Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I am a local authority tenant and was in a 3 bed house. At the end of last year, my last child moved out and so did my spouse as we are now going through a divorce which meant that I was in the house alone and decided that I needed to downsize not only for myself but to offer the property to a family that needed it. I registered on the local authority housing bidding site as i was asked to do and I was accepted and given a priority banding as I was downsizing and they were desperate for my house. I have been extremely lucky and after about 6 weeks was accepted for a new build from a housing association via the housing gateway. I viewed the property 2 weeks ago and had to sign the tenancy last week when they were doing bulk signups for the houses and that is the day I moved. In between viewing and sign up, I contacted my current local authority landlord and asked how I give notice as I had been accepted for a property I had bid on and was moving.  The lady told me how to do it online and then said that I needed to give a full weeks notice which wasnt a problem as I had enough time.  (I was also told a weeks notice was what i would need to give by another staff member about a month ago when I phoned up for another housing related question.  I dont have any of this in writing.) I have now moved, handed back the keys and I am now being told that I need to give 4 weeks notice which I cannot afford. I hav e spoken to the council again explaining that I was told a week and that to be honest, if I knew they were going to charge me 4 weeks I would not have been able to move and would have stayed in the other house.  I thought I was doing the right thing. They said that calls are recorded and they asked me when I called in and was told a week and they would listen to the telephone conversation and if it was correct what I was told, they would see what they could do to reduce the notice period. They have now emailed me back and said that they have listened to the conversation and the lady said 4 weeks notice and I am liable for 4 weeks rent.  Now I may well of misheard her when I thought she said a full weeks notice she may have said 4 weeks notice but I am sure she said a full weeks notice and i was told a week by another member of staff a few weeks ago. I have emailed her back and said that I may of misheard but I would like to listen to the phone recording myself.  As yet they havent responded. I think its unreasonable for them to make me give 4 weeks when I had to sign the new tenancy with little notice or loose the property.  And it was all done through their gateway, and they will have a tenant in there pretty much straight away getting rent from them. I am on a very low income, I am on my own, I have serious medical issues and I am really getting myself stressed out over this. Any advice would be so appreciated.  Can I insist they let me listed to the recording? RH  
    • Susan Crichton is at the Inquiry today. She seems to have trouble remembering a lot of things but seems to find it easier if it's something that shows her in a good light.
    • Send them a letter of claim straightaway. No point hanging around. Given 14 days in the letter of claim and if they haven't paid you by then, issue the claim on day 15. The amount of time is more than adequate for them to get going. Post your draft letter of claim here. A look at. Then log onto the MoneyClaim website and start preparing your claim and post your particulars of claim here for us to have a look at. Don't bluff. No point in it.
    • That's what we thought, but the store manager is inferring that, as the jeweller we used was not a member of the NJA, no one  would give what he said, any credence. The Jeweller we used is in fact, a long established, well respected company, with 2 store and rather than just being a retailer, they craft the most exquisite jewellery inhouse!  I wish my Fiancé would have bought from them rather than H Samuel! Do you think we do need to get another report from and NJA accredited Jeweller ?
    • Really pleased that you won. UKPC know that you have supremacy of contract but still they persist because so many motorists blindly pay them.   Muppets.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Can bailiffs find out this


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2572 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

.........I noticed on that TV program with bailiffs that they can in find out if there is HP on a car.

 

 

Can they also find out who owns a car by its number plate reg?

 

 

I have noticed on the same progam they don't seem to 'know' or be able to find out who actually owns cars they suspect are owned by the debtor,

 

 

they seem to make a pure specualtive assumption the debtor owns a car & clamp the car without formal confirmation it is owned by the debtor.......thanks

Edited by Caz16
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a fairly simple matter for a bailiff to request details of the registered keeper from DVLA. BUT the registered keeper may not be the same person as the legal owner (and there is a difference).

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so whats this to do with

got a council PCN then?

tell us the story

 

 

dx

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

the HPI check is easy, several companies provide this service to anyone who pays a small fee so you should always do this before buying a secondhand car from anyone other than a reputable dealer. The DVLA check for a private individual would have to be done through the post but many bailiff companies belong to a scheme where they can get the details electronically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

many bailiff companies belong to a scheme where they can get the details electronically.

 

OK thanks,

I was (still am) curious as to why in the TV cases they seemed to need proof of ownership if someone other than the debtor says it is theirs & the debtor says its not his/hers,

 

 

at the end of the day if they took someone elses car they would be liable to a small claims court claim

 

Mr P wrote...."It would be a fairly simple matter for a bailiff to request details of the registered keeper from DVLA."

 

Well is there any reason you're aware of why in that TV program they have never been seen (by me) to do that,

yet every time they are threatening to to take one they always do a phone call check to see if its owned the a finance company.

 

As regards DVLA giving details to a bailiff,

MrP, that confounds me as well for the simple reason bailiffs are dealing with a civil law matter,

I would have thought DVLA would only divulge anything if criminal law was involved

Link to post
Share on other sites

the DVLA give out 10'000's of registered keeper details everyday to the private parking companies

(opps said owner..dx]

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

DVLA do not hold owner details. To my knowledge there's no such register in existence.

 

What you do is register yourself as the keeper - you may or may not own the car - no-one knows. When a PCN is issued, the Council can apply for keeper details and are legally entitled to hold the person they reasonably assume to be the owner, liable for the charge. By default, that's the registered keeper.

 

The keeper then has an opportunity to absolve themselves by demonstrating that they do not own the car. If they don't, then they remain liable for the PCN and associated charges. The council gives the vehicle details to the bailiff - the bailiff does not apply to DVLA again.

 

By the time bailiffs come around, it's still assumed that the keeper is also the owner. If bailiffs clamp a car, and you as the debtor don't own it, show them proof and they have to release it. They would still come after you to seize other property though, as the debt is with you.

 

So yes, if you let them remove the car without proving ownership, and it turned out to belong to someone else, you could sue them. And the judge would then want to know all the background, why the debt wasn't defended at the time, why you didn't show the council or bailiff the evidence you're about to present to the court, and so on. You're unlikely to get anything out of it to compensate for your inconvenience in losing use of the car. It's very rare things go that far, as it helps nobody to allow it to progress that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought DVLA would only divulge anything if criminal law was involved

 

Anyone can apply to the DVLA for details of the registered keeper of a vehicle. You only need to show reasonable cause for requesting the information, and it does not need to involve criminal law.

 

See: https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

looking at the replies so far I think I might not have written giving a clear understanding of what I mean & the replies seem to have mind that I am referring to a car which has some outstanding PCN unpaid tickets, if so thats not the case or what I meant.

 

I was thinking specifically of that program 'Cant Pay Take it Away'

- so from that, they are baliffs or high court enforcement,

 

 

I have seen many many times them asking people if they own this & that car to take it away & to auction to cover any debt.

 

 

I have only ever seen them finding out via a third party if a car is on HP & not once have I seen them actually get the name of the keeper from any source.

 

Looking at the gov link (thanks) Bailiffs after a debt are not included in some of the 'named' person types who may have reasonable cause, the sort of reasons they might which are listed are fall well outside 'civil law debt', plus, they have to write in to DVLA not just make a call,

 

 

anyone can apply but that cannot equate that with any baliff can find out who owns any car,

eg I might be visiting a friend, park my car in the driveway & the bailiffs think they can clamp it without establishing who the keeper/owner is, I/anyone, is allowed to use 'reasonable' force to protect my property ...

 

 

...any comments

Edited by Caz16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jamberson

If bailiffs clamp a car, and you as the debtor don't own it, show them proof and they have to release it.

 

Caz

Yes it's that type of incident I have my mind, now, there is no way possible to prove I/you/the baliff/anyone does 'not own' anything, if you dont own something the person cannot show anything, so, surely a baliff or high court enforcement surely must have obtain evidence somehow, the are not issued with warrants or high court writs to collect anybody elses property & to do that they would have to have 'reasonable' evidence any goods belonged to the debtor, good heavens, if my next door neighbour owes money then high court enforcement come along & can clamp any non involved neighbours car because it was parked in the street on a residents parking space outside the debtors residence >an everyday occurance

 

The enforcement guys behaviour in that Cant Pay Take It Away program gives the impression that they can come along, point to any car in the street but close to the debtors property,. clamp it & take it away >quite legally

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I would caution against drawing any conclusions from TV shows. It's just entertainment.

 

Regarding the clamping of a car, no-one in their right mind would assume that a given car, which is not registered to the debtor, and has no connection to him/her, would be his or her personal property just because of where it is parked. That would not be reasonable grounds.

 

However if the debtor is the RK, that is reasonable. If it's not correct, the debtor would need to show that - eg paperwork from the employer if it's owned by the company, or purchase proof from the actual owner, along with a convicing explanation of why the debtor is the RK of someone else's car.

 

If your car was at risk over a debt which is nothing to do with you, which is very unlikely, you would only need to tell the bailiffs, show them your V5 and they would have no grounds whatsoever to keep it clamped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would caution against drawing any conclusions from TV shows. It's just entertainment.

 

Regarding the clamping of a car, no-one in their right mind would assume that a given car, which is not registered to the debtor, and has no connection to him/her, would be his or her personal property just because of where it is parked. That would not be reasonable grounds.

 

Yes your right, I know that TV show is entertainment, but, it has the by product of having some educational value & in any case that program is a bailliff/high court bias that must be the deal by the agencies involved.

 

Anyway, I might have a precedent of my own this year, I cant be the only one...........lol that will make the covert bailliffs etc on here put their probe clothes on:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...