Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You could have (for example!) agreed “repayment once divorce settled, or within 3 years, whichever is soonest” to avoid the “don’t have to repay yet, divorce not yet finalised” scenario, though it is easier to be ‘wise after the event’.   If you are demanding repayment before the duty to repay has arisen, then yes, you must be careful you aren’t seen to be harassing her.   You can’t unilaterally change the agreement from “repayment once divorce settled” to “repayment before”, even if it has taken longer than you anticipated, if you didn’t put a finite ‘long-stop’ date as part of the agreement.
    • Im afraid that it sounds like im going to have to try and do the best myself. Im not sure if investigators have more powers or not to find out things i cant.    Yes your right i dont want to be accused of harassment too as that's the kind of thing she would do.   I will take a read through the link you provided and see what i think. If i knew this was going to happen i would have try and prepared myself with the right information in advance but now i dont have much to go on.   Many thanks for your help  
    • Hi all i have now received a letter back from my bank regarding my charge back being reject3ed    It states the following.   "The bank for the retailer has rejected your claim and we are unable to assist you further  under Visa regulations. I am sorry we could not be of more assistance at this time. If you wish to persue this matter you will need to seek independent advice. We will not debit £15894.00 from you account."      What is my next recourse of action and how do I proceed
    • No second card, just that the card number on the original paperwork that is signed they sent through is different from the one they claim in their settlement offer letter.  Not sure that constitutes different card or one that got replaced or a new account as the card changed card type. 
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1687 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

July7th 2016

Back in April 2011,

I issued through Bailiff Studies Centre a discussion document (number three in the series) entitled

"Do we need an enforcement services ombudsman?"

The query was met with enthusiasm from some and wariness by others.

Since then, of course, matters have moved on considerably.

 

 

At the time of writing it still appeared likely that the Security Industry Authority would have some regulatory role in the sector and that the introduction of the reformed regime of bailiff law would lead to a considerable strengthening of the procedures for licencing and monitoring individual agents.

None of that happened.

 

 

The SIA dropped out of the picture and the rejigged certification process brought in to the Civil Procedure Rules in 2014 is very far from comprehensive or robust.

 

 

We were promised thorough training for county court district judges; there is little evidence of this.

A recent issue of Bailiff Studies Bulletin highlighted some of the problems with the qualifications upon which certificates are issued and there is, of course, no regulation of agencies, only individual agents- a bizarre result in the early 21st century.

 

We still lack any sector overview and any industry wide maintenance of standards or best practice.

It seems to me that there is still a very strong argument for some for of regulator

(the commercial body Ombudsman Services were interested in the function five years ago).

 

 

I would propose, too, that this regulation is not limited to enforcement agents and agencies.

I suggest that there would be a useful function for all parties (not just debtors) for those offering advice on bailiff law also to be regulated.

 

 

With the proliferation of web based advice and consumer forums,

I believe that there may be a role in setting and maintaining standards wherever consumers are asked to pay for advice on dealing with debt enforcement.

 

John Kruse

 

debt & money trainer & consultant, author

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Probs WD moved as requested

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely needed, some form of Regulator, might not suit the likes of Capita, they would probably lobby against it. Bohill would be unhappy also, as the programme dicussed on here might have been referred to the Regulator if there was on, as evidence of unlawful actions during Enforcement.

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

It seems to me that there are some organisations already in place to oversee things, but they are either not being used, or if being used, the organisation is not acting. There appear so many people in breach of the law at present, intentionally or unintentionally. Here's a couple of examples:

 

1. A business which charges for advice, holding and processing data without being DPA registered - this is something which could, and should be cracked down on immediately as the ICO is already in place.

 

2. A business which charges for advice, where the advice (or elements thereof) rightly falls under the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority - it is easy to fall foul of this, and anyone found to be in breach should be reported and penalised appropriately (now define appropriately).

 

3. A very basic thing, which should have been mentioned under No.1 - When I was DPA registered, I had to ensure that security to the information about people held on my computer met a certain standard - one which went quite a way beyond a simple password. At that stage I held data in encrypted vaults using what was then fairly expensive software. How many data controllers operating a small business giving bailiff advice on the Internet or over the phone have this sort of security, so if a burglar steals the equipment, they cannot access personal information? This would include things like Outlook being fully secured if enquiries come in via email, phone lines and answering systems being secured somehow if queries come on over the phone etc... etc... etc.... Another one for the ICO. Also, just because you may not have to be registered with the ICO does not mean you do not have to comply with the DPA.

 

So two large organisations, with teeth, which can already deal with breaches.

 

The separate issue is one enforcement companies, enforcement agents and companies, or small businesses offering advice. This, in theory, would be very much welcomed by all, and the independent regulation of 'the bailiff industry' is long overdue.

 

In terms of the 'advice' side of the industry, it is fraught with difficulties. We see arguments arising on here from differing, but entirely legal and accurate interpretations of legislation. Any official body would need to be flexible enough to accommodate these differing opinions, and apply penalties accordingly.

 

Personally, I'd crack down in a major way on ensuring existing organisations (the ICO and FCA) do their job properly, and ensuring those giving advice are, where necessary, registered with these bodies. I'd look to set up an independent body overseeing all bailiffs and bailiff companies (I'm using old language!) If these steps were taken, I think we'd see a big difference.

 

After this, we look to proper, rigorous training, certification and compulsory CPD for anyone charging for advice, along with regular re-certification and possibly some sort of inspection system - good luck to whoever tries to tackle this one. The basics for the ICO and FCA already exist though. Ensuring requirements for those are complied with in full would be a good start.

 

Without any real depth of thought, these are a very brief version of my initial views of this complex area. I could write all day long about almost any aspect of these, but will save you the tedium!

Edited by Andyorch
edited
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if John Kruse has just left such an open-ended conclusion to an article. Did he come up with what he thought should happen, and if so, what does he think?

 

Is there any chance of you posting the outdated article from 2011 as well please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be surprised if John Kruse has just left such an open-ended conclusion to an article. Did he come up with what he thought should happen, and if so, what does he think?

 

Is there any chance of you posting the outdated article from 2011 as well please?

 

The article was sent to me via Linkedin and I copied and pasted it here for discussion, I do not have the 2011 article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a problem. Evidence!

 

In many cases of complaint, there is no video or audio to back up what has been claimed so it's a case of he said, she said. this is most unsatisfactory. I don't now if ALL EA's have to wear a body worn camera or not but even so, how many times would these cameras 'malfunction'?

 

While an overseer (of some sort) could collate the amount of complaints against a company to see if there is a pattern of abuse, this could fall foul of the FMOTL lot who would encourage everyone to make a complaint. This would clog up the system and genuine cases may get overlooked due to amount of false complaints.

 

So, a good idea in principle but enforcing will be one big uphill struggle.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was much discussion between the candidates when the act was passed back in 2007, much of which would still be applicable today.

 

It may be worth looking at some of the reason that their applications where unsuccessful at the time.

 

Many of us were in favor of a new and completely independent regulator being created, but there were prohibitive costs implication I believe.

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
There was much discussion between the candidates when the act was passed back in 2007, much of which would still be applicable today.

 

It may be worth looking at some of the reason that their applications where unsuccessful at the time.

 

Many of us were in favor of a new and completely independent regulator being created, but there were prohibitive costs implication I believe.

 

Was that a regulatory authority for bailiffs, or was it to include the advice sector as well?

 

I do think elements of the advice sector are covered by the ICO and FCA as stated, and will look into this more. There may well be some who offer online advice with regards to bailiff matters and/or offer a charged for telephone consultation who clearly fall foul of these immediately. If they are in breach, or suspected to be in breach, clearly they should be reported.

 

An independent regulatory authority for bailiffs themselves would be great, though I suppose there is the EAC2 for fitness to hold a certificate, and courts for anything in breach of legislation.

Edited by Andyorch
edited inserted with regards to
Link to post
Share on other sites

WD, it was clear to me when reading this thread that the 'discussion' was concerning whether or not the enforcement industry should be 'regulated'.

 

Since the regulations were amended, a lot of improvements have been made. There has been a 'One Year' review, and analysts are continuing to monitor the regulations. Changes have not been made, and it is generally now assumed that any such changes will not take place until the full 3 year review early next year. I am hoping that the appointment today of a new Justice Minister will not delay this procedure.

 

As I have said a number of times, the fees that may be charged by an enforcement agent are based on the figures that had originally been proposed by an economist almost 7 years ago and despite the government pledging that fees would be reviewed each year, they have not as yet been increased. That in itself must be good news for all debtors.

 

To my mind, the Local Government Ombudsman are perfectly well able to deal with complaints and they do a very good job and seem to fully understand the enforcement regulations. I have frequently posted copies of decision from them on this section of the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the Ombudsman decisions that you have posted previously, made me post John Kruse's latest comments. While the LGO do deal with complaints to the best of their ability the process does tend to get bogged down, perhaps John has a point when he says an 'independent regulation of 'the bailiff industry' is long overdue'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again.....another day another thread.....off topic posts removed.

 

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 OTHERS

 

 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

With total respect this article is to do with two areas. It's to do with regulation of the enforcement industry and those giving paid advice regarding it.

 

"I would propose, too, that this regulation is not limited to enforcement agents and agencies.

I suggest that there would be a useful function for all parties (not just debtors) for those offering advice on bailiff law also to be regulated." (John Kruse)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the regulator would regulate the TCE, any other problems would be refereed to the individual regulatory bodies as they are now of course.

 

I am not sure I agree about the independent regulator though. I think public confidence issues alone would justify some kind of independent regulator.

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 the regulator would regulate the TCE, any other problems would be refereed to the individual regulatory bodies as they are now of course.

 

I am not sure I agree about the independent regulator though. I think public confidence issues alone would justify some kind of independent regulator.

 

I agree entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Changed...please read your PM I have sent you.

 

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 OTHERS

 

 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

 

I am not sure I agree about the independent regulator though. I think public confidence issues alone would justify some kind of independent regulator.

 

Thankfully, I have a rather 'odd' filing system whereby, if I have a document or notes that I want to ensure that I do not lose, I send a copy to home email address. I looked a few moments ago, and found my notes from a 2012 meeting when the subject of a 'independent regulator' was being consulted upon. I have emailed a copy to you. I am sure that this may bring back some memories of the early discussions surrounding this important subject !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thankfully, I have a rather 'odd' filing system whereby, if I have a document or notes that I want to ensure that I do not lose, I send a copy to home email address. I looked a few moments ago, and found my notes from a 2012 meeting when the subject of a 'independent regulator' was being consulted upon. I have emailed a copy to you. I am sure that this may bring back some memories of the early discussions surrounding this important subject !!!

 

Yes it does, I had forgotten all about it, i do not think that meeting ever took place, at least never in the public domain. Thanks for the accompanying upto date info also.

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 it does, I had forgotten all about it, i do not think that meeting ever took place, at least never in the public domain. Thanks for the accompanying upto date info also.

 

Naturally the meeting took place, but what you have, is my notes which are a excellent reminder as to the reason why the government felt that an independent regulator would not be necessary. The Security Industry Authority had initially been the preferred choice, but when their status changed in 2010, the plans were shelved. The government's preferred option was to implement Part 3 of TCE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Naturally the meeting took place, but what you have, is my notes which are a excellent reminder as to the reason why the government felt that an independent regulator would not be necessary. The Security Industry Authority had initially been the preferred choice, but when their status changed in 2010, the plans were shelved. The government's preferred option was to implement Part 3 of TCE.

 

 

D|id it, remember all the argument about who to invite and what the agenda would be but do not remember an actual minuted meeting, I remember that the BPA were also a candidate at one time. The SIA were as you say a front runner.

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

Ah I see you are refering to much later , i was refering to when the act was enacted.

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

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1687 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...