Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Don't bother with what Trading Standards tell you about this - we've had far more experience in dealing with gym m/ships over the years.   1. Have you cancelled the DD mandate - if so, when ?   2. When did you last use the gym, approximately.
    • I sent them their quote which outlined the 8-10 weeks start to finish.  Their response is also below.  I placed the order 1st Sept and would have been ok with a couple of weeks here or there as I know delays can be experienced due to others in the chain/weather etc but Feb was too much. I hadn't thought to contact the council re the Building Regs, will do that tomorrow.  At this stage I've only paid the deposit on credit card but it's £2k. The next payments are in stages and they will not accept cards.  Their advice re delays on 29/9 was in response to me asking if we had an install date.  The same day they were advertising for fitters. Their refusal to get their director to call me or make an appointment is making me nervous of continuing.  I woke this morning thinking I would go ahead as we hit it off when he came round but if his administrator has enough clout to stop me talking to him she must be a member of the family as well.     "We did advise a 8 – 10 week installation process from survey which was on the 07/09/2020 so working on this lead time your installation date is due on the week commencing 16/11/2020.   We then advised on 29/09/2020 there is unfortunate delays and I gave you a worst case scenario date as depending on the delivery times this could well be brought forward but we also have to consider we have a 2 week festive holidays.   You still have not been able to provide me with written confirmation that Collin, Davina or Lisa have stated this installation will happen before Christmas. So the delay is unfortunately 8 weeks with the potential of being sooner than this, I just can’t give you an exact installation date hence why I gave a worst case scenario."
    • Quick update -  Good news is that I have been told the car is complete and ready for pickup.  It ran a bit over so we agreed the swap is now tomorrow as I would never make it there before closing time with rush-hour traffic.   Bad news is I have potentially now found out the gearbox and brake fluid service has not been carried out.  We went through this yesterday, got a printout too suggesting it has been done but having just looked more into it, it didnt look right with 2 things standing out. For example:  Part Number: G060175A2, Description : Gear Oil, Qty: 1  This just kept standing out to me given my own Audi had 7 litres of it and they sell them in 1L bottles.   Looked up the part number and sure enough, its not gear oil but Haldex oil (part of the Quatro system).   Other thing that stood out was no filter on the sheet which is part of the service.     Have just dropped them an email so lets see what comes out of it but again sheet I have which is a PDI Requirements sheet (pre-delivery inspection) states:   Carried out MPC & oil service Haldex Reqs gear oil service Brake fluid change   I'm trying to remain calm
    • Hi.   Please don't hijack this thread, it's for advising the OP.   The best thing is to start a new thread of your own and then we'll advise you.   HB
    • Hey Andy, Dx,   With the deadline approaching to enter this defence i have amended as best i can. Can either of you help with it or point me in the direction of a similar case so i can get some ideas for myself? Or is the below ok? Considering i could of nearly perjured myself i would really appreciate it if you guys could take a look.   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.     3. Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is noted.   5. Paragraph 3 is noted.   6. Paragraph 4 is noted.   7. Paragraph 5 is noted. As i can't recall entering in to this financial agreement with Halifax i have asked them to prove that i had entered in to this agreement. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1204 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 have noticed that a firm of HCEOs seem to have added application costs in a writ of control to the debt.

Then the application fee is added in their charges (charging twice). As it is already added to the debt, it then also adds to their later stage fees, which are based on a % of the debt.

 

Could it be that most people dealing with them are struggling to manage the debts they have without perusing the details of these bills?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you post back to let us have some additional background information. You refer to 'application costs' How much have you been charged.

 

The CCJ was a little short of £7k. On applying for a writ of control, the HCEO added £117.75 for "fixed costs on issue". This took the debt over £7k.

 

On his notice of enforcement, the HCEO started with the debt at over £7k ie including his "fixed costs on issue". He then added "enforcement costs incurred up to the date of this notice" for £117.75, thus adding it twice. Additionally he also added 7.5% of the debt in his first stage fee, effectively adding £8.81 to his bill, to which we then also add VAT, another £25.31.

 

The matter is with the regulating body, who haven't responded yet, they don't seem to be in a hurry to either.

 

I have a feeling this is a systematic error, as how many people chased like this are able to check the details. If an odd debtor has noticed and been refunded, then maintaining a systematic error is fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I was only 8 days late making the first payment on the CCJ, but they had nevertheless engaged bailiffs. The interest is listed on their notice of enforcement as £3.16, which also included their compliance fee, £90 with VAT. The fixed costs on issue have definately been entered twice. Given it is on pro forma, this looks to be a systematic error/fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This looks to be a systematic error/fraud.

 

Have you had a previous case where £111.75 had been applied twice? If not, then your reference to the charge being 'systematic error/fraud' is not correct at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in business, and would be mortified to have over charged a customer, it seriously affects confidence in you. To make such errors on pro forma documents, there is a box for every fee, strongly suggests this is not an innocent mistake. I could manually write out invoices and make the odd mistake, but when everything is in a box like this......Yes I do need to find others, that is why anyone reading this should check their figures carefully for the same mistake. How many people actually get a copy of the writ of control for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that he may just be a matter of the documentation being misleading or poorly worded.

 

The transfer up fees etc.will be added to the debt which is given to the HCEO, however, it is recoverable out of costs.

 

I think you will find that when the debt is enforced, the application costs will be deducted from the sum owed.

 

Once the amount outstanding has been recovered, the application fees will be removed from the EA costs recoveries, and given to the creditor along with the sum under the court order.

 

The sum owed is of course due to the court(via the order), what we are considering here, are costs of his application, which is a cost of enforcement. section 62 TCE.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
The CCJ was a little short of £7k. On applying for a writ of control, the HCEO added £117.75 for "fixed costs on issue". This took the debt over £7k.

 

On his notice of enforcement, the HCEO started with the debt at over £7k ie including his "fixed costs on issue". He then added "enforcement costs incurred up to the date of this notice" for £117.75, thus adding it twice. Additionally he also added 7.5% of the debt in his first stage fee, effectively adding £8.81 to his bill, to which we then also add VAT, another £25.31.

 

Before the writ can be issued, the creditor (or his solicitor) must apply to the court for a certificate of judgment. The execution costs of £117.75 are added to the debt at this stage. In other words, the execution costs (of £117.75) are included in the writ before it is passed over to the relevant High Court Enforcement company.

 

I notice that you have stated that your query is now with the 'regulatory body'. I assume that you mean the High Court Enforcement Officers Association. Before taking your complaint to the HCEOA, you will be expected to go through the relevant enforcement companies complaints procedure. Have you approached them to ask why this fee appears to have been charged twice? If so, what was their response?

 

If the fee has been charged twice and is credited back, the interest of £8.81 will of course drop away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you had a previous case where £111.75 had been applied twice? If not, then your reference to the charge being 'systematic error/fraud' is not correct at all.

 

I have just noticed a typo error. I should have posted £117.75 and not £111.75.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will, however, show on any breakdown as costs, as it is not part of the judgment sum. I is a cost of enforcement.

 

This is, I think where the misunderstanding has arisen.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I do need to find others, that is why anyone reading this should check their figures carefully for the same mistake. How many people actually get a copy of the writ of control for example.

 

Since your post, I have looked back at fee breakdowns for 16 cases that I received enquiries about in the past couple of months, and in all cases, the execution costs have only been applied once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For further "clarity section 62 says this.

 

"62(1)Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.

(2)The regulations may provide for recovery to be out of proceeds or otherwise.

 

(3)The amount recoverable under the regulations in any case is to be determined by or under the regulations.

 

(4)The regulations may in particular provide for the amount, if disputed, to be assessed in accordance with rules of court.

 

(5)“Enforcement-related services” means anything done under or in connection with an enforcement power, or in connection with obtaining an enforcement power, or any services used for the purposes of a provision of this Schedule or regulations under it.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the regulations say

 

Disbursements recoverable from the debtor

 

8.—(1) The enforcement agent may recover disbursements from the debtor only in accordance with this regulation and regulations 9, 10 and 11.

 

(2) The following disbursements are recoverable provided that they are reasonably and actually incurred—

 

(a)the cost of storing goods which have been taken into control and removed from the premises or highway;

(b)the cost of hiring a locksmith to gain access to premises when using reasonable force to enter them in accordance with Schedule 12, and to secure them thereafter;

©court fees in relation to any applications made by the enforcement agent in relation to the enforcement power which are granted.

(3) The disbursements referred to in this regulation and regulations 9 and 10 may be recovered out of proceeds

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that it is only the sum adjudged can be collected as the principle, everything after that is a cost of enforcement.

 

This is what section 62 and the regulations say.

It is not to say that the full amount including fees and costs cannot be included in the writ, they can( as they are in magistrates court warrants.). But costs are not part of the sum due under the TCE.

It makes no difference to who gets what but may be confusing to someone who is not familiar with enforcement, like yourself.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

This all goes to show how what should be straight forward rules can be more invovlved. I made a complaint to the firm, and promptly got a response which I rejected, so it has now been passed to the HCEOA.

My main issue was receiving a letter on June 14th, (though dated June 6th) the notification, with the threat of further action on the 17th. I phoned the firm straight away, pointing out I had already made a payment directly to the claimant and offering to maintain the CCJ amounts.

That should have stalled any further action, pending acceptance by the claimant (which he isn't obliged to.) No further communication was received, but the first stage visit (and bill) was made on the 19th.

The late arrival of the letter perplexed me, but then they frank their own mail (in other words it may not have entered the postal system until later than the postmark.

The firm deny recieving a call from me, however I made a recording of it, now sent to the HCEOA. Naturally when one gets suspicious about two potential acts of dishonesty, one looks deeper. In their response they sent a copy of the writ of control, so the £117.75 was added in there and again on their enforcement notice - definately double entry.

The trouble is the bailiffs, to use the old fashioned term, have little incentive to resolve cases at the notice stage, as their pay day starts on enforcement. I detect more than a little arrogance here, as if how dare anyone challenge us. At the moment the onus is on the debtor to prove contact was made and when, not the bailiff.

The overpayment wasn't in my original complaint, the firm are now treating that as a complaint (apparently) and are "looking into it". I will be all ears for the response and keep you posted.

The debt has been paid, ironically it got to the stage it did because I had been hoping to do that on this particular problem, rather than make an arrangement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread tidied and off topic personal attack posts removed...apologies to Time Traveller .

Lets try again... thread now open.

 

Andy

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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The firm deny recieving a call from me, however I made a recording of it, now sent to the HCEOA.

 

The overpayment wasn't in my original complaint, the firm are now treating that as a complaint (apparently) and are "looking into it". I will be all ears for the response and keep you posted.

 

The debt has been paid, ironically it got to the stage it did because I had been hoping to do that on this particular problem, rather than make an arrangement.

 

Thank you for providing a more detailed explanation of your complaint.

 

I have always found the High Court Enforcement Officers Association to be very fair indeed. Hopefully you will have the same opinion. In any event, please do keep the thread on here updated with their response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thanks for the response, and as you say it is not a simple process.

 

If this is indeed an overpayment, it may be that it is something we need to watch for other cases.

I still have a feeling however that it is due to the nature of the way costs are recovered and there has been a misunderstanding rather than a purposeful act, but I suppose we will see.

 

I apologize for the nonsense earlier and my part in it and hope you keep us up to date.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had contact from the firm's solicitor, who says he is drafting a response to the HCOEA, the regulating professional body, let's hope there is a will to clean up this "profession". I have used bailiffs myself in the past, not an easy job. I used Marstons, and must admit I was initially fustrated with progress, they seemed by the book and of course one sees bailiffs pulling all sorts of stunts on TV.

 

I had a lady customer, detached house in Kent countryside, not in her name, Range Rover, not in her name and house full of antiques, including ours (she only had to return them for settlement.) You could say she was fairly bailiff hardened, but I was able to supply Marstons some intelligence on her, and they got a result in the end, which is a doubtful if some of the TV antics had been employed.

Fustrating as it is for claimants, we have to go by the book. From the other perspective, the word "dishonest" springs to mind to summarise my recent experience, and the temptation to convert a £75 plus VAT notification fee into enforement fees up into four figures is too much for some HCEO firms.

 

This has very little to do with benefiting the claimant, as he may well end up with nothing or having to share repayments with the bailiff. The bailiff's prospective fees, before action, are a significant enducement for the debtor to make arrangements. After they are applied there is little inducement and like my lady in Kent, the debtor can put the shutters up and ride out the storm.

 

Anyway, will keep this thread posted on how this pans out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did the HCEO say regarding your contention regarding the application fee

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks alreadyexists, that is more or less my reading of the HCEOA. However, I also gather they are under a lot of pressure to clean up their act. Other profession watch dogs, such as the Law Society, were almost moribund for years, but then govt pressure forced them to rein in some of their members, in fact they almost needed to make examples of some and did. The fact is if the HCEOA doesn't clean up the "profession", then the Lord Chancellor can always look at appointing some other body to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the firm have now admitted "error" on the double charging, I think it safe to reveal that they are Penham Excel. They have furthermore said they are going to look into previous cases,

 

As this can be a tedious process, I could suggest that anyone who has had dealings with them, checks their bills. The "error" occurs when the writ of control is issued, with the issue fee noted on the writ. I doubt if many people actually get a copy of this writ, but what they might find is that their "debt" on their notification and onwards incorporates this fee, even though it is added again in the billing - double charging and admitted.

 

If anyone has raised this issue earlier with them, or this only occurs on larger debts, were shall we say the double charge is less noticeable, then I would suggest that rather than a mere error, this is warrants a police investigation.

 

Don't forget that this "error" inflates the debt and hence adds to futher charges and interest, which also need refunding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we see what they are admitting to, please. As far as I can see there is no reason why the enhancement of 7.5 % cannot be incurred on the fee paid to the court, as I said.

 

The amount paid by the debtor is added to the sum due to the court as costs. This is due to the creditor out of costs recovered and included in the writ. It is a disbursement

see here:

 

8.—(1) The enforcement agent may recover disbursements from the debtor only in accordance with this regulation and regulations 9, 10 and 11.

 

(2) The following disbursements are recoverable provided that they are reasonably and actually incurred—

 

(a)the cost of storing goods which have been taken into control and removed from the premises or highway;

(b)the cost of hiring a locksmith to gain access to premises when using reasonable force to enter them in accordance with Schedule 12, and to secure them thereafter;

©court fees in relation to any applications made by the enforcement agent in relation to the enforcement power which are granted.

 

The 7-5% is calculated on the "sum to be recovered(" this will include the court fee), or the amount the creditor will accept in payment. This will include the sum he paid to the court for the move UP

 

Calculation of fees by reference to value of sum sought to be recovered(this is the amount due under the writ)

 

7. The percentage fee or fees are to be calculated—

 

(a)where enforcement takes place other than under a High Court writ, by multiplying the amount of the sum to be recovered which exceeds £1500 by the percentage indicated in the relevant column of table 1 in the Schedule

 

So it is quite correct to raise the enhancement on the fee paid for the move up to HC.

 

Now having said that the sum paid by the creditor is still a "cost", and it says as much on the writ.

Costs are recovered separately as disbursements.

 

The recovery of this cost is different to the recovery of fees, as it is given to the creditor so he can recover his court fees. Enforcement fees, of course, go to the bailiff and are his to keep as payment for his services.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can work out at the moment, Penham Excel are sending all I asked for. As it's coming by snail mail, a cheque in the post, I will have to wait, but I don't think they are arguing the toss.

Lets just say that arithmetic does not seem to be one of their strong cards, and book keeping even less so.

Given the circumstances they could be paying compensation out on over charging - for example if meeting this extra cost incurred bank charges, or selling goods cheap etc, it's their mistake and it would be churlish of them to argue over the pennies.

 

This was all done on a pro forma, highly likely not to be an isolated case and until now they have been very obtuse to deal with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I can work out at the moment, Penham Excel are sending all I asked for. As it's coming by snail mail, a cheque in the post, I will have to wait, but I don't think they are arguing the toss.

Lets just say that arithmetic does not seem to be one of their strong cards, and book keeping even less so.

Given the circumstances they could be paying compensation out on over charging - for example if meeting this extra cost incurred bank charges, or selling goods cheap etc, it's their mistake and it would be churlish of them to argue over the pennies.

 

This was all done on a pro forma, highly likely not to be an isolated case and until now they have been very obtuse to deal with.

 

I agree of course, but it would be good to know what the legal standpoint is, and if I am correct for future reference.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...