Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1130 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 think you had better wait for BA on the section 85 issue , there is no one more qualified to assist you in this, I would listen to what she says.

 

You say you came on here to have your ideas corrected if they are mistaken, however your above post seems remarkably similar to post no. 1 on here. I think you have seen all the reasons we dissagree already.


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 suppose the simple way to put this DB,

 

 

1- If there was not a controlled goods agreement in place

 

2- The NoE had Expired

 

3- Would the EA be able to legally, take the car in lieu of payment.

 

4- If they are which part of the legislation covers it.

 

And to answer about the dates The Op did say they had no contact with the EA until the car was taken.

Only letters and the car was taken after the NoE had expired.

 

If the EA did turn up nothing was left to say a visit had taken place.

 

I think this is correct

I am sure Bru911 would correct me if I had summarised incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct Leakie with the points you have stated as they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unsure what it is you are trying to get me to say, or why for that matter. I have answered all these many times on previous posts. I do not believe that this course of action is in the OP best interest, is the long and short of it.

 

My attempts to explain why, have fallen on stony ground , I do not believe repeating them will serve any purpose.

 

Have you heard anything back from Marstons ?


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

Leaky you did miss out , if the EA does not regard the payment made as the initiation of a payment arrangment.


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

Newlyns sent me back a response email which I posted #76. I was very specific in my email stating it was the NOE letter that had expired and they came back in response that i had stated L/O issued was expired, which is not the case.

 

As can be seen in my email and their response. #76

 

If i worded my email not to be clear to them please advise.

 

I am not trying to get anyone to say anything just to be simply answer clearly on the points as they stand without if this and if that and not jumping around with things that while in force like the l/o do not over rule the point.

 

Sometimes I know i can be very particular and maybe not come across in the correct manner. It's the years of being firm but fair when dealing with people means I just spell it out as it is and without thought for how it comes across.

 

 

Leakie puts it in a better way then I can.

 

1- If there was not a controlled goods agreement in place

 

2- The NoE had Expired

 

3- Would the EA be able to legally, take the car in lieu of payment.

 

4- If they are which part of the legislation covers it.

 

 

Answered clearly enough :

if the EA does not regard the payment made as the initiation of a payment arrangment.

 

is this in legislation in anywhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok one more time.

 

They can call if there was not a controlled agreement in place if there was a arrangment to pay in place.

 

The NOE does not expire, the notice is a warning refering to the period in which the bailiff has to wait before making his fist call, section 6

I am not sure what is meant by" in lieu of payment", if you mean able to seize the vehicle in the process of taking control of goods, then it depends on the above.

 

TCE 2007 and associated legislation.

 

As I said before section 9 is probably your argument. Paying the council is a none starter and this has been, proven in the past.

 

I do not believe you should dismiss the arrangment issue, I take it you did receive a NOE so you should have been aware of who you payments were eventually going to.

 

I am not saying the section 9 issue will be successful because as yet to my knowledge there has been no relavant testing of the issue.

We made that mistake in a HP issue not so long ago.

i will state again that it is your only relavant argument. I will also say that a court will be of the opinion that the fees should be payed, whether the sectin mentioned is strong enough or indeed means what you think it does to over ride this in law is something that the court will asses when coming to its decision.

 

There is other points of a technical nature which i would raise, although possibly not on here, regarding the definition of taking control of goods, there is more than one definition in the TCE, which may or may not be relevant.


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

Had a read through and you have been thorough in writing the course of events

I think you have a strong case that because the 12 months have passed they should have returned it and not continued to persue you.

I guess the reason people are saying to pay then go after the company is so that you are not without the vehicle and then have the time to go down the legal route.

Will be interesting to see what response you get from the company.

By chance have you spoken to the head of revenues or the councils legal team for their take on it? Because i assume the council tax department wont be too clued up on the laws.


None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could do whatever they want but 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.

That is legislation. no court extension was involved and the enforcement agent had not entered into an arrangement with the debtor for the repayment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be taking a lot for granted. I thought you had sent another email for further clarification.


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

H and the instrument,(note) ,does not say, the EA cannot etc.


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
H and the instrument,(note) ,does not say, the EA cannot etc.

 

 

This section is a rule of secondary legislation. Not primary stature, although still binding it does not carry the same weight.

 

The section says," may "not and not "must," not, which is also worth considering. Just for simple readers they are considerably different terms in law. :)


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

JUst to add for hose who do not understand the must may thing, must means that an action must always be taken in that particular situation, May means that ther may be reasons why the action should not be or canot be taken, usually because of contradictory law, orpractical considerations.

It in no way represents the availability of a choice to the bailiff.

 

For instance in section 14 it says, the bailiff may enter relavant premises.

As we know, if he is collecting a council tax debt he can only do this if he enters peacefully, not in all occasions.

Hence "may" rather than "must", if must was used he would have to enter come hell or high water.

 

I just thought i would explain it may prove useful when people look at other statue, in this case it "may" be useful (see what i did there).


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 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.

 

I would really suggest that you tread very carefully.

 

I have not been around much today and have been relying upon viewing via my iPhone. Assuming that you have no objections, in the morning I will get a message to one of the moderators to seek permission to contact you to offer assistance with a Part 85 Claim.

 

It would be wise not to make any further posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pink Tiger

Can't you post it where other's can see? It would benefit everyone surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best left until the issue is resolved, I am sure the thread will be updated then..


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
Can't you post it where other's can see? It would benefit everyone surely?

 

Over time, I have drafted Part 85 claims for goods other than a vehicle (goods inside a property or business.....a recent one being a gym and a deep sea training company) but in the vast majority of 'Part 85 claims', the asset will be a motor vehicle. Accordingly, I would expect a viewer to posts a query on the forum. They will then receive all of the support they need.

 

It would be most unwise for anyone with such an expensive asset to simply look at a forum, chance upon a 'Template Part 85' claim and use it for their purposes. That would be foolish in the extreme. A Part 85 claim is very 'time sensitive'. Submit it a day or two late, and the enforcement agent can make a speedy application to court preventing a claim.

 

By way of example, a client uploaded onto the internet in 2013 a copy of an Out of Time witness statement that I had drafted for him (before the regulations were amended). His application had been accepted (which by and large is normal for ones that I have assisted with). That draft was specific for that particular person and his particular circumstance. I am very disappointed that that same draft is provided in the library of at least four of the 'Beat the Bailiffs' social media sites. Most people do not even bother changing the wording to reflect their own circumstances. Utter foolishness. I have made complaints to the various social media sites but they are ignored.

 

As I keep pointing out, an Out of Time application is a court procedure and a vitally important one (in particular if a vehicle has been taken). They must be prepared properly.

 

In the same way, a 'Part 85' claim is equally as important and no two cases are alike (at least from my experience).

 

Anyone posting on here will get full assistance and support. Questions will of course be asked to ascertain the correct procedure for that poster.

 

Lastly, enforcement companies tend to come across 'template' documents day in and day out. They know where the 'templates' have been sourced from and by and large, they are ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pink Tiger

So will you let everyone else see how this one should be filled out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So will you let everyone else see how this one should be filled out?

 

Wouldnt that be creating a template ?


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 think this would be better served in the discussion area in any case.


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
Guest Pink Tiger
Wouldnt that be creating a template ?

 

Does that matter? Why hide advice that benefits others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an advice thread for the OP.

 

Perhaps you should raise the issue in discussion.


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
Guest Pink Tiger
This is an advice thread for the OP.

 

Yes and the advice given is to fill in a p85 claim but no-one has actually given any practical advice. For example is there a form to fill in or is it just a letter from scratch? Should you quote specific legislation? Are there some generic details that are needed? Who do you send it to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and the advice given is to fill in a p85 claim but no-one has actually given any practical advice. For example is there a form to fill in or is it just a letter from scratch? Should you quote specific legislation? Are there some generic details that are needed? Who do you send it to?

 

If you read my detailed post again, you should understand that each case is completely different. If you could please start a new thread outlining your own circumstances, then, like all others posters on here, you will receive full support and guidance.

 

It may assist you to read the following:

 

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.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-on-6th-April

 

PS: To be more accurate, the CPR 85 regulations outline to procedure that must be followed, my input was to suggest Parts 84.4, Part 85.6 and Part 85.8. These specific sections provide for claims to be sumbitted without the need to court action. In my submissions, I provided the Rule Committee with approx 8-10 templates.

 

As I have explained earlier in this thread, I have significant experience with these applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pink Tiger
If you read my detailed post again, you should understand that each case is completely different. If you could please start a new thread outlining your own circumstances, then, like all others posters on here, you will receive full support and guidance.

 

I don't need a new thread. I want to know what this OP needs to put in his p85 claim and what isn't needed, who he sends it to, how long he's got, that sort of stuff. It would help others who find themselves in similar circumstances.

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...