troll posts

[Guest alreadyexists]

No I am not and never have done.

 

We are discussing the scenario in relation to the sale fee.

 

I think you better take 5 minutes to re-read what has been written previously. Hopefully then, you will understand the context of it all.

 

What you believe is unimportant. The writ that I used was one I have from last year.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I'm sorry BA, that does not help at all.

 

It is of course stretching stupidity to its outer limits to suggest that payments may not be made to the creditor.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that a debtor is not even legally obliged to deal with a bailiff in the first place, there is nothing at all anywhere within legislation that states that a debtor must pay a bailiff directly. If Newlyn or anyone else wish to narrow down payment options, that is entirely up to them but it does not make those options exclusive or bind the debtor to make payment by one of those methods. You may wish to refer to the template NoE within legislation to see that it does not include specific methods of how or to whom payment is made.

 

There have been some ridiculous claims made on these boards over the past few days but none more ridiculous than a suggestion that payment can only be made to a sub-contracting agent of the creditor.

 

In any case, what has any of this to do with your original post?

 

Furthermore, as I'm sure that you are aware, the National Standards also make provision for payments made directly to the creditor.

[Guest alreadyexists]

District Judge Carr appears to disgarees with your theory. I do too.

 

It isn't a theory BA.

 

There is no legislation anywhere that prescribes a debtor must pay a bailiff. Surely you can see the stupidity in suggesting that a person is not allowed to pay a debt directly to the creditor?

 

Why do you think the NS cover for such payments if they are not permitted to be paid?

[Guest alreadyexists]

I think you are getting over exited please calm down.

 

Stretching stupidity, really ? What does that mean.

 

Anyway. No one is saying that there is any legal prerequisite to pay the bailiff. But nevertheless it is how the procedure is designed to work.

 

If the debtor decides to follow your "advice", contrary to what is the correct payment method, he cannot really complain at the result.

 

I have never, ever advised anyone to make payment to a creditor directly. I have advised and assisted in the method of "sitting it out", when a debtor has expressed a desire to exercise their lawful right to avoid paying bailiff fees.

 

On what grounds do you base your rather bold (and incorrect) statement on how the procedure was designed to work?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Starfarer. Can you confirm whether the inventory was incorporated on a "Notice after goods have been taken into control" or whether the inventory was an entirely separate document.

 

If the latter is the case, did you receive a notice after goods have been taken into control?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Starfarer.

 

After entering your premises, the enforcement agent was required to leave a Notice after entry. If your son was not there, the notice should have been left the notice in a conspicuous place for him, pursuant to Paragraph 28(5) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement act 2007.

 

If no notice was left, then the bailiff has breached legislation and was technically not even in a position to take control of goods. That is the first thing that you need to challenge Collectica on and if they cannot confirm that a notice was left, then the account has been handled anything but correctly.

 

Secondly, you need to ask if a notice after taking control of goods was issued and if not, why was an inventory left?

[Guest alreadyexists]

In the first instance, I would concentrate on complaining to the CEO. I would not entertain legal proceedings at this stage.

 

Explain everything to the CEO, exactly as you have done in your post above.

 

Ask that council suspend recovery action whilst your complaint is being investigated.

 

Don't worry about the threats of imprisonment. Bailiffs have no influence whatsoever in these decisions and use the threat to try to scare people into paying. In your case, imprisonment is not even an option to consider in any case.

 

What is the exact figure that you are disputing?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Hi,yes definitely would like to pursue further. Will upload copy of documents later and don't think any other notices were issued. The key was taken in presence of 2 police officers. I'll try to contact police department to see if they can provide with more details. Think I've still got police ref no somewhere and they definitely should have noted down details of the call.

 

Yes, please try to upload the document, ensuring that all details linking yourself to the case are redacted.

 

This will include the obvious name, address and account number.

 

If the police can remember that far back, it will help your argument greatly.

 

Have you attempted to gain return of the key previously? If so how? and fo you have evidence of this?

[Guest alreadyexists]

and what draconian measure do you think the courts will hand down for this "breach" ? Armchair lawyers like yourself are the scourge of consumer help forums.

 

No idea really, I hadn't suggested contacting the courts myself.

 

What draconian measure do you think they will hand out?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Thank you.

 

1. Is the second item on the inventory just a tag?

2. Did the bailiffs enter your home on 27 Sept, second visit? If so, how did they gain entry, did they ask to/demand to come in or did your wife invite them in?

3. Did you receive any response to your mail of 27 Feb 2017?

 

Before deciding on your next move, it is probably best to await the response from the court, so you have a bit of time.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Sorry Starfarer

 

Also, with regards to the first visit, was the bailiff under the impression that your son lived at your address or did you make it clear that he lived somewhere else?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Starfarer

 

Please try to ignore Dodgeball, he has no interest in trying to help you and only seeks to create conflict with myself. It has taken him all day to shift through the regulations and even then, he has still got it wrong.

 

If the bailiff has not left a notice after entry then the inventory stands and it confirms that the goods were removed from your home, because there has been no controlled goods agreement signed.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Goods taken into control April 2016

 

Debt repaid September 2016 (controlled goods would not have been released until debt was paid)

 

Email enquiry sent Feb 2017 = less than 5 months after controlled goods became available for collection, NOT 10 months.

 

If it is a spare key, it is not unreasonable to not have been in a rush to get it back.

[Guest alreadyexists]

It would appear from your post that no goods have been taken into control. Therefore, both you and your boyfriend are free to remove anything you wish from the property and hide the goods elsewhere. The same applies to the neighbour.

 

They cannot change the lock and deny access.

 

There are a few potential problems, going by what you have posted. Firstly, was the utility debt for a business account or a private account? If it was a private account, had the bailiffs ever visited previously? I am a bit concerned that entry was forced here and I would recommend that your BF contacts the bailiffs and asks them on what grounds they have forced entry to his home.

 

Secondly, the bailiff is required to give you two days notice of his intention to enter the premises so I'd say that it would be Friday at the very earliest that he can return. As I am reading your post, I can't see how the bailiff has a right to force entry and your BF would be within his rights to refuse permission to enter. This won't help if the bailiff thinks he has a right to enter, which is why it is important to find out why they believe that they can force entry.

 

I think that we need to know the answer to that question before we can really advise further. As there is some cash missing from the neighbours home, this needs to reported by him, ASAP. We need to also know what paperwork has been left and whether there is any reference to the £150. On that note, you need to ascertain whether the bailiff was using a body worn camera at the time of the visit.

 

Finally, would you mind elabourating on the building please? Is there one main locked door and then further locked doors for each individual flat? Are any of the rooms used for commercial purposes? Would it be reasonable to assume that the neighbours room was a business premises?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Please be aware that fikofilee is NOT correct.

 

If it is for a business debt, the bailiff IS entitled to change the locks. That is why it is important for you to tell us whether the debt is private or whether it is a business debt.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Thank you Observer.

 

The bad news is that they were probably within their rights to force entry. They are still required to give two days notice before re-entry though. Of greater interest to you might be Regulation 24 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013:

 

24.—(1) This regulation applies where the enforcement agent, having entered relevant or specified premises under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 12 respectively, has determined that there are no or insufficient goods of the debtor on the premises of which control may be taken that will pay the sum outstanding.

 

(2) The enforcement agent may enter the premises on a second or subsequent occasion only—

 

(a)if the enforcement agent has reason to believe that, since the occasion of the enforcement agent’s last entry, there have been brought on to the premises further goods of the debtor of which control has not yet been, but may be, taken; or

(b)where the enforcement agent was prohibited from taking control of particular goods at the time of the original entry by virtue of regulation 10(2) (control not to be taken of goods if those goods are in use and the enforcement agent considers that a breach of the peace would be likely if an attempt were made to take control of them).

(3) Paragraph (2)(b) does not authorise the enforcement agent to enter to take control of any goods other than those to which that paragraph applies, except to the extent that paragraph (2)(a) also applies.

 

If the bailiffs haven't taken control of any goods, they really ought not to be returning unless they have reasonable belief that further goods have been taken onto the premises and it may well be worth your BF reminding them of this when he speaks with them.

 

This is probably going to have to serve as a wake up call to him and provided that he wishes to continue trading, he is probably going to have to come to some sort of repayment arrangement over this. It may be that he can do this over the telephone or they may wish to revisit. I'm sure that there is a good chance that an arrangement can be set up, which will mean an end to the matter, other than if the neighbour wishes to pursue his £150 claim. Please be aware that if paperwork indicates that £150 was taken then the neighbour will have to submit what is known as a part 85 claim. The alternative would be for your BF to just reimburse him and then the £150 goes straight off what is owed without all the hassle.

 

See how he gets on tomorrow and post back if you need to.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Observer

 

The bailiffs are empowered by statute to force entry into a premises in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is if the bailiff believes that the debtor is carrying out a trade or business from the premises.

 

The bailiff can, if he wishes, force entry to your BF's premises and he doesn't need the landlords permission to do so, nor does the landlord have any say in the matter.

 

If a bailiff changes locks after forcing entry, he supplies the debtor with keys to open the new locks. He does not simple change a lock and deny access.

[Guest alreadyexists]

If the neighbour is adamant that £150 has gone missing, I would be inclined to suggest that your partner pay the sum to conclude the matter.

 

Observer, as I stated in post #8, IF the bailiffs have left paperwork then it might be easier all around to just reimburse the neighbour the £150, knowing that the £150 taken by the bailiff will go towards the debt.

 

However, if no paperwork has been left to confirm that £150 has been taken then this is a very serious matter indeed and I strongly urge your BF NOT to pay the £150 to the neighbour because he needs to find out where the £150 has gone. If no paperwork has been left, it is important that an investigation takes place to ascertain what happened to the money.

[Guest alreadyexists]

And your suggested way to achieve this is how?

 

Well I think that making the court or the bailiff manager aware of it would be a step in the right direction to start with. That Is why I suggested that Observer ascertain whether footage was taken of the visit. We also need to be clear on the layout of the property, to discover if the neighbour's premises were identifiable as being separate from the debtors.

 

What I certainly do not suggest is that the BF just blithely accepts that a theft has taken place, does nothing and foots the bill himself.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Bailiff Advice

 

It would be really helpful if you were to read posts thoroughly before commenting. I have not assumed anything.

 

In post #8 I stated the following:

Please be aware that if paperwork indicates that £150

 

 

In post # 15 I stated:

However, if no paperwork has been left to confirm that £150 has been taken

 

 

The BF now has an option as to whether to pay the £150 and take it on the chin or to try to do something about it. I know which option I would choose. It may well be that further on down the line, if a complaint is unsuccessful, that the BF will wish to pay the neighbour the £150 but in my opinion, it is wrong to recommend that he pays it without first discovering, or at least attempting to discover what had happened to the money.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Are you seriously suggesting that an innocent party (the other tenant) should consider making a complaint to the court regarding the fitness of the enforcement agent to hold a certificate !!!

 

Only a week ago, a debtor lost his 2nd court case when he made a complaint to the court about an enforcement agent. That person has been ordered to pay the enforcement agents legal costs of almost £6,000 (£4,000 for the first hearing, and almost £2,000 for his latest hearing).

 

No I am not suggesting that - You are just being argumentative again. Please calm down.

 

I have never suggested that an EAC 2 complaint be made in my life and urge against doing so in every case.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Let me remind you of your post from not even an hour ago:

 

 

 

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what you meant by 'making the court aware'?

 

Certainly. There is absolutely no advantage to a debtor in issuing a EAC2 complaint. (s)he stands to gain absolutely nothing, even if successful but there is a risk of costs orders being awarded against him/her. I would point out however that a properly submitted EAC2 complaint would not run the risk of costs being ordered against the complainant. The only time that costs can be awarded is if the complaint was unreasonable in the first place, ie vexatious or malicious.

 

What I often recommend to people who wish to make such complaints is to consider writing to the court and asking for a note to be left for the judge's consideration next time a bailiff applies to renew his certificate. One accusation of money going missing would likely not influence a judge but if there were three or four separate accusations then a judge is more likely to be concerned. If people do nothing and blithely accept their fate without challenging it then nothing is ever going to change.

 

This is a consumer forum and we have a responsibility to act in the interests of the consumer, not the bailiff who is chasing them.

 

For some reason, you get extremely angry whenever someone disagrees with you or corrects your misinformation. Your responses are usually unpleasant and always detract from the case in hand. I would urge you to control your temper for the sake of the OPs in these matters.

 

I will not be entering into further discussion with you so there is no need for you to respond.

[Guest alreadyexists]

This is actually the same step that the individual took who has recently been landed with his 2nd cost order. Supposedly, his letter had been treated as an EAC2 complaint.

 

Please provide us with evidence of this silly comment.

 

In the absence of evidence, I would urge readers to ignore the claim and treat it as little more than nonsense

[Guest alreadyexists]

You may not be lying (on this occasion) but you are clearly displaying stupidity if you think that a request for something to be stored in a bailiffs file was deemed to be an EAC2 complaint.

 

You have now re-worded you initial claim that "a note be left for the judges consideration" (post #25) to the letter actually being a complaint (post #27)

 

I think that even a novice can see that that is a pretty big climb down. Call it a lie, call it nonsense, call it anything you want - The bottom line is that it was misinformation.

[Guest alreadyexists]

PS: I will certainly be posting about both cases on the forum as soon as I am in receipt of the necessary documentation

 

I look forward to it.

 

I wonder if you will then be so quick to retract the previous misinformation that you have posted about the case?