Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The US tech giant blamed the attacks on Hafnium, a state-sponsored group operating out of China. View the full article
    • Airlines in the region are coming up with different strategies to tackle the pandemic travel slump. View the full article
    • The 46,000-year-old Juukan Gorge rock shelters were destroyed to make way for an iron ore mine last year. View the full article
    • yep did warn of this before.   let it run they'll sell it on.  
    • Update from FOS. They have sided with Tesco Bank. Their main reasoning for this is due to "floor limit's"   Thee statement the FOS put is as follows: "Regardless of who the retailer is, it’s not unusual for stores to have the aforementioned ‘floor limit’ in place. And if the store doesn’t request authorisation from Tesco for the transaction to be approved then it doesn’t have the opportunity to decline it, and once the transaction goes through Tesco has an obligation to pay that amount even if it takes the consumer over the agreed limit.   So based on the information that I currently have I can’t find that Tesco’s done anything wrong because it’s correctly applied the over limit charges as per the terms and condition of the credit card.   And while these same terms and conditions state Tesco has the ability to stop transactions and prevent consumers going over their limit, again this is only possible if the retailer requests authorisation for the transaction.   But there’s also no obligation on the business to stop these transactions, the terms and conditions say that it can or may stop them but don’t state that they will.   It’s important to remember that ultimately it’s always the consumer’s responsibility to manage their account and make sure that they stay within the agreed credit limit. It’s not the business’ responsibility to manage the consumer’s account for them and stop them from going over the limit."   If all merchants have floor limits then what's to say for example Currys having a floor limit of £500 and someone with a credit limit less that £500, does this mean the transaction goes through?   It seems like this so called floor limit is an excuse for Tesco's to make money.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1058 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 am a vulnerable person having suffered a violent attack for which I am receiving counselling for and has left me with anxiety problems,

 

at the time this led to me leaving work which in turn led to me running up rental arrears and a possesion order granted ( I moved out before the date ).

 

The vast majority have been paid off and I am now in a new place,

at the time of the hearing I offered through his solicitor to pay £200 per month which was accepted via the solicitor in writing and I have kept paying to this arrangement.

 

I have today been informed that a letter has arrived to my old address

( even though my old LL has my new address )

for which I have not been in for over 5 years to say a baliff ( High Court Sheriffs Office ) will arrive after the 11th

- I know the person in there now luckily!

 

I have a few questions on this:

 

- Am I right in saying that if my friend ( who lives in my old place ) states I am not there then I will have to be re-notified at my new addy?

- which gives me some time to sort something ( as they will not know I know )

 

- Is there a court route I can go through?

 

- Is this allowed when I have a written agreement on repayments?

 

- The original order is for 2 of us and the action just lists me ( not sure if it makes a difference?)

 

- Why would he put the wrong addy on?

 

- I am not sure if it makes a difference but it was seen at Eastbourne County Court on September 11th and the paperwork from Bailiff states it was seen at Manchester County Court on September 11th

 

What information would my friend need to provide to show I do not live there anymore?

 

The total remaining on the form is £2600 ( which is after the £200 per month payments I have made )

 

I obviously have medical/counselling/doctors notes I can provide that support my anxiety and people turning up to the house will obviously set this off

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am a vulnerable person having suffered a violent attack for which I am receiving counselling for and has left me with anxiety problems. At the time, this led to me leaving work which in turn led to me running up rental arrears and a possesion order granted ( I moved out before the date ).

 

The vast majority have been paid off and I am now in a new place. At the time of the hearing I offered through his solicitor to pay £200 per month which was accepted via the solicitor in writing and I have kept paying to this arrangement.

 

I have today been informed that a letter has arrived to my old address ( even though my old LL has my new address ) for which I have not been in for over 5 years to say a baliff ( High Court Sheriffs Office ) will arrive after the 11th

 

- I know the person in there now luckily!

 

I have a few questions on this:

 

- Am I right in saying that if my friend ( who lives in my old place ) states I am not there then I will have to be re-notified at my new addy?

- which gives me some time to sort something ( as they will not know I know )

 

It is almost certainly the case that if a new address is identified that the enforcement company should serve a fresh Notice of Enforcement to the new address establish. Sadly, I have come across too many occasions where this is not happening and therefore, given your quite obvious 'vulnerability', I would not suggest that you sit back and wait for a new notice.

 

Almost certainly you need to be making enquiries with the solicitor today to ascertain WHY they are taking the route of bailiff enforcement when you are abiding by the agreement made to pay £200 per month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have today been informed that a letter has arrived to my old address ( even though my old LL has my new address ) for which I have not been in for over 5 years to say a baliff ( High Court Sheriffs Office ) will arrive after the 11th

 

The way in which I am reading the above is that you moved out of the property 5 years ago and that the landlord is aware that you had moved and has your new address.

 

When the proceedings were issued against you, was the claim addressed to your previous...or current address.

 

When was the landlord made aware of your current address?

 

Is the solicitor who represents the landlord aware that you moved 5 years ago?

 

PS: I forgot to ask....are you working or still unemployed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was where I lived before I moved into the property of the claimant, the court order was sent to that address - ie the claimants I was renting- as I was still there at the time but have had correspondence with him at my new address since- so its very odd its gone back there

 

I am back in work but still suffer from anxiety- have counselling for it- so obviously want to avoid people just turning up as its already starting to effect me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

So a quick update,

 

I tried calling the claimants solicitor yesterday but he is on holiday for 2 weeks so with this in mind I am planning on writing to the claimant today asking for him to take it back and citing that he was aware that I was suffering from anxiety ( he has seen records to this effect ) which this course of action will make worse and that I had maintained payments, I am going to offer to increase it to £275 a month if he agrees to take it back.

 

With the baliff side do you think I should contact them and ask them to put it on hold for 14 days while I provide them with my proof of vulnerability/ have heard back from the claimant or are they likely to reject that or am I better calling and saying I have been told a letter has arrived for me but don't know what it is about so they have to post the same notice through to me- stressing at the same time I am classed as vunerable

 

I am on the electoral roll and have been for a while as well as having correspondence to my address so I am still baffled as to why it went to my previous address.

 

It is frustrating to me as it was agreed at the set amount which has not been broken I could have understood it if it had been

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first instance, you need to be making the creditor aware of Item 12 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 which states this:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/353396/taking-control-of-goods-national-standards.pdf

 

12. Creditors must not issue a warrant knowing that the debtor is not at the address, as a means of tracing the debtor at no cost.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent,

 

Thanks a lot I will add that into the letter

 

Is there anything I can do with the courts to take it back to the agreement that was made?

 

Do you think it is likely the Sheriffs Office will put it on hold for 14 days while I supply the details to them?

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

Hi all,

 

Just to let you know I have now had a letter at my current address

 

The court listing is still wrong though and still lists Manchester when it was heard in Eastbourne, I have written to both the claimant and HCEO to ask for time to prove vulnerability and come to an arrangement, will let you know when I have heard further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all,

 

Just to let you know I have now had a letter at my current address

 

The court listing is still wrong though and still lists Manchester when it was heard in Eastbourne, I have written to both the claimant and HCEO to ask for time to prove vulnerability and come to an arrangement, will let you know when I have heard further.

 

I am assuming that the letter is a fresh Notice of Enforcement. Is this the case? If so, what date is the notice dated and most importantly, what date is provided on the notice by when you must make payment?

 

The problem with a judgement transferred to the High Court for enforcement, is that if payment is not made in full within what is called the 'compliance stage' (this is the period from when you receive the notice until the 'cut off' date for making payment in order to avoid a bailiff visit), then in ALL cases, the enforcement agent is under a legal obligation to make a PERSONAL visit for the purpose of 'taking control of goods'. This requirement is outlined under item 7.3 of the Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods Fees Regulations 2014 (see link below).

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

When the agreement was made with the creditors solicitor to accept a payment arrangement of £200 per month, was this agreement in writing?

 

Have you ensured that you made the payments on the exact dates specified (i.e; if payment was to be made by 15th of each month, were all your payments made in cleared funds by this date?

 

Has there been any occasion when the payment may have been a few days late?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with a judgement transferred to the High Court for enforcement, is that if payment is not made in full within what is called the 'compliance stage' (this is the period from when you receive the notice until the 'cut off' date for making payment in order to avoid a bailiff visit), then in ALL cases, the enforcement agent is under a legal obligation to make a PERSONAL visit for the purpose of 'taking control of goods'. This requirement is outlined under item 7.3 of the Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods Fees Regulations 2014 (see link below).

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

Item 7.3 is vitally important and states this:

 

While the fee structure applies across debt streams, there are two separate fee levels – one for High Court Enforcement and one for non-High Court Enforcement, with the High Court level containing higher fees. This reflects the findings in the 2009 independent report5 that High Court Enforcement has a higher cost base due to the personal responsibility of a High Court Enforcement Officer (who has writs addressed directly to them) and the fact that they enforce higher value debts.

 

The personal liability of the HighCourt Enforcement Officer has also necessitated the need for High Court enforcement to have first and second enforcement stages with the associated fees.

 

The fee structure for High Court cases also introduces an incentive to enter into, and adhere to, an affordable controlled goods agreement. Unless a debtor pays in full at the compliance stage, the enforcement agent is obliged to visit the debtor in every High Court case in order to take control of goods, thereby triggering the first enforcement stage.

 

If the enforcement agent is then unable to enter into a controlled goods agreement (and has to take control of goods in another manner) or a debtor defaults on a controlled goods agreement, the enforcement agent will be under an obligation to remove goods and therefore the second enforcement stage fee will also apply

.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with a pre hearing payment arrangement, is that unless it was sanctioned by the court the creditor is fully entitled to enforce the amount owed on the judgment in the way stated on it.(forthwith) unless the judgment is subsequently varied.

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 problem with a pre hearing payment arrangement, is that unless it was sanctioned by the court the creditor is fully entitled to enforce the amount owed on the judgment in the way stated on it.(forthwith) unless the judgment is subsequently varied.

 

Just on this ( and not sure if it makes a difference ) but the payment agreement was made by his solictor post the hearing

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When the agreement was made with the creditors solicitor to accept a payment arrangement of £200 per month, was this agreement in writing?

 

Have you ensured that you made the payments on the exact dates specified (i.e; if payment was to be made by 15th of each month, were all your payments made in cleared funds by this date?

 

Has there been any occasion when the payment may have been a few days late?

 

If you could please respond to the above question that I raised on the 18th February, that would greatly assist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just on this ( and not sure if it makes a difference ) but the payment agreement was made by his solictor post the hearing

 

The judgement encapsulates what was said before, so yes it makes a difference. If it is not reflected within the judgment or under an order of the court post, it is irrelevant.

Be good if you could answer BA's question.

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

Hi sorry so an update on it all,

 

I have had a written letter today from the claimant saying he has received my letter and stated he will remove the enforcement action if I pay a higher rate of £250 with the first payment by 23/02 and I agree not to pursue him in the future for lack of deposit protection - which I am guessing is what this may be about?

 

I can do this and am happy to but I don't want to if him just saying he will end the action is not legally binding, if I pay and he does not would I have a case to have the warrant suspended?

 

In terms of the earlier questions, yes it was in writing and stated the claimant is happy for the payment of £200 per month by the 24th of each month until the balance is cleared and will seek further action if this is not adhered to, I have paid it each month as agreed via bank transfer ( so on my account ) and have never paid late, sometimes paying a few days early

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi sorry so an update on it all,

 

I have had a written letter today from the claimant saying he has received my letter and stated he will remove the enforcement action if I pay a higher rate of £250 with the first payment by 23/02 and I agree not to pursue him in the future for lack of deposit protection - which I am guessing is what this may be about?

 

I can do this and am happy to but I don't want to if him just saying he will end the action is not legally binding, if I pay and he does not would I have a case to have the warrant suspended?

 

In terms of the earlier questions, yes it was in writing and stated the claimant is happy for the payment of £200 per month by the 24th of each month until the balance is cleared and will seek further action if this is not adhered to, I have paid it each month as agreed via bank transfer ( so on my account ) and have never paid late, sometimes paying a few days early

 

Hang on, back up a bit, lack of deposit protection ?

 

Can you tell us a bit about your lease, was it an AST? if so what was the term.

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
Hang on, back up a bit, lack of deposit protection ?

 

Can you tell us a bit about your lease, was it an AST? if so what was the term.

 

Hi yes it was, it was for an initial 12 months but we lived there for 3 years under a periodic, for 2 years of the tenancy it was not protected, the LL sent a letter stating it had been but later admitted it had not and the deposit schemes have confirmed this.

 

To be honest I am not disputing I owe the money and want to pay it back but just want to avoid the enforcement action if possible

 

I do have a bit more time as the sheriffs office have agreed a 10 day extension until 7th March to send evidence of vulnerability in

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In terms of the earlier questions, yes it was in writing and stated the claimant is happy for the payment of £200 per month by the 24th of each month until the balance is cleared and will seek further action if this is not adhered to, I have paid it each month as agreed via bank transfer ( so on my account ) and have never paid late, sometimes paying a few days early

 

You mentioned in your initial post that the agreement to repay the debt at £200 per month had taken place 'at the hearing'. If so, the payment terms should feature on the judgment issued by the court. Unless you have defaulted (which you have not), then to my mind at least, there is no possibility of the creditor seeking to bypass that court order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi yes it was, it was for an initial 12 months but we lived there for 3 years under a periodic, for 2 years of the tenancy it was not protected, the LL sent a letter stating it had been but later admitted it had not and the deposit schemes have confirmed this.

 

To be honest I am not disputing I owe the money and want to pay it back but just want to avoid the enforcement action if possible

 

I do have a bit more time as the sheriffs office have agreed a 10 day extension until 7th March to send evidence of vulnerability in

 

Well, i don't now whether to applaud your honesty or criticise, but there are strict rules including presenting proof of deposit protection which must be followed before a section 21 or 8 APO termination can proceed, if for some reason these were overlooked there may be reason to set aside.

 

If you change your mind let me know.

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
You mentioned in your initial post that the agreement to repay the debt at £200 per month had taken place 'at the hearing'. If so, the payment terms should feature on the judgment issued by the court. Unless you have defaulted (which you have not), then to my mind at least, there is no possibility of the creditor seeking to bypass that court order.

 

 

I thought HCE had to have a forthwith judgement? What does the judgement say?

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
You mentioned in your initial post that the agreement to repay the debt at £200 per month had taken place 'at the hearing'. If so, the payment terms should feature on the judgment issued by the court. Unless you have defaulted (which you have not), then to my mind at least, there is no possibility of the creditor seeking to bypass that court order.

 

Sorry I was not clear, I made the £200 per month offer prior to the hearing and I was told it had been accepted in writing on the afternoon following the hearing, it is not on the order

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, i don't now whether to applaud your honesty or criticise, but there are strict rules including presenting proof of deposit protection which must be followed before a section 21 or 8 APO termination can proceed, if for some reason these were overlooked there may be reason to set aside.

 

If you change your mind let me know.

 

The claimant protected the deposit a few months before he issued the section 8 which I assumed made it valid

Link to post
Share on other sites
The claimant protected the deposit a few months before he issued the section 8 which I assumed made it valid

 

Was the proof of protection included in the county court bundle?

 

So presumably the deposit was not protected during the AST period?

 

TBH i am unsure if registering the deposit after the AST makes a difference, it should be protected when it is paid, at least i would haver thought.

if you think you may want to pursue this i can find out.

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
Sorry I was not clear, I made the £200 per month offer prior to the hearing and I was told it had been accepted in writing on the afternoon following the hearing, it is not on the order

 

Then as said it is not relevant.

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 just been given advise that I should submit an N244 to stay the enforcement action and vary the order and to include my medical records + the latest letter from the claimant stating he would agree to £250 per month and to send a copy of both to the HCEO group as well

 

Is this what you would recommend?

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...