Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update on this for you:   Quick reminder, I wrote to Ford Finance for the SAR, and I also wrote to Link (again) requesting a breakdown of the alleged debt and how it was calculated. I have since had two identical letters from Link at the beginning of October just saying I owe them £628.83, but nothing addressing the alleged debt calculation/explanation whatsoever.   At the same time as the above letters, I also contacted Experian to refute the default on my credit record that Link had placed there. Experian have emailed to say they contacted Link and have had no response from them within 28 days regarding this, so Experian have suppressed this information from my report.   The SAR reply from Ford Finance has arrived. The £628.83 charge shows on the SAR comprising as "£14.99 D/Charge" (whatever that is), and "XS mileage £612.84", apparently worked out pro-rata.   As ever, any advice or comments most gratefully received as to how to proceed.   Thanks.    
    • Ok, so I would just ignore demands from ARC for now.   See what they do over the next few weeks and keep us posted ...........
    • click create in the top red banner   dx  
    • ok but that doesn't give us dates.....  
    • DD cancelled roughly a month after they stopped taking payment. Last used the gym a day before they closed. Used it almost daily. 
  • 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.
       
        • Thanks
      • 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?

 

I think this is what the op actually said.(above)

As I have attempted to explain. It is understandable to interpret the court charge as being charged twice because it appears once in the sum owed to the debtor and once in the breakdown as part of fees/ disbursements.

This does not mean it has been added twice.

 

What I attempted to show was that although the payment to the court appears in the original debt owed under the writ, it is enforced and added to the costs account so it will appear in that column, along with other charges like fees in the breakdown.

 

In fact, it will only be charged once.

 

My first post on here speculated that this was a mistake that is easily made when trying to reconcile the breakdown of recovered money. I still think this may be the case here, as the original post(above) fills all the parameters for it to be so.

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 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.

 

As I had said in my post number 10, if it is the case that you have been overcharged, then you should be due to be refunded the sum of £117.75 and additional 'interest' charges of £8.81. Thankfully, you now have a cheque for £126.56 on it's way to you. Well done.

 

I was very surprised to read a post from you on another thread yesterday where you said this:

 

I have just caught Penham Excel trying to charge double application fees on a writ of control. At £117.75 that is not a bad earner. It seems common with them and really amounts to fraud that can only really be delved into with a police investigation and a forensic analysis of their accounts. We need numbers, anyone similarly ripped off should complain to the HCEOA at HCEOA.org.uk

 

 

In my post number 10, I mentioned that 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.

 

You have now revealed the name of the enforcement company (Penham Excel). I can confirm that I have now looked back at fee breakdowns for 2 cases from this company and I am pleased to see that in neither case has there been double charging as in your case.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?264307-Dealings-With-Penham-Excel-Bailiffs&p=5041918&viewfull=1#post5041918

Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea. It may be because there was a double charge in the OP case. or it may be that it is easier just to pay the amount than it is to explain the technicalities. You can see how much trouble i am having here,

 

The point is, we do not want people complaining about being charged twice when it is not so, and just because the charge is listed as a cost, that is just the way it works.

 

I have seen similar things many times before on customer accounts, that is why it rang a bell.

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

To try and illustrate further.

Say a debt is £100 and a court fee is £50, the writ will say amount due to creditor £150.

 

The receipt (breakdown) given to the debtor on request will say.

 

the amount paid to the creditor as per writ £150 ie including court fee.

 

Fees and costs say £130 fees plus admin cost of £50. (court fee) =£180

 

This looks like a double charge but it isn't of course because the £50 is paid to the creditor out of the costs.

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

Not sure what Dodgeball is trying to illustrate here. First two lines OK, the "debt" becomes £150.

Add Admin cost £130, OK the total amont to pay becomes £280

What Penham Excel have done is to add court costs again, making it £330 in Dodgeball's example. That is double charging.

 

My problem is that it took a referral to the HCEOA to get an admission out of Penham Excell. Also it only became apparent to me on getting copy of the Writ of Control. This should be a difficult "mistake" to make as we are filling in pro forma boxes here, and only five at that. I could just guess I have been lucky, on the other hand this is just one of five issues raised, all of which question what we might describe as their credibility.

 

If one questions credibility, one can't fail to wonder this is a useful error, as they lose nothing in refunding (it wasn't theirs to take in the first place.) and make on those who don't spot errors. Hence the message check, these charges carefully, if your debt has grown between CCJ and Writ of Control, there should be no further court costs (issue fee).

 

Ideally these firms should be beyond reproach, but how many of us have that experience?

BTW does anyone know if Writs of Control are public documents? and if so is access more or less having to peruse the files in the court service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, firstly you presumably have two documents. One which says what the bailiff will collect under the writ. and the other which is a receipt issued from the bailiff wich says what they have collected.

 

If you issue an invoice for a sum(at the beginning of a transaction) and then you issue a receipt the sums (once the transaction is completed)t, naturally there will be the same sum on both documents, it does not mean that you have been charged twice.

 

Whether the amount falls in the amount due under the writ or under costs is irrelevant,

Perhaps if you put your paperwork up (duly redacted) we can properly what you have received, if you want to continue the discussion further.

 

On your original post you said that because the costs were charged under fees it had been charged twice, it means no such thing,. Not that it was so in your case, I do not know.

But just being under the charges column proves nothing.

 

The bailiff is fully authorised to collect costs for the debtor as well as for themselves

. See the long post above.

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

How. Would a writ show what"would have been added", when nothing had been recovered when it was issued.

 

It would show what is owed, it wouldn't say where the money came from.

 

It could have come from sums due under the enforcement or fees, of course. Both are recoverable under the writ

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

Perhaps if we saw the paperwork.

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

All this has been addressed before. I can't see the problem with producing the documents, they may clarify and also serve in helping others to know what to look for.

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

 

My problem is that it took a referral to the HCEOA to get an admission out of Penham Excell. Also it only became apparent to me on getting copy of the Writ of Control. This should be a difficult "mistake" to make as we are filling in pro forma boxes here, and only five at that. I could just guess I have been lucky,

 

BTW does anyone know if Writs of Control are public documents? and if so is access more or less having to peruse the files in the court service.

 

As I have said before, well done for pursuing this with the HCEOA and it's good news that you are to receive a refund of £117.75 plus interest of £8.81. Fortunately, I have not come across the same overcharge but will ensure that I look out for it in the future.

 

The Writ of Control is the enforcement officers instruction to collect the debt and is addressed to him/her. There should be no problem in requesting a copy from any enforcement company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodgeball, the difference between what is due and overcharging is admitted now by the company. There is no confusion here, in your previous illustration, £280 would have been due, yet a demand for £330 was made, placing the court issue fees in the account twice.

They also say they will examine previous accounts, that I am sceptical about.

 

alreadyexists, the problem here is locating previous accounts - somehow honesty and integrity do not seem to be words many would associate with bailiffs. That's why I asked if writs were public documents - so previous accounts could be located.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's why I asked if writs were public documents - so previous accounts could be located.

 

I see what you mean now. I don't believe that there is a public register of Writs of Control.

 

I would expect that in light of your complaint, the HCEOA would advise their members of the need to ensure that such a charge is not duplicated by other companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is almost always the case, that a debtor receiving a Notice of Enforcement in relation to a County Court judgment that has been transferred to a High Court enforcement company will be unfamiliar with the fees and charges that can be added.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, if a creditor wishes to use a High Court company instead of a County Court bailiff to recover his Judgement, he will be required to pay a court fee to have his judgement 'transferred up' to the High Court. The court fees amount to £117.75. These fees are recoverable and will be added onto the Writ of Control (Form 53).

 

The enforcement company will write an initial letter to the debtor. This letter will be entitled; Notice of Enforcement and at this stage, a Compliance fee of £90 can be legally charged.

 

If it is the case that an additional amount of £117.75 is included as well, then this is wrong and must be questioned immediately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount outstanding on the NOE would be inflated

 

Are we talking about execution fees now?

 

There is no notice given at the enforcement stages one or two, what would he have to check?

 

Just a point

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...