 

It's mostly about the contents of the letter rather than the debt. As this debt is easy to dealt with once back with the OC.

[ploddertom]

Cannot actually see the point in responding as everything is taken elsewhere & discussed, so don't know why you just don't ask there.

[mikeymack2002]

This is what the letter says: redacted is in (brackets)

 

You have failed to the above (debt) in full, the next stage in the enforcement procedure is to formally report this to the (OC). At this time we are recommending that they take further legal action against you in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which will result in you occurring further costs and may also affect your future access to credit,

 

 

To avoid this course of action we are providing you with a final opportunity to pay the outstanding amount in full. You must respond to this notice within 7 days of this letter.

If you FAIL TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT IN 7 DAYS from the date of this letter, you will be liable for any costs incurred for legal recovery of the outstanding amount.

 

 

It then goes on to say how you can pay and they have added a payment slip at the bottom. I have also added the bold in exactly the same places as they have.

 

 

 

 

Question:

 

I have also added bold, italics and underline and in blue on one point that I require information about as well. I already know that you do not have to speak to an EA or communicate with them, so why have they made this point if not required to do either. (a last threatogram?)

 

 

This is so that I may learn what can and cant be said/done for future use....

[wonkeydonkey]

This is what the letter says: redacted is in (brackets)

 

You have failed to the above (debt) in full, the next stage in the enforcement procedure is to formally report this to the (OC). At this time we are recommending that they take further legal action against you in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which will result in you occurring further costs and may also affect your future access to credit,

 

 

To avoid this course of action we are providing you with a final opportunity to pay the outstanding amount in full. You must respond to this notice within 7 days of this letter.

If you FAIL TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT IN 7 DAYS from the date of this letter, you will be liable for any costs incurred for legal recovery of the outstanding amount.

 

 

It then goes on to say how you can pay and they have added a payment slip at the bottom. I have also added the bold in exactly the same places as they have.

 

 

 

 

Question:

 

I have also added bold, italics and underline and in blue on one point that I require information about as well. I already know that you do not have to speak to an EA or communicate with them, so why have they made this point if not required to do either. (a last threatogram?)

 

 

This is so that I may learn what can and cant be said/done for future use....

 

This 'letter' suggests the debt is a civil action and as such, it is difficult to comment without knowing the background.

[Schindler]

It's a bad question Delta. Can you give more info and it'll be better for everyone.

[Peterbard]

Yes it is a letter from a debt collector, nothing to do with bailiffs , it is in the wrong section.

 

The CPR mentioned will be the letter before action protocol.

[Schindler]

Mods I mixed up sites so can Delta be put to Mikeymack

[dx100uk]

moved to general debt and re titled

[Peterbard]

moved to general debt and re titled

 

Taa

[mikeymack2002]

I have spoken to the debtor and been told I can now say this is about a PCN. Si it was in the correct forum to start with but wherever is fine with me.

 

 

The wording on the letter is accurate. I was asking what I did because of the conflicting information on the letter as well. (CPR)

[mikeymack2002]

Yes it is a letter from a debt collector, nothing to do with bailiffs , it is in the wrong section.

 

 

The CPR mentioned will be the letter before action protocol.

 

 

NO DB it is not a DCA at all it IS however a BAILIFF end of. Again you seem to have flamed the thread for no reason, partly my fault but as a 3rd party I can only give the information I am allowed to,

 

 

Now I can discuss this at a better level::

[Peterbard]

MM calm down. I haven't flamed anything, the matter was a pre-court one, so the post was in the wrong place that is all. DCAs do not operate under the same rules as EAs

[dx100uk]

so it is a council PCN?

 

 

dx

[Peterbard]

I have spoken to the debtor and been told I can now say this is about a PCN. Si it was in the correct forum to start with but wherever is fine with me.

 

 

The wording on the letter is accurate. I was asking what I did because of the conflicting information on the letter as well. (CPR)

 

This is most likely a PARKING charge notice,

[mikeymack2002]

This has been made difficult by the person that gave me this letter and I have spoken to them to allow me to post so here is the redacted letter for all to see.

 

 

Debtors name removed

EA company removed

 

 

Everything else is there for all to see.

 

Once again sorry for being short with you all! (PS: I hate this injury as it plays with my abilities) The hot weather plays havoc with my mind so I apologise if I am slightly short today, I have cooled down with ice cold drinks which help my poor brain. As the weather gets hotter it affects me more.

 

 

As you can now see why this letter is different to those I have already seen. I do not normally get this far with an EA. So this is a learning curve hence the reason of my thread. As you can see in the 1st paragraph the CPR is mentioned..

 

Would those following now please look at at this redacted PDF Thanks. Sorry to all but I am not always perfect at times due to sudden changes that affect me without my knowing. This I am working on with a little help...

 

 

MM

[mikeymack2002]

so it is a council PCN?

 

 

dx

 

 

 

Since your post I was actually typing up a response so that is a yes see post #18 thx again

[Peterbard]

This is a notice to owner Mm, no proceedings have yet been taken, so there are no bailiffs involved yet.

Bailiffs only become involved after the notice has been registered at the TEC and the payment period has passed.

That is when the authority gets permission from the TEC to issue a warrant.

[Peterbard]

The notice does seem a little odd though.

 

Was the addressee aware of the offense ?

[dx100uk]

odd too

never seen one say a unpaid penalty notice can effect future credit

moved to the local authority parking forum.

 

 

dx

[Peterbard]

Yes me niether. Ther was a spate a while back of parking companies sending similar demands out in order to kid the addressee into thinking it was an authority penalty charge rather than the less enforcesble parking variety.

[Bailiff Advice]

odd too

never seen one say a unpaid penalty notice can effect future credit moved to the local authority parking forum.

 

dx

 

In fact, DX it is a very common document indeed and is sent by a bailiff company. My personal opinion is that the thread should be in the bailiff discussion area of the forum.

[mikeymack2002]

I have contacted the OC (Parking company (PC)) just now, they said the debt was sent to the EA on 16/07/2015 if this makes any difference at all? The offence date was the 17/01/2015...

 

 

So from my understanding the warrant has just two months left. Or. IS this the date the case went to the TEC. (more learning) So far there has been 3 visits by the EA no entry gained, just notices/letters left that have been ignored or no one home.

 

 

Several calls from the EA to the debtor during the time the EA has had this debt..

 

 

 

 

No enforcement action has been done except the visits. Most of my questions have been with the debtor and PC which have been dealt with as and when they occurred easily dealt with.

 

 

But this is the 1st time I've seen this notice anyways.. Does this extra info help at all?