Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1123 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

I do not disagree that in theory the fees are due.

 

But one of the main part of the Op's question was whether they could legally take the car as it has been over 12 months from the NoE,

If the EC have not enforced within this period then should they not have sent a new NoE,

It is also unusual for an EC to hold on to the account for 12 months or more.

 

In my case Newlyns held the account for 10 months before sending it back, with only one attempt, but they called at 5.00am

that was the first and last I saw of them.

 

He may have a valid reason to complain because of the time scales

If Newlyns did not follow procedure then they are in the wrong, regardless if they are owed the fee's or not

 

The procedures are there for a reason so if there is a dispute it can be sorted out,

But unfortunately, the procedures are interpreted in different ways.

 

I urge the OP to go down the section 85 route first, and it will have to be done soon, before taking the EC to court. if he has to follow this through to the end.

 

I didn't state a theory. If you dont believe the fact then lets here your argument, and i will tell you why you are wrong.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok DB

 

Yes the fee's are due to the EC

but if they went out side of the Procedures they are meant to follow the car should be returned.

 

If you owed me £310.00 and refused to pay me, and I walked in your house and took this amount from you, it would be theft because I did not go through the proper procedures to get the money owed,

 

If the 12 months had expired and they had not renewed the NoE then what is the difference, they did not follow procedure.

The rules are there for a reason. for The EC and the Debtor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK first ting , i apologize for the tone of my last post, having a ****ty day, no cause to take it out on others.

 

The thing is that the baiiff may well have gone through the correct procedures.

 

If the payment made within the time period to the council, it will indeed be regarded the first payment of an arrangment, then the time limit on taking control of goods would be re set.

 

If for the sake of argument it was not the case, all the baiiff is guilty of is taking a car which he was not suposed to and as you say a section 85 claim would be applicable he point is that the warrant is still live.

 

As said the pro rata split is not carried out until the account is due back, and that that point it will be taken out of funds paid, which in turn will mean that the liability order is still outstanding.

 

All this continuing blarney about who the payment is paid to is nonsense , the ammount is due to the bailiff, no one is claiming that debt ha been returned even now.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the NoE needed to be renewed,as it had run it's 12 month course. and was not.

 

I may be wrong and I freely admit my understanding is not as good as some.

 

But if my understanding is correct, then the car should be returned, and the correct procedure followed.

I agree the fee's are owed the TCE states this but the procedures set out are there for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi the only restriction is on the ability to take control this is due to the tce, no restriction on the liability order at all, it will run until it is paid,

The order itself will continue to run also,it just will not permit takesing control of goods


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I do not think that any further advice can be given without this threat turning into a 'discussion' thread (which must be avoided).

 

My main concern here is that if I was the debtor, then for the sake of a relatively small amount of (£310) I would be making immediate payment in order to gain possession of my car. Mind you, it may be that the car is worth very little. I would be very worried at daily storage fees.

 

Once the car is back in the OP's control (and the amount paid) his vehicle is no longer at risk and he can then pursue a complaint against Harrow Council /and or Newlyn's PLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BA

possibly good advise but you do tend to pay up then fight for the money back.

It may be easy for you to say, but some debtors do not have the spare cash,

Yes may be lose the car, but with the fees it probably will not cover the fees if sold.

By the sound of it the OP is working on the Principle of what he thinks is right and the Bailiff is in the wrong and not following procedure. which may be the case.

 

Why should people have to try and get the cars back if the Bailiffs do not do the proper checks

If there was a penalty for the EA for every time he got it wrong then may be things would change very quickly.

 

As I have said before Procedures are there to be followed to protect the Debtor and the EA, if not followed, the EA should forfeit part of the fees just like the debtor is penalised for not following, or able to follow procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BA may be advise on the section 85 would be good advise for the OP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where can I get advise on filing the Part 85 accordingly and correctly to lay out the grounds The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 9.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor after the expiry of a period of 12 months beginning with the date of notice of enforcement.

(2) Where—

(a)after giving notice of enforcement the enforcement agent enters into an arrangement with the debtor for the repayment, by the debtor, of the sum outstanding by instalments (a repayment arrangement); and

(b)the debtor breaches the terms of the repayment arrangement,

the period in paragraph (1) begins with the date of the debtor’s breach of the repayment arrangement.

(3) The court may order that the period in paragraph (1) be extended by 12 months.

 

 

and Newlyn issued the Notice of enforcement 19/08/2015 and took control of goods 10/10/2016. So I should get my goods back.

I have 7 days from the 10/10/2016 to present this and the clock is ticking.

for clause 2. Newlyns have no arrangement to present as I made none with them and made none with any enforcement Agent.

for clause 3. there is no court order to extend by 12months

 

so what they hope to present as documented evidence is nothing, so they have zero documents to disprove the claim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiff Advise is the best one for this, as she has stated in an earlier post she has only lost one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi BA

Possibly good advise but you do tend to pay up then fight for the money back.

 

It may be easy for you to say, but some debtors do not have the spare cash,

 

Good post Leakie.

 

Firstly, as I outlined earlier in this thread, it is my opinion that the enforcement fees are due. The 'pro rata' distribution is to be applied when a 'partial' payment is made (which is what has happened in this case).

 

I would not be taking took much notice of what a council tax clerk may have said over the phone about the payment clearing the account. If this particular case were to go to a formal complaint, (or legal proceedings issued), I would suspect that an entirely different answer would be given by somebody in a much more senior position !!

 

On the second point on the affordability to pay, I agree that it is a lot of money but my point here is that all this week my advice has been aimed at trying to save this OP from incurring more storage charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes BA

 

But it would not be just a council Clerk,

From my experience once you have a LO you deal with recovery dept.

And they should know better , if not they need to be retrained

 

 

I think we are missing the point

The Op thinks there has been an injustice, as the NoE had expired,

And if the info on here is correct the EC have not followed correct procedure,

 

The Rules are not set just for the Debtor ! They are there for everyone involved.

But for some reason the only ones who suffer the consequences is the debtor and not the EC.

Seems like it was designed that way.

 

Yes you did say early on about settling up to save money,

but too me something smells here in the way the EC have acted.

 

I can only go on the info I have picked up on here it just does not feel right to me,

 

The Op will decide which way he wants to go with this, He is making his own informed decision.

 

He has asked for help with the section 85 so lets help him through this.

that is after all why he came here in the first place,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bailiff Advise is the best one for this, as she has stated in an earlier post she has only lost one

 

Thank you.

 

Over the weekend I intend starting a few 'discussion' threads and an important one will concern the steps that should be made if a bailiff has taken a vehicle.

 

I am also concerned that this thread is getting far too long as turning into a 'discussion' thread'.

 

I really do not care whether I will be criticised for saying so, but the truth is that I have probably more experience that anybody else about 'Part 85' claims.

 

I was the person who put so much pressure on the government to introduce 'Part 85' claims into the CPR regulations almost three years ago.

 

My thread on this subject (from February 2014) is below.

 

Thread on CAG re Third Party Goods and Interpleaders.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?418396-Third-Party-Goods-Interpleaders-and-the-serious-potential-to-damage-the-new-Bailiff-Reforms-on-6th-April

Edited by Andyorch
edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are 2 issues here that need to be separated.

 

1 The car taken on an out of time NoE (Should the car have been taken with the out of time NoE No I do not think so)

 

2 the £310 owed to the EC (are they owed in my opinion yes they are )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed they are owed £310 No dispute they are owed money. This has never been a point in contention.

My only and one factor is that the NOE had expired

and no agreement is in place with the Enforcement Agent and so I as the debtor did not breach any terms of a repayment arrangement with the Enforcement Agent.

So the enforcement agent may not take control of goods

 

The L/o being in effect

payment to the council being made and dates noted

the EA calling/called dates and times can all be dated and time stamped.

 

None of that is stipulated as terms or factors that over rule the NOE expired and with no arrangement in place the enforcement agent cannot take control of goods.

 

It only says if I had an arrangement in place with the enforcement agent then they can enforce.

If they were owed £310 with the Noe being invalid they are meant not to enforce how they can get around that with no arrangement well I think they will get around their certification being expired and still enforcing, he owed me money we had a l/o he made a payment to the council on x date ...but your certificate expired you cant enforce...that is madness same way your NOE expired you had no arrangement you cant enforce.

 

If somewhere it stipulates that when a payment to the council is made the Noe letter is automatically reset or a payment to the council is deemed to be acceptance or agreement to entering an arrangement with a third party they are within their rights to keep my vehicle, if not give it back.

 

When has paying your council tax to the council meant you automatically entered a payment arrangement with the bailiffs.

If that is true we are all in trouble as we enter arrangements without our knowledge to terms we do not know or agree with.

A direct debit with the council to pay your council tax would automatically bind you to a bailiff firm without your knowledge and without you signing an arrangement with the bailiffs, they do not need arrangements forms or a signature they are automatically there with direct debit forms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The danger here is that the op. Goes to law with this.

 

Appart from the ones mentioned, there are other reasons why section 9. May not mean what people on here think it does.

 

Incidentally, did we e ver get an answer about previous visits ?

 

We would not want another. Judgement like the HP one where it would have been far better to leave the matter alone.

 

As said far better paying, getting the car back then taking proper advice regarding what to do next.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 9 seems very clear and straight forward. I do not feel I have mis interpreted it in any way. The only point that it seemed to bring up, that has been mentioned, If i am correct is that paying the council can be regarded as entering into an arrangement with the bailiffs.

To which end direct debits mean we all have third party arrangements set up that will bind us to bailiff firms indirectly and we as a society are not privy to that.

I know I have to get the section 85 out quickly outlining my understanding of section 9 as it stands as my point is only the NOE expired.

I am willing to accept the loss of the vehicle to clarify the issue. Can you enforce when the NOE expired and no arrangement is in place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can have a case *** v Newlyn where an NOe has expired payment to the council means you automatically enter into an arrangement with the third party bailiffs so all our automatic direct debits with banks to pay our council tax are pre signed agreements that can be used to tie us into arrangements with bailiff firms without our direct consent. If a payment from your bank goes through to the council you have agreed an arrangement with the bailiffs ....Really??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you are in this mess is because you believed some nonsense about section 50(3) as you cnofirmed earlier, so ay advice you are recieving from the same source should be treated with caution to say the least.

 

The creditor is not a third party in the relationship. My mum used to pay her gas to the post office, it did not make them third party in the relationship, nonsense. They are merely collecting the money for the baiiff.

Direct debits are not privy to any agreement, they are not a contractual agreement in any case.

 

Basically paying the authority whilst the account is with enforcment, is the same as paying the bailiff himself. This is one of the things that "contracting out " means.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can have a case *** v Newlyn where an NOe has expired payment to the council means you automatically enter into an arrangement with the third party bailiffs so all our automatic direct debits with banks to pay our council tax are pre signed agreements that can be used to tie us into arrangements with bailiff firms without our direct consent. If a payment from your bank goes through to the council you have agreed an arrangement with the bailiffs ....Really??

 

Direct debits are not contracts. You seem to be exhibiting a lot of misunderstood and familiar ideas now. You also demonstrate that you aim is not to achieve justice but instead to get one over the bailiffs, this is not a recommended action.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am here to discuss the matter as outlined. I am writing what i read and defining it as i read it. I am writing my source what part of legislation I would be using and what it means to me as I read it and asking if i am correct in my understanding. If my belief after reading it is "nonsense" I am here to get corrected on that part which I have read and misunderstood. When I cite something and another part arises then I move on to the other part, that has been used to address my initial statement and the debate/conversation moves forward and I gain a better understanding of the the whole and not just the part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not trying to get one over anyone. I came here saying one thing Noe expired and no arrangement in place and it has been said that payment to the council can be regarded as an arrangement with the bailiff. i ask then if i had a direct debit payment to the council would that payment also be regarded as entering into an arrangement with the bailiff.

 

I have said I await help to get a section 85 so i am listening and acting accordingly with what has been said as the correct course to take. I hope the discussion and understanding is still open and relevant and I am not taken out of hand as being malicious trying to get one over on someone, when I have had my vehicle taken and i dont see who i am getting one over on; when at the end of the day I am trying to get it returned and the correct process undertaken.

 

Should I pay to get something returned when it should not have been taken in the first place. I can freely fill out the section 85 and collect my property if the mistake is clear and not my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK the first thing is that the NOE does not expire If anything it removes the bailiffs power to take control of goods, the remaining powers he has under the act, collecting payments, taking controlled goods for sale etc. still remain.

 

You have already admitted you owe £310. In fact the bailiff will maintain you owe an extra £110 also for taking the car for sale.

 

I am sure however the bailiff will waive the sale fee and return your car, on payment of the ammount you admit you owe, TBH if it were me, that is what I would do.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The direct debit issue is not really important it is merely means of getting payment to the person you owe. As of course is paying the council under these circumstances.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

following on from what you have said it removes power to take control of goods, does that mean, they cannot then take my car that he met on the roadside on the day, because the power to take control of goods was removed. It was not under a controlled goods agreement.

 

Can i fill this out on a section 85 and get my vehicle back as that is what my sole concern is.

 

I am sure that this issue means that they have not purged their computer system to put on hold expired NOE letters as I have knowledge to cross reference a number of others would have gone before me under similar circumstance totally unnoticed.

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...