Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I forgot to add I originally messaged them via there website which I still have access to . Was this Ok ? 
    • If I copied anybody into your complaint it would be your local Care Commissioning Group, not the GMC...
    • So ignore emails from ADCB now ?  I told them they will have to contact me by email and it will have to go to UK courts
    • Hello   Not a legal issue as such but wasn't sure where to ask advice on this.   I have just been awarded £2050 on a PPI claim.  I went through a claims company so i expected to pay them 40% plus VAT of the claim won.  However, i am querying the quoted court costs (which i was not informed about prior to this).  They are quoting the following court costs: -   £205 - Court Issue Fee £335 - Court Hearing Fee   I am no legal expert but these seem very high for such a small financial claim.  I will be lucky to see £500 of the initial £2050 if this is correct (yes i understand the 40% i could have avoided if i didnt use the claims company).  If these costs seem realistic then no probs with agreeing to them but if the claims company artificially inflated these for their own gain i would be none the wiser.     Can anyone advise please?   Thanks 
    • Our general hospital uses a similar system, but I don't think(?) it displays all your personal details for confirmation at the end of the process.  In fact I'm pretty sure that at the end of the process it displays only the last three or four digits of your 'phone number and you must confirm that this is correct.    Also at my GP's surgery it only asks for date and month of birth together with the initial letter of your surname and then it displays "Thank you.  You are recorded as attending".   I would say what you describe is a sort of breach of data protection, but not sure how serious it might be.  (I can see no valid reason for displaying full name and address etc if other hospitals' systems don't).   Go to the website of the NHS Trust in question and see what their complaints process is.  There may be two different processes: one for "general complaints" and a separate one for data protection complaints (eg direct to the trust's data controller*).   Personally, I would complain down both routes.  Don't, whatever you do, get diverted down the PALS (Patient Advice and Liaison Service) path as they won't be equipped to deal with this sort of issue.   As a former NHS manager I'd be interested to know what sort of reply you get.   FWIW I'm surprised(!) the ICO suggested complaining to the GMC as they won't be interested.  This isn't a medical staff issue - it's a trust data management issue.  (I'm really surprised at the ICO's suggestion on this - it's bonkers!).   *If you can't find out how to contact the Trust's data controller from their website, ring and ask them.   EDIT:  I wouldn't allow people to "shoulder surf" me.  Our trust makes it clear that people behind you have to stand behind a line so they can't see over your shoulder.  If anybody was standing directly behind me I would "politely" draw their attention to the notices and "ask" them to stand back.  If your hospital does not make this clear, that's another complaint...)
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 522 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...