Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • See my previous post(s): unless you gained a benefit by agreeing to repay some or all of the loan, no contract was formed, and you don't have to pay anything (unless you promised to pay by signing a 'deed').   From the sums involved, this action is likely to fall outside of the small claims track of the County Court, so costs can be awarded. I'd suggest writing to the claimant, noting that there is no enforceable agreement between them and you (as the 3rd defendant), and given this is likely to not be in the small claims track they might wish to discontinue their claim against you before you incur costs that you'll seek from them. You might wish to see a solicitor (they'll often give an initial 1/2 hr consultation for free), who may agree this is correct and offer to write a letter phrasing it for you, for a nominal sum.   That doesn't do anything for the first and second defendant, BTW, who (if they owe the money) can't necessarily avail themselves of this approach.   If this doesn't work you MUST: a) file an Acknowledgment of Service (AoS) in time, and b) file a defence in time, otherwise the claimaint might succeed in getting a judgment against you 'in default', (... simply by you not replying with an intent to defend, and then your defence, in time)
    • This is another trick. They offer you a settlement even though they're shutting down the limited company as i predicted. You drop the car and they don't pay you. In the mean time the car has been stripped and sold for parts, the limited company has folded and you are left dry. Your only hope is to start a section 75 as suggested or try to convince companies house not to strike off the company which is near impossible.  The fact they have 60 cars for sale means nothing.  They can sell them to a new limited company for £1000 each and use the money to pay wages. All in one day.
    • Wondering if anyone can advise me how to resolve my issue.   I owed MoneyBoat 2 x £143.53, 1 payment due end of Sept and 1 due end of Oct. I made a payment of £70 bringing my payments down to 2 x 85.15 which saves me money overall.   I then a few days later rang and made another £75 payment. This time my payments only reduced from £85.15 to £59.95....so if I add it up it actually costs me more. 2 x £59.95 plus the £75 payment is £194.90 where as the 2 payments I had left only total £170.30 (2x £85.15). I spoke to MoneyBoat but they insist it's correct, but I don't see how. I insist it's not, as by their calculations it would have been better for me to just pay the 2 x 85.15.   Is there anyway I can raise a complaint about this? Is this something I could raise with the Ombudsman? Moneyboat keep talking about interest, but if my 2 x 85.15 payments INCLUDED the interest, then how does paying an additional £75 early only reduce the payments by a total of £50.40 ? Am I missing something?
    • Hi again, yes long story. The property had previously been let and as my husband and i had separated  the plan was he was moving into it. It needed work and he was disappearing working on fitting new work tops decorating etc. This didn't happen. Hes a pathological gambler and i discovered bills mortgage etc were not paid. 2 years ago it went to court where a suspended repo order was granted. On the most part i made sure  payments were made but already the sum quoted at the possession hearing the paperwork had loads of charges for letters etc. We agreed to pay the monthly installment and an amount off the arrears. Then i got poorly with CFS and didnt work for a couple of months and despite speaking to santander and paying as much as i could the solicitors took it straight back to court. The house was on the market and we asked for time to sell and 3 months was agreed. We thought we had it sold however they pulled out and santander enforced the order for possession. By then id had enough and knew there was enough equity to clear the mortgage and associated costs and their solicitor claimed because of my ill health and ex's gambling there was no way forward.  It was sold by a local estate agent who reduced the market price from 49 950 to 30.000. I wrote an official complaint letter to santander head office  About the undervalue and he replied stating they had 2 valuations. Ive got all the details of other houses in the immediate area which were on the market and selling costs. Ive got all statements and letters where costs were added and officially complained. Ive spoken to FOS who said i needed to complain directly to santander first. In the meantime 8 months after the sale this letter arrived despite my complaint.    
    • Name of the Claimant ? it’s a private name and address   Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.issue date=  no date shown .theres a sticker saying the case number over the box.   Date of issue XX + 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = XX + 14 days to submit defence = XX (33 days in total) -   ^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? Please type out their particulars of claim in full (verbatim) less any identifiable data and round the amounts up/down. A claim for monies due= on the 11 April 2016 the claimants entered  in to agreement with the first and second to loan the first defendant the sum of £6300 on the terms set out in the agreement dated 11 April 2016. b The first defendant was to repay the claimant the full amount of £63000 within the 6 months from the date of agreement. The first defendant would make £2000 to the claimant on each 1st day of the month. C in the event of the 1st defendant failer to repay the loan or the monthly payment the defendant was to transfer the 30% ownership of the 2 businesses. 2  the second defendant agreed to be the guarantor to the first defendant with the agreement dated above and in the event of any default of the repayment  by the first defendant and the value of of the eforementioned business was not sufficient to cover the amount borrowed or any outstanding monthly payment agreed the repayment amount loan. 3   third defendant agreed to pay the £63000 to the claimant together with the monthly payment of £2000 on behalf of the first and second. [This is me as I never signed or said I will pay more then the amount borrowed].   What is the total value of the claim? £46600.00 plus court fees of £2330 +solicitors £100   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? not sure   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? no   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account?   No was a private loan   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ?  not really   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ? no   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. yes further the claimants has said in his statement that £68000 payment has been paid.[ £45 by me and £23000 by my son.] thanks for all the help so far. do i need to send anything at the moment.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 495 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...