Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Stop worrying about bailiffs and read what dx100uk  has posted  ..........................................................
    • The two companies are lowell and cabot.   I'll get the information and come back with it.   I did do quite a bit of 'Google' research before coming on here. There's a lot of confusing information out there they seem to tell you half the story.   Just so I'm clear. Bailiffs in my situation, if authorised by a court. Can enter the property through an unlocked door and seizure goods? Or can they not do that with a consumer credit ccj? Or point me in the right direction so I can read up on it.   Thank you for your help. It's good to finally speak to somebody who tells you how it is.
    • I've just acknowledged the claim and im reading up on how to do the cca and cpr requests now.   Thanks for all your help         Edit:   I was jus reading the cpr 13 template and it says i am requesting: " (template removed - dx)
    • Hi dx   Post 23 letter has been hidden as has a name in it. I did read the thread and in post 7 saw mention of 'must complain within 3 years of being aware it was mis-sold' if this is what you are referring to? Also my policy is live currently.   I think you know this, but it seems the RBS/Halifax agent doesnt know, that 'I became aware it was mis-sold just before I raised my claim (2019) having read a media article'  as I dont think the PPi team showed them the original claim form maybe, who knows.   Expanding, sorry I missed the word PPi after 'loan' in my post you quoted and highlighted. To be clear, the life protector was not for a loan, but a mortgage, and that mortgage did have a mis-sold PPi on it which they have admitted and refunded.   If it helps, I have several mortgage offers here from 1999 and they say 'Minimum life cover to be assigned to the bank'    The odd thing here is, I started the mortgage and PPi in 1999 but it was 2003 this life assurance started. I do categorically recall being told it was something I had to have though.   Many thanks   E 
    • MP's are good for other things but for some reason are not very good for Council Tax.
  • 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

DCBL (Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd) enforcing debts without warrants...what to look out for.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1601 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

Given the seriousness of this thread, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain on this section of the forum.

 

Sadly, this is not the first time that I have taken issue with documentation from DCBL. There is a long thread on here regarding this firm and their letters regarding private parking debts (more later). This firm are also behind the TV series....Can't Pay...We Will Take it Away.

 

Yesterday, I was contacted by a gentleman who had received a letter from DCBL the previous day. The letter was received by post and was on headed notepaper from DCBL and clearly stated at the top of the letter (beside the word DCBL) the words: Certificated Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers.

 

The letter referred to a 'debt' in excess of £10,000. Interest of 8% (since May 2016) had also been added.

 

The letter stated the following:

 

 

Unless we receive immediate proposals from you regarding the repayment of this debt, the recovery process will commence 7 days from the date of this letter.

 

We may also make arrangements for a representative to call upon you to open up lines of communication.

 

The person receiving the letter knew about the 'debt' and knew that it was heavily disputed. More importantly, he was adamant that court proceedings had not been undertaken against him and that a judgment had not been obtained. He intended writing to DCBL. Before being able to, he had a visit at his home from a High Court Enforcement Agent from DCBL.

 

It is fair and accurate to state that an argument broke out. The 'debtor' called the police. Astonishingly, the police refused to attend stating that they were satisfied that DCBL had authority to attend his premises to enforce the debt.

 

The High Court Enforcement Agent from DCBL refused to leave the premises unless he received payment. Under duress, the debtor borrowed a sum of £2,000.

 

DCBL yesterday confirmed the following:

 

That the debt had not been subject to court action.

 

That a judgment had not been obtained by the creditor.

 

That they were enforcing a 'pre judgment' debt.

 

That the 'High Court Enforcement Officer' was attending as a 'Debt Collector'

 

Members of the public receiving letters such as these will no doubt be hoodwinked into believing that the debt was legally due and that a court order exists. They would be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

same stunt as what Philips used to put years ago on DVLA 'debts'

insinuating [or leading the debtor on to believe] they have bailiff powers when they are infact only operating as a powerless DCA.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'High Court Enforcement Officer' was at the debtors' premises for three hours. He stated that if he did not receive full payment, that he would return after 5 pm and that he would have a film crew with him. Presumably, this 'film crew' would be from the makers of the TV series...'Can't Pay...We Will Take It Away'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
same stunt as what Philips used to put years ago on DVLA 'debts'

insinuating [or leading the debtor on to believe] they have bailiff powers when they are infact only operating as a powerless DCA.

 

I seem to remember though that Philips (who are no longer around) sent their letters from their debt recovery arm of the business.

 

Of serious concern with DCBL is that in the case yesterday....they were attempting to also charge 8% interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but return after 5pm to do what?

 

which ofcourse a doorstep DCA can do unless told otherwise by the property owner.

 

I wonder if DCBL actually ever said they were their as an HCEO bet they didn't

but the debtor 'assumed' they were with such powers

 

what is the debt you haven't stated.

 

as for Philips [now collectica] the early letters were the same letterhead as the bailiff division until they changed them.

I seen to remember the authorities had a hand in forcing that one?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DCBL are hoping no one will challenge their shenanigans.

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
but return after 5pm to do what? which of course a doorstep DCA can do unless told otherwise by the property owner.

 

I wonder if DCBL actually ever said they were their as an HCEO bet they didn't but the debtor 'assumed' they were with such powers

 

what is the debt you haven't stated.

 

The Officer advised that unless full payment was made that he would be returning after 5pm with a film crew. This was a clear enough reference to the TV series, 'Can't Pay We Will Take It Away' , which again, is a clear enough indication that if the individual were not to pay by 5pm, that his goods would be taken away !!

 

You have correctly stated DX that as a Debt Collector, the officer could return UNLESS told otherwise. In this particular case, it was made very clear to the enforcement agent that the debtor did not want him at his property and the police were even called. The officer refused to leave and remained at the property for three hours!!! He only left when a payment was made to him.

 

In this particular case, the letter that arrived the day before the visit clearly states DCBL Certificated Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers. The officer was dressed in the same way as the officers in the TV series, (i.e. closely resembling a Police Officer).

 

The debt being enforced was not one that was covered by the CCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like an illegal act and they would have had no protections as an enforcement officer, if the householders used reasonable force to remove them.

 

Under section 40 administration of justice act, it is an offence to pretend to be exercising powers given by a court.

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

but did they UB?

 

how about requesting the body cam footage?

 

prove they used the word bailiffs and that they said they could take goods etc etc

 

sorry but it sounds like to me he let himself get 'had'

and they let him think they were operating a bailiffs - not simply a DCA.

 

so what ...

returning with a TV crew

- doesn't prove they were acting as bailiffs.

- doesn't prove they could take goods.

 

The officer refused to leave and remained at the property for three hours!!! He only left when a payment was made to him.

- - doesn't prove they were acting as bailiffs. simply that the police got spoofed too

 

neither does the letter.

 

clever ploys?.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder how he paid..debit card..chargeback...that should put the cat amongst the pigeons...?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the seriousness of this thread, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain on this section of the forum.

 

Yesterday, I was contacted by a gentleman who had received a letter from DCBL the previous day.........

 

What did you advise them?

 

If this is sufficiently serious to warrant a thread of its own, debtors should know exactly what they should do in the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the DCBL 'bailliff' tell the police he was acting as a debt collector or bailiff ?

Your gentleman may be able to make a complaint to the police either way.

If the police were lied to, they may want to take action against DCBL, if not then you should complain to the police/ipcc for giving out incorrect legal info and causing a financial loss. Also get the police to recover the money paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Payment was made by debit card unfortunately. I will be able to post more over the next few days.

 

 

then do a chargeback

if they def were not legally operating as a bailiff.

and said and wrote down we are here as bailiffs then its fraud

 

 

go do a chargeback

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
then do a chargeback

if they def were not legally operating as a bailiff.

and said and wrote down we are here as bailiffs then its fraud

 

 

go do a chargeback

 

That would seem the obvious route, and it's what was going through my mind when I asked BA what she had advised. I imagine it may have gone further if the misrepresentation was to that extent. It's odd to start a thread, but then fail to furnish us with the details until 'a few days time.' Not overly helpful to others who may be facing this position.

 

Let's see what happens in a few days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of misrepresentation is essentially a matter for the FCA and their license to act as a debt collector. The misrepresentation of power is something they seem to thrive on no matter what they are acting under.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This kind of misrepresentation is essentially a matter for the FCA and their license to act as a debt collector. The misrepresentation of power is something they seem to thrive on no matter what they are acting under.

And by doing so undermine Enforcement as a method of collecting debt in the public eye, as they fit the description of rogues as surely as Clair Sandbrook's rottweiler Boast did.

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
And by doing so undermine Enforcement as a method of collecting debt in the public eye, as they fit the description of rogues as surely as Clair Sandbrook's rottweiler Boast did.

 

I think you'll find that Boast was working for Julie Green-Jones at Rossendales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you'll find that Boast was working for Julie Green-Jones at Rossendales.

Oops of course HCEOs I was confusing the Sandbrook link to DCBL with JGJ of Rossers. mind you the comparison with Boast is still valid, similar MO of bluff and no legal basis for actions.

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
This kind of misrepresentation is essentially a matter for the FCA and their license to act as a debt collector. The misrepresentation of power is something they seem to thrive on no matter what they are acting under.

 

Your input has been most helpful.

 

As I mentioned on Saturday, this incident only happened on Friday and given that we have had the weekend in between, it has not been possible to make too many enquiries. The most important task has been to write to the bank and a complaint to the FCA will naturally follow very swiftly.

 

Over the next few days I would hope to be able to put together a 'check list' for anyone else receiving such a letter and guidance on what an 'enforcement agent' can and cannot when visiting a property in connection with a 'pre judgment' debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No problem. For info, when applying for an FCA license to carry out debt collection activities they will have had to supply sample letters. I would suggest the letters being used are not those that were provided to the FCA.

They wouldn't dare supply the ones they sent out in the case highlighted by BA, so perhaps they should be forwarded with debtor info redacted.

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

This raises 2 heads.

 

Firstly as mentioned the FCA

 

Secondly involve the new Justice Secretary, as I doubt theDCBL authorised HCEO has a clue or even cares.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
This raises 2 heads.

 

Firstly as mentioned the FCA

 

Secondly involve the new Justice Secretary, as I doubt theDCBL authorised HCEO has a clue or even cares.

Perhaps she could be extradited back to the UK to answer questions regarding due diligence and supervision of the DCBL minions if the FCA,and Justice Secretary grasp the seriousness of the DCBL shenanigans.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...