Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that Andyorch, I had originally abbreviated the particulars, I have now corrected them to match exactly what is written on the claim form.   Particulars of Claim   1. The claim is for the sum of £1016.54 due by defendant under an agreement regulated by Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Vanquis account with an account reference of XXX.   2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which has not been compiled with.   3.The debt legally assigned to the claimant on 23-09-19, notice of which has been given to the defendant.   4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £81.32.   The claimant claims the sum of £1097.86   Defence   The defendant contends that the Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. The defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on the CPRr16.5(3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.     2. Paragraph 2 is noted, although I do not recall ever receiving a default notice, or notice of arrears, pursuant to section 87(1) CCA 1974.   3. Paragraph 3 is noted, again, I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to section 136 of the law of property Act 1925.   4. On receipt of the claim form the defendant sent for on 26/03/2021 via royal mail a request pursuant to the CCA 1974. As a copy of the agreement. The claimant failed to respond or disclose any documents to date.   5. On receipt of the claim form, the defendant sent a CPR13'14 request on 26/03/2021 via royal mail. An acknowledgment was received, but no documents were disclosed.   6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the defendant owing any monies to the claimant and the claimant is put to strict proof to;    a) Show the defendant has entered an agreement, and b) Show how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for, and c) Show or evidence service of a default notice/notice of sums of arrears d) Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue claim   By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed of any relief.    
    • I've unapproved your previous post  lookinforinfo ......   Andy
    • You are right. I am so sorry. Well done for putting me right. I do not know what I was thinking of when I posted that. 
    • 2.failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been compiled with.   Does it really state that in their particulars or are you abbreviating ?  Who failed ?  Does it not state the defendant failed ?     .
    • I am very grateful of the help. Even if it seems I am not exactly helping myself. I will be making a donation at the end of the month. Even if I don't get anywhere, just knowing there has been someone out there ready and willing to help is a huge stress relief during the process.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1621 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

I caught the first episode in the new series last night

 

 

and was surprised to see the passive aggressive clown Paul Bohil still operating as an HCEO.

 

 

How can this be when he was supposed to have the right to act on the license he was using revoked

(apparently he's never been a certificated HCEO)

 

 

Also the very annoying Brian (fatty wannabe thug) sent for a removal vehicle for furniture from a hotel and a flat bed car transporter turned up!

 

 

Surely that showed he was bluffing as any damage caused by transportation in an unsuitable vehicle would be down to DCBL?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

surprised to see the passive aggressive clown Paul Bohil still operating as an HCEO.

 

How can this be when he was supposed to have the right to act on the license he was using revoked (apparently he's never been a certificated HCEO)

 

In fact, he is certificated !!

 

His certificate was granted to him on 12th April and his employer is listed as Direct Collections Ltd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only managed to watch the first half last night as I was so damn angry at see the way in which the enforcement agent 'forced' their way into the property despite the father CLEARLY advising that he was refusing entry and asking the officer to move away from the door. The father could not close the door.

 

There were so many breaches of the regulations that it is difficult to know where to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I only managed to watch the first half last night as I was so damn angry at see the way in which the enforcement agent 'forced' their way into the property despite the father CLEARLY advising that he was refusing entry and asking the officer to move away from the door. The father could not close the door.

 

There were so many breaches of the regulations that it is difficult to know where to start.

 

I don't watch any of these ' poverty porn' or other programmes that promote these type of companies e.g Enforcement officers, traffic wardens. Makes my blood boil, because i question the motives of the producers of these programmes and those invested in them.

 

These Enforcement Agents don't follow the rules because they know that not much can be done about their behaviour. Are the Police ever likely to arrest an EA, charge them and gain approval to prosecute ?

 

Who is going to tackle this behaviour ?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't bear watching those programmes... the thought of all those poor people being persecuted and bullied, it really upsets me...

Who but a sadist could sit there with a cup of tea and a biscuit and enjoy watching those less fortunate losing their homes or possessions?

Poverty Porn just about sums it up...:sad:

 

TB

Link to post
Share on other sites
I only managed to watch the first half last night as I was so damn angry at see the way in which the enforcement agent 'forced' their way into the property despite the father CLEARLY advising that he was refusing entry and asking the officer to move away from the door. The father could not close the door.

 

There were so many breaches of the regulations that it is difficult to know where to start.

 

 

I'm glad it's not just me that sits there shouting at the TV them, it makes my blood boil watching these thugs dressed up as officials abusing people.

 

The problem I have is that people watch this program and think that it's correct and they have the right to act in these ways

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if a complaint should be made to OFCOM about this show. While they don't investigate individual complaints, if enough people complained, they may just take some action.

 

I will try to stay calm enough to watch this episode. Barging past people is wrong and should be stamped on.

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

The way he is going Bohill will be a victim when a burly debtor decides he needs a tolchock, and Bohil gets the three hits as in Bohill gets hit, Bohill hits the floor, and the Ambulance hits 90mph

 

Seriously agree with SF tell OFCOM the show is condoning criminal action by Bohill, highlighting where he has broken the law at each point on the programmes timeline.

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 am wondering if a complaint should be made to OFCOM about this show. While they don't investigate individual complaints, if enough people complained, they may just take some action.

 

I will try to stay calm enough to watch this episode. Barging past people is wrong and should be stamped on.

 

I am just about to start a new thread regarding DCBL and given it's seriousness, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I will be starting the thread in the main bailiff forum and I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a wonderful show and Bohill is such a gentleman, if only all bailiffs were like him.

You 'avin a larf?

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 am just about to start a new thread regarding DCBL and given it's seriousness, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I will be starting the thread in the main bailiff forum and I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain there.

DCBL need winding up

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's a wonderful show and Bohill is such a gentleman, if only all bailiffs were like him.

Wonderful show ? highlighting peoples misery purely for cheap entertainment to cater for perverse viewers is not my or any right minded individual definition of wonderful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in relation to conniffs post, i dont think some people here understand sarcasm

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
in relation to conniffs post, i dont think some people here understand sarcasm

I do not know the poster, I presumed it could be a sarcastic, inflammatory or a genuine response, I do not presume to read the minds of other posters, It is not for me to give lessons on internet protocol but message boards do not provide the same level of interaction as face to face chats that is why we uses emotes to help indicate if a post or comment was in jest or sarcastic etc in order to avoid confusion, unless that is what the poster intended.

 

As for me not understanding sarcasm I think I can be forgiven on this

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am just about to start a new thread regarding DCBL and given it's seriousness, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I will be starting the thread in the main bailiff forum and I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain there.

 

The new thread is here and what is outlined in the thread is vitally important.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?469126-DCBL-(Direct-Collections-Bailiffs-Ltd)-enforcing-debts-without-warrants...what-to-look-out-for.

 

As can be read, an officer from DCBL attended premises a couple of days ago to enforce a 'disputed debt' and one that has not been subject to court action and where no judgment has been obtained.

 

The officer closely resembled a Police Officer.

 

He refused to leave the premises unless payment was made. He was demanding in excess of £10,000. As he was refusing to leave....police were called. They refused to attend stating that the officer had a right to be at the premises to enforce the debt !!!

 

The officer remained for over three hours. He only left when he received a payment.

 

The enforcement agent was also demanding 'interest' of 8%' on the disputed debt.

 

He threatened that unless the balance was paid by 5pm, that he would be returning with a 'film crew' (presumably, a film crew from the TV series, 'Can't Pay We Will Take it Away'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wondering if a complaint should be made to OFCOM about this show. While they don't investigate individual complaints, if enough people complained, they may just take some action.

 

I will try to stay calm enough to watch this episode. Barging past people is wrong and should be stamped on.

 

Of course it isn't that long ago we had someone claiming to work on the show saying all was hunky dory, puts it into perspective the role of TV company.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night's show was equally horrendous with wanna be thug Fatty Brian demanding money with intimidation from a disabled lady and her partner for a disputed funeral cost. The lady twice offered a payment plan option of £5 or £10 per week (maybe month) which given her circumstances was reasonable which the EA's completely ignored. Fatty Brian then charged off to check her vehicle saying "I bet it's in a communal parking space" whilst grinning like a clever boy, only to find it was a motability vehicle - what did he expect, she is disabled Dumbass! I really don't like him. Ended up they got nothing as the lady had nothing of value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There were so many breaches of the regulations that it is difficult to know where to start.

 

Clearly they and their authorised HCEO couldn't give a monkeys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

all of these people on the programme are inn the position they are in because they failed to respond to the original court claim. Even if they had lost that they would only owe no more than half of the demanded sum and would have had a court agreed settlement schedule in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
all of these people on the programme are inn the position they are in because they failed to respond to the original court claim. Even if they had lost that they would only owe no more than half of the demanded sum and would have had a court agreed settlement schedule in place.

 

Correct. But that doesn't allow for laws and regulations to be blatantly broken time and time again.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct. But that doesn't allow for laws and regulations to be blatantly broken time and time again.

 

Just a little food for thought here. If you were owed money by some particularly obstructive debtor, would you lose any sleep if entry wasn't strictly to the letter of the law? i have been owed a lot of money (to me) in the past and I used to lose sleep over it. It wasn't so much the money, it was the thought of someone taking the proverbial "Michael" out of me. Many a time, I was on the brink of "enforcing" it myself, only to have calmed down by the time that I arrived at the premises of the debtor.

 

I remember one of these programmes showed the ex-footballer, Neil Ruddock who had put his dog in kennels (presumably so that he could enjoy a nice holiday). He didn't pay the kennel owner and then hid behind bankruptcy. When visited, he was driving a fancy BMW and living in a very nice house. He clearly had the means to settle the debt if he wished to. However, he refused to pay, stating that the debt was incurred prior to him being registered bankrupt. I just wonder how many other people Rudduck owed money to in this manner?

 

I just wonder, if I obtained a writ, would DCBL be the company that I would choose to collect, given their approach?

 

I would add that I am on the side of the debtor and do not advocate breaching of legislation. I am also not convinced that evry breach is carried out exclusively by DCBL. I suspect it is convenient for the rest of the industry to point fingers in their direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...