Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

CTAXt and Swift Credit Services Bailiff - said CAN and will force entry if we dont cough up - paid them


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2563 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I fell into arrears with council tax after myself and my husband were made redundant and I was forced to take a new job at a significant pay cut and my husbands health deteriorate to a point where he has been unemployed for the last year.

 

 

On the 29th March I received a phone call from a Bailiff who informed me that he was at my home with a locksmith the force entry on my rent property to seize goods.

 

 

The bailiff was acting for the council in regard to a council tax arrears of £1210.00.

 

My husband was at the property and suffers from mental health issues with my 4 dogs and no one had knocked the door.

 

 

I explained to the bailiff that my husband was at the property with the dogs and his health condition, however I was told to make the payment or they would force entry.

 

 

I explained that there was no way I could just simply come up with £1210.00 and he send they would force entry and start removing goods.

I asked why I had not been notified of the action and he stated that they had sent letters 3 days prior.

 

He then told me I had 10 minutes to find the money or action would be taken.

I was in a state suffering from stress and depression myself.

 

 

Whilst on the phone to my employer to see if work could assist I received over 20 missed calls from the bailiff and text messages such as 'Are the dogs dangerous?' 'Where going in, times up' etc.

 

To cut the story short

the company I work for raised the £1210 to pay the bailiff,

which has left me seriously in debt to my employers and now completely unable to feed myself or my husband and meet monthly bills this month.

 

 

It was only at this time that I was then told that a dog handling unit had gained entry to the rear garden and seized my dogs and I would have to collect them.

 

I picked my dogs up that evening

but however was taken seriously ill at home with anxiety and rush to hospital.

 

My questions are:

 

* Was the Bailiff in his right to

a) force entry

b) seize my dogs from an enclosed garden where they posed no danger

 

* I received no communication regarding the visit and only have the bailiff's word that letters had been issued 3 days prior

 

* I still have not received a receipt for the payments,

should I contact the council or company to request my receipts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No forced entry to the house for council tax, but they can to unconnected garages, sheds. Also they can target goods outside such as cars you own.

 

You should have had notice of enforcement giving 7 days notice.

 

Complain to the Head of council in writing, threatening to involve the local government ombudsman. The enforcement company misrepresented their powers and had no legal right to touch your dogs.

 

If it were me, i would also make a formal complaint to the Police.

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

Thanks for your reply unclebulgaria,

I will write a letter to the council over the weekend regarding the matter and will also write to my local mp.

 

 

I contact the police during the ordeal and was told that it was a civil matter and they would and could not get involved.

 

 

However they offered to attend the premises due to my husbands disability to reassure him but the bailiff kept pushing me for payment over the phone and refused any payment plan offer etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you explained that the person in the property has mental health issues then the Enforcement agent had no right to enter.

as they are not allowed to enter when a vulnerable person is in the property.

 

 

so they acted outside their own guidelines,

they used intimidation tactics to frighten you into taking extreme measures to pay an amount you could not afford.

 

 

it may be worth while contacting the council to explain your circumstances to see if you qualify for a reduction in council tax and maybe a rebate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fell into arrears with council tax after myself and my husband were made redundant and I was forced to take a new job at a significant pay cut and my husbands health deteriorate to a point where he has been unemployed for the last year. On the 29th March I received a phone call from a Bailiff who informed me that he was at my home with a locksmith the force entry on my rent property to seize goods. The bailiff was acting for the council in regard to a council tax arrears of £1210.00.

 

My husband was at the property and suffers from mental health issues with my 4 dogs and no one had knocked the door. I explained to the bailiff that my husband was at the property with the dogs and his health condition, however I was told to make the payment or they would force entry. I explained that there was no way I could just simply come up with £1210.00 and he send they would force entry and start removing goods. I asked why I had not been notified of the action and he stated that they had sent letters 3 days prior.

 

He then told me I had 10 minutes to find the money or action would be taken. I was in a state suffering from stress and depression myself. Whilst on the phone to my employer to see if work could assist I received over 20 missed calls from the bailiff and text messages such as 'Are the dogs dangerous?' 'Where going in, times up' etc.

 

To cut the story short the company I work for raised the £1210 to pay the bailiff, which has left me seriously in debt to my employers and now completely unable to feed myself or my husband and meet monthly bills this month. It was only at this time that I was then told that a dog handling unit had gained entry to the rear garden and seized my dogs and I would have to collect them.

 

I picked my dogs up that evening but however was taken seriously ill at home with anxiety and rush to hospital.

 

I can say with all honesty, that I have never come across such behaviour before.

 

You say that this is a council tax debt and accordingly, there is NO provision to force entry into your property.

 

Although it should not matter, can I just ask what breed of dogs were taken?

 

In the morning you absolutely MUST contact the council as they are wholly responsible for the behaviour of the enforcement agent.

 

PS: I am assuming that the council tax arrears are in your name as opposed to a business name?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What bailiff company was this? Seems to me they have been very naughty. No right of foirced entry for council tax.

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 is disgusting

whos the ruddy bailiffs company??

 

 

you seriously need to get on to the council CEO tomorrow and complain loudly.

 

 

i'd be demanding that money back too!!

 

 

dx

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

this is disgusting

whos the ruddy bailiffs company??

 

 

you seriously need to get on to the council CEO tomorrow and complain loudly.

 

 

i'd be demanding that money back too!!

 

 

dx

Wonder if this is a Capita infested council? OP definitely needs to be asking questions, and fire off that complaint.

 

Were the dogs in the back, was the gate locked which meant they climbed over it or a fence to gain access to the back?

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

If ever a case warranted an official court complaint to get the enforcement agents licence removed, this is one such case. I don't think the enforcement company would bother to defend and they would dismiss whoever was responsible.

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

Hi guys,

 

Thank you all for your replies. The dogs were behind a bolted gate at the rear of the property, my husband out them out after I rang to advise that there were people out there and the police would be there to help. The dogs are a king Charles spinal, Yorkie, dashound, and a miniature schnozer. Have a meeting with my local MP this afternoon and am awaiting a callback from the Head of Finance at the council. The company was Swift Credit Services, have complained to them about the way the enforcement officer behaved but they just said that I needed to take it up with the enforcement officer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how did the bailiff access the back was the gate locked? What council is this?

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

The gate was bolted on the inside they would have had to climb over and unbolt the gate from the inside. It's Swansea brassnecked.

Thanks don't think the 2014 Regulations permit climbing over a fence or locked gate is the back fence the permitted 2 metres or low enough for them to step over it?

 

Others will doubtless be along soon to advise in the light of the further information you have provided. We might even get an input from the Enforcement Agents who post on here, often with very useful advice.

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

The gate was bolted on the inside they would have had to climb over and unbolt the gate from the inside. It's Swansea brassnecked.

 

I was expecting you to come back to say that the 4 dogs were bull terriers or something similar !!!

 

When bailiffs attend a property they should ensure that they enforce all debts that may be on their system at the same time (this is to avoid 'multiple' enforcement fees being charged).

 

For example, a couple of days back, I was assisting a debtor regarding a Magistrate Court fine (for using a TV without a valid licence) and the amount owed was almost £2,000. The bailiff threatened to force entry (which he is entitled to do). It transpired that out of the £2,000, almost £1,200 was for unpaid Dart Charges.

 

In your case, are you certain that the debt being enforced was only for council tax?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bailiff Advice,

 

The debt was only for Council Tax, one in my name for my previous property for £76 and £75 compliance fee, and the 2nd for myself and my husbands current property for £659 plus £75 compliance fee and an enforcement fee of £325.00.

 

The letters from the company arrived 2 days after the incident with the bailiff detailing the enforcement amounts

Edited by mysticf4lls
Link to post
Share on other sites

Complain to the Council CEO and outline to your MP the whole sorry tale, looks like a Council mess up Swift need a kick for this especially if there was no Compliance Letter where the fee would be £75.

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

So Swifts enforcers basically kidnapped your Dogs as a ransom to obtain the money. That is how it would look to most outside observers, given the type of dogs mentioned.

 

I would be involving the Chief Constable for South Wales Police, if their officers refused to investigate what happened.

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

Thanks guys.

 

Feel really stupid for allowing them to extort money from me,

but at the time was terrified for my husband and the dogs.

 

I totally believed what was being threatened and with it being a rental property was in fear of them forcing entry and having to explain to my landlord.

 

Met with my local mp today and he is disgusted by the actions of the bailiff and council and is writing to both parties in formal complaint.

 

He is also going to sort a reduction in Council Tax in light of my situation and apply for a refund of all bailiff charges etc

 

He has also arranged for the police to take a statement and requested details of the dog handling unit.

 

Will keep you updated. P

 

 

Need to draft letters to Swift and council myself over the weekend to support the mps letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update ....

 

Yesterday received a Default warning from Swansea Council regarding this years council tax (2017-2018). They are demanding £124 payment (1st payment within 7 days) or they will pursue court proceedings in respect of this years liability.

 

How can they act in such a way that is causing more harm to myself and my husband?! They got £1210 by force at the beginning of the month, I have had to rely on a food bank just to feed us this month as they have left me with no money to pay other essential bills and now they are threatening to take this years liability to court when it's not even the end of the month?! Am going to go and see them on Wednesday but any advice on how I deal with this would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are just following standard process for this year.

 

If you can claim council tax help from the council, you need to complete the councils form for them to assess what tax reduction you may be entitled to.

 

You should be pursuing a formal complaint about what happened and going to the Local Government Ombudsman.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...