Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you Bank Fodder for your reply. Il certainly do that
    • Googled it and Family Money Savers purchased the assets of Key Financial Claims, there’s also threads confirming that they have acted as agents of Key. A firm going into liquidation does not nullify a contract so whether or not you owe the money will depend on when the offer of compensation was made. I would call them in the first instance to question it, all CMCs have to record all calls now, and you can make the subject access request over the phone. The fact that it’s taken 6 and a half years doesn’t make the contract invalid. 
    • the business and assets of Key Financial Claims were bought out of administration on a going-concern basis on 10 December 2015 by connected company Family Money Savers (FMS) for an initial payment of £30,000.   addition, the company is due to receive 10 per cent of FMS' revenues from Key Financial Claims' pipeline and 25 per cent of FMS' own revenues of which the company previously received 15 per cent. ………..     pers i'd ignore them.  
    • Hi, I currently have a Court case going on against Hartley Wintney Motors whereby I am trying to reject a car under the 30-day thing, as the car broke down 29 days after I purchased it. I was notified by the Court that the Judge had ordered for it to be referred to the Motor Ombudsman for dispute resolution. TMO advised that this could take up to 6 months as they are currently dealing with cases older than mine. Yesterday, through the Money Claims portal, I had notification that HWM had made an offer. I am trying to claim back £3,100. That's the cost of the car at £2,500 + the cost of a warranty. So there offer is:  "We can pay £2500 on 23 October. You must deliver the vehicle with all keys, logbook by 23 September. If you are not agreeable, business is closing soon, and any judgement awarded in the small claims court is also unenforceable. You will then need to dispose the vehicle."   So, firstly, why should I have to return the car? It doesn't go. I would have to pay for a truck to get it back to them. If the business is closing why do they want the car? Why would I give them the car a whole month before they pay me? They could scrap the car and there goes my evidence. Is the business closing? Their website still has over 60 cars for sale. Are they just trying to force me to take their reduced offer?  I have checked on Companies House and in June they filed a notice for compulsory strike off. One week later the strike off action had been discontinued. I've also contacted TMO to try and ascertain if this offer is in conjunction with them, as I haven't received any communication from them advising the same. If my matter is still waiting to be dealt with by TMO, why would HWM just randomly make an offer, when from the beginning they have been adamant that I am in the wrong?   I would very much appreciate any thoughts from people.   Thank you.     
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 494 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...