Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @Tom Price   Thank you for your note, which is very helpful.   Did VCS cite the following cases?   1. VCS v Ward 2. Semark Jullien   VCS threw the two cases to me in the last minute at my previous hearing. The judge accepted the extra WS and adjourned my case for me to read/defend it. My case is going to be held on 30th March.   Thanks!      
    • Hi,   So, I received a letter today from a debt collection law firm threatening CCJ action on behalf of Volvo/Santander for a voluntary termination of a vehicle. (I did request Volvo/Santander that a complaints procedure be started as I think the terms of the contract were miss sold but alas, they ignored me and went straight to CCJ action via a debt collection law firm!).   I digress, anyway, so the letter was addressed to me, it included my original signed contract, but, there was another document inside. This document was another hire contract with some other person details on it!   It includes:   Their full name Their address and postcode Their handwritten signature Their email address Their mobile telephone number Their debt amount Their vehicle registration    Is this a breach of the data protection act? On the flip side, my details could be in the hands of someone else, who knows?    What should I do now, is this a trump card that I could use if this matter does actually go to court? I did intend to argue against this debt in the first place.   Any advice on this would be most grateful!   TIA         
    • Hi guys   I received a county court claim form on Thursday dated 18/02/2021 saying that the claimant (CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) is claiming for the sum of £2140.14 on behalf of  NEW DAY LTD RE MARBLES. but it requests all documents to be sent to MORTIMER CLARKE SOLICITORS.   Now i think i did have a marbles card a while ago although my partner says that that was a capital one card.   But either way i don't like the idea of these parasites chasing me for money for a debt they probably bought for £10.    From looking around here it seems that i should be sending them a CCA request and a CPR 31.14.   I've bought a £1 postal order.   Is there anything else i need to do?   Thanks for any help given
    • Yes that is an absolute must. Generally the Council has no wish to see people committed to prison for Council Tax debt. They want to see the debt recovered where it is properly due and the debtor has the ability to pay. If he hasn't that ability they will take into account the debtor's financial situation and make any arrangements they can. But only a court can remit some or all of the debt. The more you engage with the Council the easier this will be.
    • I think you'd need to have formally noted you were working under protest at the time. 
  • 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

LGO Ombudsman decision….Blue Badge….Vulnerability and refusal to provide evidence..and claim that warrant was invalid.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1108 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

This is yet another important decision from the Local Government Ombudsman and one that once again makes clear that if a debtor who is subject to bailiff enforcement considers that he may be 'vulnerable', he must be prepared to provide evidence and outline how his 'vulnerability' affects his ability to deal with the debt.

 

In brief, Mr B's complaint was as follows:

 

 

Mr B incurred 5 penalty charge notices. He believes that there is a law from the year 1600 that means that he can’t be fined and so can park anywhere.

 

He and his wife both have Blue Badges and he considered that being granted a Blue Badge means that he has meet the criteria for ‘vulnerability’.

 

Mr B told the Council he was a vulnerable person. However, he had not explained why he considers he is vulnerable. He was of the opinion that it is the Council’s job to prove he is not.

 

Mr B complained a business centre issued the warrants rather than a court and so were invalid.

 

Mr B complains that the bailiffs did not have the correct warrants. The Council has said the court sends the warrants electronically and so there are no paper copies.

 

PS: A copy of the decision can be read in the following post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is an extract from the decision:

 

Devon County Council (16 017 119)

 

https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-017-119

 

The Complaint:

 

The Complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains that the council should have withdrawn the bailiffs immediately when he told it he was vulnerable and should not need to provide details and evidence of his vulnerability:

 

 

9: Mr B has received 5 penalty charge notices (PCN) for parking offences since 2014. A parking enforcement officer placed two on the car and Mr B received three through the post. On the telephone, Mr B told me that he did not take account of parking laws as he believes there is a law from the year 1600 that means he can’t be fined and so can park anywhere.

 

10:The Council has said that Mr B first used the words’ vulnerable’ about his wife and him both having Blue Badges on 3 December 2015.

 

12: The Council said it advised Mr B on 5 July to contact the bailiffs for them to consider his ‘vulnerability’ and for him to provide them with whatever evidence they need to confirm his status as vulnerable. The Council advised Mr B that if the bailiff did deem his to be a vulnerable household the Council would withdraw the warrant and cease activity.

 

14: The Council said Mr B did not supply the bailiffs with supporting evidence. It has said the blue badge issued to Mr B, shows they have met the criteria of limited mobility to have a blue badge issued but may not necessarily be vulnerable.

 

16: The Council says that Mr B thinks that his vulnerability means that he is exempt from paying these fines. The Council says it disagrees with Mr B’s interpretation. It considers he is still liable to pay these fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how these fines are paid, e.g. deferring payment periods, accepting lower instalments until debts paid.

 

18: The Council has asked Mr B to provide supporting written evidence of his ‘vulnerability’ for it to find out if there are other conditions from which he suffers that may fit his interpretation of vulnerability, e.g. Mental health, depression, post- traumatic stress, at risk of self-harm, inability to understand and engage with the process. The Council says that if Mr B does meet any of these criteria, then it may withdraw the warrants and close the cases. Mr B has not provided supporting evidence.

 

Analysis

 

23: Mr B complained a business centre issued the warrants rather than a court and so were invalid. The TEC is the court appointed by the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport to deal with registration of debts arising from penalty charge notices. I can find no fault on this point.

 

25: Mr B complains the bailiffs did not have the correct warrants. The Council has said the court sends the warrants electronically and so there are no paper copies. For completeness, I will ask the Council to send me its electronic records showing the warrants but I can see no evidence of fault on this point.

 

27: Mr B believes that under the taking control of goods national standards act 2010, (updated 2015) as soon as he told the bailiff company finds out he is vulnerable (with no explanation) they have to withdraw. He believes that he does not need to provide details of his details of his vulnerability; it is then the Council’s job to prove he isn’t.

 

29: The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, part 2, regulation 10 set out the circumstances in which an enforcement agent may not take control of goods. It says an enforcement agent may not take control of goods of a debtor where a child or vulnerable person is the only person present. The legislation does not give any further guidance about how a vulnerable person is defined.

 

31: Mr B told the Council he was a vulnerable person. However, he has not explained why he considers he is vulnerable. He considers that it is the Council’s job to prove he is not.

 

33: It cannot be right that a person can say they are vulnerable and all outstanding debts are written off without them giving further information. If this was the case, then there would be no way for the Council to enforce any debt collection as anybody could claim vulnerability without evidence. I do consider it reasonable for Mr B to explain why he considers himself to be vulnerable.

 

35:In any case, a vulnerable person still has to pay the fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how the debtor pays the fines, e.g. deferring payment periods or accepting lower instalments. It should also allow the vulnerable person time to get help and advice.

 

37: I have found no fault in the Council’s actions. The Council gave Mr B the opportunity to appeal the PCN’s and to appeal to the court. No further recovery action has been taken once he told the bailiffs and Council he is vulnerable. However, I do consider it reasonable for him to give details of his vulnerability if he wants the Council to consider removing the warrants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a distinct smell of FMoTL here.....

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

Points 23, and 24 in the analasys would bear out a definite FMOTL belief. At least no mention of Admiralty Law and Dock.......;

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

god help anybody who goes to court with even a smell of FOTL/GETOUTOFDEBTFORFREE dribble they inadvertently will get hammered regardless, creditor representatives would have a back door field day on it

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...