Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi I appealed online on 28/12/19. I have attached my submission as a further PDF   Thanks
    • I received £1500 from a friend and another £1000 another from their Revolut accounts, which are fine. I would be OK if Revolut just returned the money to them. Happy to provide proof of income and they are happy to do so, too.
    • POFA plays no part in limiting court costs.  costs recovery under the small claims track is very limited   2 cases heard together? 1st you've told us about this....        
    • Just a general comment - as I know nothing about legal procedures...   I agree with what I think BankFodder is suggesting - it really ought to be a straightforward question of a breach of contract.  You've paid for a service and the other party (or their sub-contractor) has failed to perform that service - safe delivery to the addressee.  It seems daft to me that the risk of non-delivery gets passed back to you because you've not paid for insurance against their failure to perform their responsibilities.  It's an inherently unfair* business model that has crept up by stealth, assisted by the growth of internet shopping.  Of course, a court may not agree...   I also agree with BF that you should be able to do some research yourself, and you should see this as an opportunity for self-directed learning as well as self-help!  You can always check back with BF, Andyorch and dx100uk that your understanding is correct.  You might get some ideas for final year dissertation - it's a bit of an academic problem with real-life commercial implications.   *Of course, in the absence of this business model, courier fees would go up, but I would argue that's a fairer way of spreading the risk of loss/damage etc   (PS - I was a law student a looooooooong time ago.  In your position I'd have tried my tutors as a sounding board as well.  I also thought SBU had it's own law clinic - although the advice is likely to be quite basic unless somebody sees this as an "interesting" problem)
    • Thanks EB, I will catchup on the mentioned thread as I had used it before the hearing.   I went for hearing. Rep approached mentioning settlement, talking about them having a strong case to which I pointed out their bundle which they were going through that it says Excel here so aren't you here for the wrong company.   They mentioned sister companies, I mentioned companies house and then I said let's leave it to the judge they went away from me. The rep went into a room presumably to call their firm Elms Legal I think probably for advice.   We ended up being the last hearing before lunch, as the Usher called out our names and said the judge will call you in shortly. The rep came over saying something like I'm surprised you're going in without submitting a WS!   I said it has been served they said well I haven't seen it, when was it sent, do you have copies as I could get the Usher to copy, I said I may,  rep - you either do or you don't Take care of yourself.I said well we will have to put this in front of the judge now.   Inside the rep said to the judge about my WS not being served and they asked me on multiple occasions for the WS I said 5 minutes before coming in is not multiple occasions. The judge said they had my WS along with an index of papers I had sent in that they have been looking at.   The rep started with their page contract and terms and conditions picture in their bundle saying they have a valid contract and that in the Tariff /T&C picture it mentioned about entering into a contract with VCS.   The judge asked me what I made of that I argued where is the contract giving them, a 3rd party, authority from Excel to issue proceedings in their own rights? The judge said to the rep, Defendant not accepting this so we are not getting anywhere rep raised WS issue again saying they asked on multiple occasions, again I repeated what 5 minutes before coming in. I said I had Cert of Posting.   The rep mentioned about being given a few minutes to read it and I said I had a copy but the judge was saying it's near lunch and it will take too much time even though the rep said there is still 35 minutes left.   I said the WS was served see COP but the judge said they may have lost it etc so to send it again. I said the rep could have a copy now but the rep was like I couldn't take pictures of it and send back to my client as they only get things from them via email.   I said you could post it but the judge said the rep is saying they can't use post for whatever reason so if I could send it again. Case adjourned.   The rep asked about costs and judge said reserved and I asked about my loss of earnings and that I would have to get leave booked again. Reserved seemed to be the answer but the judge was apologising about being the last morning hearing and said he would make sure we were first next time and the rep asked for an hour instead of 45 minutes so judge asked me and I said ok.   The rep asked about the reason for adjourning to give to their client as they would have had to pay them to attend. Outside at the ushers desk the rep had spoken to the Usher to make a copy from mine (didn't accept it Infront of the judge) and also asked to see the COP and I obliged saying I deem this served now but the rep said you have an order/instruction from the judge to send to VCS. I regret giving them a copy thinking I should have said you will have it once I send it again to VCS. Whilst inside, the judge said as the hearing never started it wouldn't be infront of him again and also the rep said it would probably be someone else as she also wasn't the person named in their WS. As per POFA my understanding is one cannot be made to pay costs more than in the NTK. As it will now be a 2nd hearing, 2 days off work for me and 2 representations for them, will there be double AL for me to claim if I win or double expenses if they win?   There was supposed to  be 2 cases heard together but I only had WS for this one am I supposed to have asked for another WS? Will they be claiming the fee/expenses for both cases with one hearing yet I could only claim for the 2 days AL?   What do you make of what happened at the hearing from their rep, maybe they realised it won't be straightforward especially when it was a judge they were not aware of perhaps they conferred with their team about ways to handle aswell as ways to escape? Thanks      
  • Our picks

Bailiff Advice

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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1267 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.

Share this post


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..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


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'.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new really. What did you advise the debtor to do?

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


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..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wonder how he paid..debit card..chargeback...that should put the cat amongst the pigeons...?

 

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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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]

 

Share this post


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!

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...