Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm just trying to be practical Do A Deal.   Mediate - they will give you few option and maybe nothing - but get rid of the default - off your record not just settled or satisfied.   Whatever you agree to make sure you stick to it or they might be back. Once it's over it will be behind you.    
    • Hi guys,    I got a straight lettr from Debt Recovery plus, and no other notice. the car is leased and I beleive it went to the lease company first. below is the details    For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]   please answer the following questions.   1 Date of the infringement    26/06/2019   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]   Not sure, as the lease company recieved this. I only recieved a leeter from our registered address on the 11.09.2019 requsting £160, and than further letter on the 20.09.2019 with a notice to court   3 Date received   Not sure, as the lease company recieved this   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]   Not sure, as the lease company recieved this   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?   Not sure, as the lease company recieved this   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up   No, I have called them to ask for the original notice, and they said they will email this, but this has not happened. this was on the 20th September at 13.49   7 Who is the parking company?   APNR Parking Services Ltd   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]   Prioiry Walk Service Yard, Queen Street, Colchester CO1 2PL   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.   Does not state this    I fear that I cannot appeal because of the delay from getting it from the lease company, etc.    any help here would be greatly appreacitted   thanks   Irfan Khan     WORKFORCE - 11.9.2019.pdf WESL - 20.9.2019.pdf
    • Neither does your posts as we have already seen .. in posts 7 and 8           and still none.  
    • Hello,   i have recently missed a DD payment to X4L and have incurred a charge from harlands of £25, which i emailed in response to advising not  to take the payment on the next DD date due as advised in the letter received.   i confirmed over the telephone this was the appropriate action to take.   fast forward a week or so later and i get another letter advising another £25 has been added to the account despite my request.   i have absolutely no issue with payment of the first charge as this is my own fault etc. however i feel like the second occasions is ridiculous as i received no correspondence to advise it would still be taken...   Is this entirely my fault or am i within my rights to not make payment of the second charge?   i have looked through many forums and each case seemed to be ever so slightly different and wanted to ask the question?   thanks!!   
    • I don't know if this will be of any use for you but I have very  recently had a small claims against Lowell for the removal of my default from my credit report. Forget Principles! Right or wrong. Due or not due. Pay it and move on. Get out of there asap. Feel sick - I did and do. Get it settled or satisfied. (Settled paid in full. Satisfied part paid Do a deal and get it in writing.  Unless you have £1,000+ to lose or feel lucky? Remember it's the lottery in reverse and you have just won the..... Lowell fish in a barrel award.  Lies, dam lies and statistics. Then there are the mobile phone companies and Lowell.  £320 (12m -  £25pm/£6pw/ couple of pints a week?) v ? You need a solicitor or barrister? Costs if you lose plus theirs? Plus six years of misery - do not go there. In reality to do it properly you need to put £3,000+ in a bank and write it off if you lose. Appeal? Advice - look at the downside. As the Judge said why not just pay it - because I don't owe it is surprisingly not the right answer. Remember it is a lottery and work out the odds.   My case: Lost.It was quite apparent the judge had little time, knowledge of the Data Protection Act, no knowledge of the Law of Property Act 1925 ( labelled as 'archaic' and then 'technical'  and no conception of how Credit reference Agencies work. They had a barrister who he 'conferred' with and a witness statement from the Lowell Barrister. Whatever they said was llke the word of god.  Whatever I said was taken the opposite way. The judge claimed to have never sent anything by recorded delivery and the barrister..oh i agree! LPA s196 (3) includes a postman delivering by hand and S196 (4) recorded delivery is therefore only optional! If only I  had a few million spare.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 496 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

Bristol Council are in the doghouse for sending bailiffs and increasing a £1 debt for a mistake to £311 when Marstons called. Technically marstons did no wrong, they applied the correct fees.

 

https://thebristolcable.org/2018/04/i-owed-1-bailiffs-and-the-council-forced-me-to-pay-311/


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to or about the NoE? Regardless the Council should have queried this before it ever got this far.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bristol Council are in the doghouse for sending bailiffs and increasing a £1 debt for a mistake to £311 when Marstons called. Technically Marstons did no wrong, they applied the correct fees.

 

https://thebristolcable.org/2018/04/i-owed-1-bailiffs-and-the-council-forced-me-to-pay-311/

 

I received a google alert on this press article last night and I was suspicious then......and even more so now. The media articles slogan is a clue:

PART OF OUR CAMPAIGN CALLING ON THE COUNCIL TO STOP USING BAILIFFS

I think that I am right in saying that we are not allowed to reproduce a press article in full so hopefully the following will be ok:

 

Jade is a 27-year-old mum of two from Knowle and a full-time carer for her wheelchair-bound nan.

 

Last winter, like thousands of us, Jade got landed with a parking ticket. She duly paid the fine to Bristol City Council and got on with her life. However, a simple and innocent mistake landed Jade in a shocking and expensive situation.

 

“Months and months later, I had a knock at the door in the morning,” Jade tells me sitting in her nan and grandpa’s living room in Kingswood. “I came downstairs to find a letter on the floor. A bailiff’s letter. I opened the door to find a bailiff putting a clamp on my car and blocking it in the drive with his.”

 

Jade was shocked. “I said ‘What’s this about? I paid it’. He just said ‘no, it’s a pound short’.”

 

I must of paid a pound short without realising when doing the bank transfer,” Jade tells me, “but the bailiff was so arrogant. As soon as I approached him he was so rude. I said ‘can I just give you the pound?’ He said ‘No, you have to pay me £311’.”

 

The extra £310 is the fees bailiffs add to the original debt within seven days of receiving orders from Bristol City Council to enforce a debt. In short, the bailiff was demanding fees worth 311 times more than the original debt.

 

The impression that this media article is trying to portray to the public is that a single mother of two children (and a full time Carer to her Nan) received a parking ticket from Bristol City Council and then duly paid the council but by a simple and innocent mistake, paid £1 too little.

 

We are then given to believe that the naughty council then pursued this measly £1 debt by registering it at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (part of Northampton Court) and worse still, requesting that a warrant be issued.

 

And lastly, we have the awful bailiff company 'demanding fees worth 311 times more than the original debt'. And all because; Jade had made 'a simple, innocent mistake'.

 

If only it was true...but it can't possibly be...and the clue, is in the amount owed to the council......of £1.

 

Explanation in the next post....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was the case that Jade had settled this parking ticket with the Bristol City Council when she should have done and had paid a £1 too little, she would have then received a Charge Certificate. The debt would have increases slightly.

 

Next, would be the Order for Recovery to advise Jade that Bristol City Council would be 'registering the debt' at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. A debt registration fee of £8 would be added to the debt increasing the amount owed to around £10 (not £1).

 

Once the warrant is issued, it would have been passed to Marston's to enforce. They would have sent a Notice of Enforcement to Jade. A compliance fee of £75 would have been added at that stage.

 

It is clear as day, Jade had received a Notice of Enforcement, and PAID THE COUNCIL DIRECT. In doing so, she tried to avoid paying the compliance fee. Her intention was to only pay the amount of the parking ticket (minus the compliance fee). By a simple error, she paid £1 too little.

 

As warrant could never be issued for £1. I would be surprised if the court system allowed registration of a debt for such a low amount. Nonetheless, a court registration fee of £8 would be added to the warrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensational journalism at its best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media article is also misleading on the matter of 'vulnerability'. This is what it says:

 

At this point, knowing that Jade was a carer and a mother with a child present, the bailiff should have put a stop to the enforcement and identified Jade as a vulnerable individual.

 

Just because Jade is a mother and her children are in the house does not mean that she is vulnerable. She may well be a full time Carer for her Nan who is wheelchair bound but the Nan lives elsewhere !!!

 

PS: If Jade had visited this forum to seek advice as to whether she could pay the council direct, she would have been informed on the case of Bola v Newlyn. To clarify the position once again, once a warrant has been passed to an enforcement company, a Compliance fee of £75 is added to the debt. From any payment made......whether to the council or the enforcement company, the compliance fee must be deducted first.

 

Unless full payment to include the enforcement agent fees is paid in full, the warrant will not be satisfied and enforcement can continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you use the above link, and scroll to the bottom of the page, you will find that members of the public may leave comments.

 

It seems that two negative comments criticising my posts on here have been allowed.

 

Oddly, despite my attempt to leave a comment with a link to this thread, it has still not be allowed to be posted.

 

I have tried three times now.

I can only assume that Bristolcastle.org do not want their 'Fake News' exposed.

That is fine.

I will send a copy of the thread to Bristol City Council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is a true account of any action, it is more likely to be a problem with computers and the issue of them being right or wrong(not nearly one or the other) and A bit of human pig headedness )IMO. It happens in all sorts of transactions.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they do like to be seen dying on the barricades in the name of the revolution though. With friends like these no wonder the poor girl ended up paying out a fortune for the underpayment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they do like to be seen dying on the barricades in the name of the revolution though. With friends like these no wonder the poor girl ended up paying out a fortune for the underpayment.

Shame she went to them and not CAG.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...