Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • SO if you refer to the bottom of the order you have the option to set it a side vary or stay it...but involves an application and fee...so I would suggest you get back onto Portsmouth and ask what exactly is the Order for ?   Inform them they have not served any documents on yourself or served a Certificate of service and given the errors of MCOL/ Portsmouth ask the court to clarify exactly what's happening in the claim.
    • I heard a noise downstairs. I had just got out of the shower. Threw on leggings ran downstairs getting dressed, just managing to put my top on. I walked into the kitchen a man all in black with a protective vest on. He had gold numbers on his shoulder’s socks tucked into his boots. I said "what are you doing in my house? Who are you?" He would not tell me. I said "Get out" he refused. Again, I told him to leave. I asked him who he wanted and what address. He told me the address and I said, "THAT IS NEXT DOOR" He called me a liar and said he would not leave he was 2 inches from my face at this point I was petrified. At this point my son came to visit me and opened the door. He asked this thug who he was. He refused to show any identification, I told my son it was for next door. He asked what name and the thug said a name of a person who lived next door but left approximately 8 years ago. My son took a photograph of the plaque next door and showed him. outside this thug stepped into my sons face and said got a problem? Do you want one.? I told my son to call the police and after taking a photograph of the property he walked back to his white van. I spoke with the police who asked me to give the phone to the thug. as I walked towards his van he sped of very fast and I had to dive out of the way, or he would have ran me over. I am not exaggerating I actually have the whole event on CCTV. The police rang me back and said they would not attend as the thug was a bailiff. Is said not for me he wasn’t he was an intruder. I was really mad at the police and said it was a disgrace and that I was not happy. An hour later 2 police officers came and said it was a bailiff and there was nothing they could do. I said to the police get out of my house now. They immediately started to leave. I said why are you leaving?? they said because you told us to. Hold on, so I can tell police officers to leave and you have to go but a bailiff that came into my home when he was in the wrong property and would not leave then tries to run me down, does not have to leave? So, he has more power than you??? I wrote 3 letters of complaint to the Bailiff company they ignored them. I called and they put the phone down. Does this mean anyone can come into my home and the police will not protect me? I am so scared now. I do not like being home alone and lock the door even if I go outside for a minute, then I am scared because I cannot open the door quick enough. I really do not want to live in a world that is not safe. Should the police have helped me. Are people allowed in my house by their mistake with no consequence? If anyone has any thoughts I would be grateful to read them.   TLF
    • Thank you so much. I hope this communication will help you advise me.   I have owned the garage since Nov 2016.    I instructed my solicitor to communicate with the management company. She raised issues regarding the costs, and requested an explanation as to costs. When they failed to respond and were threatening court action I sent a cheque in 2017. The lady (Emma from the pre-action dispute team at SLC) who I spoke to told me she had recieved the cheque and would provide an explanation. Between 2017-2020 I continued to get bills which I forwarded to my solicitors yet I did not get an expanation. Until 02/06/2020 this year when I recieved the following copied below. The issue I had with the explanation is that it talks about the need for maintenance of the garage and no maintenance has ever taken place.  Since that time the bills have escalated from £534 to £2400! (I have also copied the offer from my solicitors which highlights changes in reserve funds etc. Since this date they have acknowledge a small vat error yet still insist on these extra-ordinary charges and fees.)   Is there any possibility as this is in the small claims that they could escalate the bills still further?   Leter of explanation I recieved in June 2020 Our Client has a broker that gets multiple quotes from different sources and as long as they provide the correct legal liabilities and cover, they will of course go for the cheapest option as long as these requirements are met. They of course need liability insurance not just for their contractors but for the people that live on the scheme also. They also need to ensure that the level of cover is correct in case they need to reinstate the building like new in case of catastrophe.   Again the difference in cost could be due to certain liabilities they have to have for the garage if they were to ever having to use contractors to fix it, the superior Freeholder of the estate may also want certain covers in place which again would explain the difference. They of course will look into our policies on an annual basis to try and keep the costs down.   Our Client’s charges do vary from year to year due to the reactive nature of the maintenance done to the scheme, as the managing agent working on behalf of the superior freeholder, it is their responsibility to keep the scheme in a good state of repair, meaning that they have to proactively fix and maintain any issue found on site, which is paid through the service charge. The amount of work, as I’m sure you can understand varies annually, however more often or not as the building/buildings/estate gets older, more maintenance will need to be done to keep the estate in good quality so the costs of maintaining an estate and insuring it, also increases.   Our Client wishes to assure your Client that it is in their best interests to have the interest of the leaseholders at heart, and they welcome a mutual understanding when it comes to the scheme. They will continue to work towards keeping the scheme at the highest level of repair.   Our Client’s current statement of account is attached. Both our Client’s Administration fees, and our fees have been waived, however the balance of £534.53 needs to be paid in full.   Please could you ensure this sum is settled by your Client, as a matter of urgency.     Reply from my solicitors: Whilst you have provided us with copies of your client’s accounts for this property, you have not provided us with a basis for your costs as requested on several occasions. You mention that the allocation of your client’s costs includes the maintenance of the estate and the garage, yet our client is invoiced separately for the service charge to the property and the estate. Can you please explain this? You have also failed to address our following points in your response and would appreciate your cooperation in providing these: 1. your client’s insurance premiums; 2. in respect of the Accounts preparation fee and Audit fee which has been allocated to our client, we consider that the level of work required to take into account the six itemised factors (as stated above) to be completely disproportionate to the costs allocation. Can you please explain why such costs have been allocated to our client’s garage and detail the level of work required by your accountants. With respect to the reserve fund, we note that this is referred to under the sixth Schedule of the Lease however the determination by your client must be reasonable. In accordance with your arrears schedule on 19th July 2017 we refer you to a letter of around the same date (please refer to separate attachment “First Port Letter Re Reserve Fund (July 2017)”) whereby your client stated “We have reduced the annual collection for schedule 2 from £250 to £90 as we feel with the current reserve fund levels this is a more appropriate level. We have therefore credited your account by £53.33.” As we have mentioned previously, there does not appear to have been any maintenance or management actually carried out in respect of our client’s garage which would warrant a departure from the £90 in reserve fund contribution from July 2017 to present. It seems clear that not only should the historic figures be adjusted to reflect this but also that the accounts for future years should be prepared on a similar ongoing basis. Your client’s costs should therefore be adjusted in respect of each of the years in question and for ease of reference we have set out the calculation below: · July 2017 to June 2018, the reserve fund has been charged at £250.00 when it should have been £90.00. Therefore the reduction in your costs for this year should have been £160.00. · July 2018 to December 2018, the reserve fund has been charged at £125.00 when it should have been £45.00. Therefore the reduction in your costs for this year should have been £80.00. · January 2019 to December 2019, the reserve fund has been charged at £265.00 (a 6% increase), when it should have been £90.00 (plus a 6% increase of £5.40). Therefore the reduction in your costs for this year should have been £169.60. This totals £409.60 however taking into account that your client credited our client £53.33 on 19th July 2017, our client has been overcharged by £356.27. We also note that there is a VAT discrepancy in the sum of £36.00 from the arrears schedule sent with your correspondence on 22nd January and 9th March and the arears schedule sent with your email dated 31st March, yet there hasn’t been any adjustment in costs. We are therefore working from your original arrears schedule, that being £1,179.71, minus the £356.27 that your client is attempting to overcharge our client, thus bringing the amount due to £823.44. In the circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect our client to cover the legal costs in this matter. Your client has not been forthcoming with the information or explanations requested on several occasions. We are of the opinion that had your client been forthcoming your legal costs would not have amounted to £336.50. As a gesture of goodwill, our client is prepared to offer a reasonable contribution towards your client’s costs in the sum of £150.00. In the absence of your client’s insurance premiums, an explanation as to the costs for the Accounts preparation fee and Audit fee, and an explanation as to how the management fee has been calculated without any management of the garage actually taking place, we are mindful that these allocated costs are likely to be inconsistent with what would be deemed reasonable in the circumstances.        
    • Yes exactly, nothing after mediation - previously it was with Northampton Bulk centre
    • Well this is where the confusion sets in.......did they get that order in 2018 ?    Did they file the documents with the court ? If they didn't there is no amended new date on the order that they should comply with the order.   So you have an old Order with a new date...which in respect tells you nothing.   Reading between the lines looks like Portsmouth County Court is in meltdown hence all the errors. You stated you submitted a DQ but it was never processed to the N57 Notice of Allocation...so mediation then nothing.  
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1226 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

After reading the forums and many websites regarding the RLP I decided everyone should have a massive chuckle at what they are trying on with me.

 

first and foremost, I am not paying the RLP a penny and just to make this clear after reading these forums I can clearly see that they are not nice.

My case however is slightly different.

 

in February I was called into a meeting at my workplace and informed that I have reduced an item without authorisation and had cost the company £17.

The interesting thing to note is that the item in question had already been written off at store level as it was a display item,

therefore there was no value to the item already.

I cannot recall this incident and have suffered from a couple of lapses during my employment there,

 

it was only when I was shown CCTV of me on the till doing it that I knew I had done wrong.

I held up my hands,

said it was out of character

and said I would happily recoup any money lost.

 

Now you would think after 5 years of employment with little to no issue that this would be that and I would get a slapped wrist right?

Nope. I had a meeting 5 days later to be told that I was sacked for gross misconduct.

 

Now here is where it gets pretty interesting.

I appealed the decision hoping that they would take into consideration my mental illness (depression and anxiety, lapses) and hopefully reinstate my position within the company.

 

After writing to try and obtain an appeal meeting,

a week later I get a letter from the lovely people at RLP.

 

It stated that I had to pay £215 for my actions that caused the company disruption to their business, diversions from normal duties and security costs.

 

I rang them and said I am not responsible for the loss to the company as one the item was already written off at store level AND I was still awaiting my appeal decision (the fact they sent me a demand for payment BEFORE my appeal seems to me like a threat to drop my appeal honestly).

 

A week later my appeal falls through and they stand by the decision to dismiss me.

I thought that was that.

No, lo and behold I had another letter today from the RLP.

 

Here is where I had a massive chuckle,

in the letter they say that the company still has the same position as they did before my appeal and I now have 14 days before civil court action is taken, the usual dribble.

 

In this letter though it states they had made the claim in the previous letter although the last letter was headed "LETTER BEFORE CLAIM", a chuckle there.

A bigger one was had when in this letter it also stated "the costs are calculated due to security staff members taking part in the investigation".

 

The store I worked at had NO security staff and fell on all staff to remain vigilant.

they are trying to get money for them doing their normal activities.

 

For a final point and this is the funniest and most important part of the story,

they have not even filed a report to the police nor have I been contacted by the police never mind been cautioned/warned by them.

 

All in all I wanted to share this story to show how desperate the RLP are to try and get people to cave into their nature.

 

Keep up the awesome work informing people on here everyone, you do stellar work.

 

Also forgot to add, the latest letter is signed by not an individual but by the "claims department" :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

you've got the right idea

however, you are not quite correct that a 'display item' is a written off item.

it still exists and has a monetary value.

 

theft of any item is gross misconduct.

whether you consider it worthy or not to your employer.

litter out of the bin would be treated the same.

 

read the RLP letter carefully

it doesn't say they WILL do anything

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
:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:

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

'Drivel' darlings, 'Drivel'.

 

Not Dribble.........................

 

Unless of course you are actually dribbling.

 

Funny (Until it gets deleted!)

 

H

42 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Here is an update regarding this, I have received a 3rd letter today. Unfortunately cannot upload it however I will gladly write out key points from it.

 

"You have not disputed the claim, and there are no other circumstances you consider relevant to the incident, the claim needs to be settled."

I actually did dispute the claim via appeal of my employment dismissal as well as telephoning the RLP and stating so as well as accepting no responsibility, only that it was an error made at the time.

 

"Ignoring this matter will not make this go away and it is not in your best interest to do so either as it could result in further liabilities becoming payable by you."

 

"The information we hold may be passed onto the Police or other crime initiatives in the interest of preventing and detecting crime.."

 

"If we do not receive a response within 14 days of the date of this letter then regrettably we must advise our client that it is now in a position to issue proceedings against you if it chooses. You are urged to seek some independent legal advice in order to avoid any further action being taken against you, or incurring additional cost."

 

I contacted the Police and did enquire about the RLP and whether or not a crime was even reported. No crime ever was nor has any Police officer even set foot near my door to enquire about one.

 

I decided today after this being the 3rd letter (2nd in the last 3 weeks) to telephone RLP to discuss this further.

 

In their letters they state a letter before claim in the first letter, however in the second state that I should resolve this claim.

 

I can't resolve a claim without a letter headed claim I believe (not that I would anyway unless served by the actual company at hand).

 

Now I did also request that if no claim was eventually made nor no legal action taken, that my data be removed, am I within my rights to do this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No!! You never ever ring RLP

Totally ignore them

 

That letter word for word is already here several to times!!

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

GDPR will cause RLP much grief when they ignore that one.

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
dont worry, next year the law changes so these people wont be able to send out their silly letters without consequences.

 

What changes are these and what consequences will they face?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What changes are these

 

GDPR, at a guess ...... (the law has been passed, but comes into force next May)

 

and what consequences will they face?

 

http://www.eugdpr.org/gdpr-faqs.html

 

Whether GDPR will severely impact the likes of RLP or if they'll find a way to skirt round its provisions remains to be seen (as does its effects post-Brexit ; a whole new can of worms!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder if the likes of RLP are curbed in what they do,

instead of threatening letters being sent,

which you can just tear up,

it ends up going the other way;

the shops them self's now take direct action against the shoplifters

 

So instead of gdpr protecting shoplifters, it actually works in favour of the stores which have to deal with shoplifters, but only time will tell

Link to post
Share on other sites

shops will never prosecute on 99% of these cases

bad publicity far outweighs that

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

most shoplifters dont have the wherewithall to make it worthwhile.

The amount of staff time tied up on things like this would be a burden on profits in itself.

 

 

I would think that you may see more willingness to furnish evidence for a prosecution and then seek compensation and costs on the back of that.

RLP antics dont reach the hardcore shoplifters anyway

 

I just wonder if the likes of RLP are curbed in what they do,

instead of threatening letters being sent,

which you can just tear up,

it ends up going the other way;

the shops them self's now take direct action against the shoplifters

 

So instead of gdpr protecting shoplifters, it actually works in favour of the stores which have to deal with shoplifters, but only time will tell

Link to post
Share on other sites
GDPR, at a guess ...... (the law has been passed, but comes into force next May)

 

 

 

http://www.eugdpr.org/gdpr-faqs.html

 

Whether GDPR will severely impact the likes of RLP or if they'll find a way to skirt round its provisions remains to be seen (as does its effects post-Brexit ; a whole new can of worms!)

 

 

Thanks, I'm aware of GDPR but wanted to know why ericsbrother thought it would be different to the current situation as I don't see a single thing changing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theroetically there will be a tightening on who handles data and who they can hand it over to.

 

My reading of it is that there is no pathway from a firm to the likes of RLP because the data subject hasn't got a relationship with RLP at the outset

 

the right will be there to restrict the processing of their data to exclude it passing over to these bandits.

 

I'm sure that they will claim that someone signed a bit of paper allowing these rights so be trampled on but the individual can still tell RLP to bin their data

 

legally RLP wont be able to say no as they aren't in a relationship with that individual by way of offering a service or commodity to them aren't an official body despite their fantasies they like to promulgate.

 

I would imagine that the law will only have an effect if enough people apply to have it enforced

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...