Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I think you misunderstood what I’ve written.    the cooker door was going to be replaced and we were happy wit that. Hotpoint decided not to do this and changed the cooker with what we were told was exactly the same. No changes.    if you google HUD61PS not a real fan oven you will see lots of other customers with the same issues. The oven does not cook correctly !  someone please tell me what cooking instructions we follow ? Fan oven or conventional? This oven is neither ....    we only accepted their ‘gesture of goodwill’ because we were told it was exactly the same. This is substantially different and not a genuine fan oven 
    • Thank you for your replies I really do appreciate your time.  Can I just double check (tired emotional female here not taking everything in properly at moment), the best thing to do is contact tax credits myself on Monday, rather than wait for them to contact me?  And do I tell them on the phone there's been a large overpayment.... Do I need to ask about repaying yet or do I wait?  Sorry, still in a complete panic!! 
    • Well I hope that you request a call recordings is successful – but I'm a bit surprised that you need them because I would have thought that you would by now have read our customer services guide and you would have your own recordings. Just because a company says that it records your calls, doesn't mean that it does – and also it says nothing about the retention policy. They may have a retention policy of only a couple of months or so. There could be other more sinister reasons why they don't give them to you.   So you don't record your calls….  🙄 I'm not quite sure what you're going to sue them for. You had a cooker which you have used since the beginning of 2017 – and that means that you had it for 2 1/2 years and used it successfully before the door broke. They supplied you with a new cooker – which you are not entirely happy with because of the way the thermostat works – and now you are considering suing the supplier for the breaking of the door a few months ago. If I were advising them, I would tell them to offer a cash settlement which included a reduction for 2 1/2 years of use against the full price of a brand-new cooker which you might reasonably expect to last seven or eight years. I think if you had tackled the problem head-on when the door first broke and succeeded in pushing for a replacement door, then you would probably have succeeded – assuming that those doors were still available – but you would still be left with a cooker 2 1/2 years into its expected lifespan. Instead, they supplied you with a new cooker which although work slightly differently, basically means that they have given you a free upgrade which is worth about 30% of the value of new cooker. I'm sorry to say but I think you did quite well – and because you left it so long, it won't be possible to get your door reinstated because I suppose the cooker is long gone. If you can get the recordings which say that you are going to receive "like for like" then that might be helpful, but it seems to me that what they given you as a gesture of goodwill – and you've accepted it and it may well be that you have forfeited any further rights as a result. I suspect that you might come off the loser in this battle
    • Thanks I do not have £s.  I have to do it all myself.    The situation is more complicated than just me.  I was the leaseholder.   Separately, the family hold the fh (I can never  personally benefit),   The bank have tried every legal means to get the fh and failed.   Wasted time, whilst my interest accrued.  The freeholders have their own legal argument with the bank and the bank has limited time to respond/act before they run risk of forfeiture of the lease back to the freeholders... The bigger value is in the lease now.  But long-term the value will be with the freeholders.  Raising the funds to pay off my debt is being looked at - aside from their legal action on poss forfeit. There are discrepancies with the bank's paperwork.  Dates wrong and signatures missing on important docs. I understand one may question how the situation could change soon after 4y.   But it seems the market is changing. Properties of similar value in the locality have remained unsold in 5y - but agents are now seeing more interest and offers on these properties.  The bank has advised they have offers at a certain level but have been reluctant to accept. They spent the last year in futile attempt to get the fh.  If they had pursued the offer for the lh 1y ago there would be very little shortfall - or any shortfall could have been potentially dealt with on some sort of financial agreement? imo they want to pursue b and get the house so they can take advantage of this poss rise in values.  
    • Thanks Andy So having looked thru the small statement they provided lots of £12 charges added on from Jan 2018 adding at least £200 to the smaller balance of £593.75
  • Our picks

Sign in to follow this  
Bailiff Advice

Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) decision....Mental health and bailiff enforcement.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1172 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

Unfortunately, many people consider that because, they have problems with mental health that a local authority should not pursue them for road traffic debts or refer cases to bailiffs. The following recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman is therefore of importance:

 

PS: The following is a short version of the LGO's decision. Please refer to the link at the end of the post to read more.

 

 

London Borough of Hounslow.

 

 

The complaint

 

 

Mr A complains the Council harassed him and discriminated against him by using bailiffs to collect a debt relating to two unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) when it already had notice of his mental health problems. Mr A maintains the Council should have treated him as a vulnerable adult and told the bailiffs of his condition. He seeks a refund of the enforcement costs he has paid and compensation.

 

 

What I found

 

Council parking enforcement officers issued Mr A with two PCNs. As Mr A did not pay the charges the Council followed its usual enforcement procedures to obtain payment of the PCNs and the accrued costs.

 

In February 2015, following the Council’s actions in sending out Charge Certificates to Mr A in relation to the PCNs, he wrote to the Council explaining he had mental health problems and enclosed a letter from his GP and the Jobcentre. The Council responded by advising Mr A that while his medical condition had been noted it was not accepted as mitigation to cancel the PCNs. An Order for Recovery was then issued in April for the two charges.

 

As the debt remained unpaid, the Council passed Mr A’s case on to bailiffs acting on its behalf and they wrote to him at the beginning of June. As no response was received, an enforcement agent, Mr X, attended Mr A’s property.

 

Having taken control of Mr A’s vehicle, Mr X spoke to Mr A who informed him of his mental health problems. Mr X told Mr A he had no knowledge of Mr A’s condition but declined Mr A’s request to call his office or the Council to confirm it. Instead, Mr X told Mr A he could seek legal advice. Mr A offered payment by card but made clear he believed he was doing so under duress. Mr X told Mr A it was his choice whether or not to make the payment and
Mr A paid the outstanding debt in full.

 

Mr A then made a complaint to the Council about its and the bailiffs’ lack of understanding of his illness and vulnerability and that he had been forced under duress from Mr X to make payment. Having contacted the bailiffs and sought their comments, the Council responded in August 2015 but did not uphold the complaint. It concluded Mr A’s case had been dealt with in an appropriate manner.

 

The Council confirmed it had been aware of his mental health problems but, having considered matters, decided that his particular circumstances did not warrant the cancellation of the PCNs. Because it had decided to pursue the charges, and refer his case on to enforcement agents, it did not consider it necessary to make the agents aware of Mr A’s correspondence about his mental health problems. It did not uphold his complaint.

Analysis

 

When Mr A told the Council of his mental health problems, it considered what he had said, and the evidence he had provided, but decided his condition was not sufficient mitigation to stop collection of the charges. It informed him of its decision. The merits of this decision are not open to review by the Ombudsman no matter how strongly Mr A may disagree with it.

 

I have viewed the recording of Mr X’s visit to Mr A’s property. In it Mr A tells Mr X his condition is such that the Council should be working with him to which Mr X replies he can make a payment arrangement with Mr A. He did not doubt Mr A when he was told of Mr A’s mental health problems and told him he could seek legal advice.

 

I saw nothing in Mr X’s behaviour which amounted to harassment or discrimination and he reasonably took the card payment which was offered to him by Mr A.

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-000-771

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...