Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I feel that people are focusing too much on the OPs property being a council house and putting responsibility on the council to resolve this.   imagine for a moment that the OPs house is privately owned, now what powers would they have to take action on the trees? Pretty much none without taking the tree owner to court right. Well as the trees are privately owned, that is the same power that the council have right now.   the information with the £375 will be inline with high hedges legislation as this will be the only power the council will have and it is common for there to be a charge for this.   this is not a social housing issue, but a neighbor dispute with a private homeowner.   i used to work as a tree officer for a local authority and from experience have seen that people’s idea of dangerous and what is actually dangerous are two different issues. A councils power to enforce tree works are also limited and will usually only be where a private tree poses a risk to the highway, not to another property as that is a civil matter (even where the council own the 2nd property).    With regards to risk to underground pipes, this is something you will be unlikely to successfully argue as various studies have found that unless a tree is planted on top of the pipe and crush it, the roots will not cause damage, but rather only enter through already damaged areas as they are opportunistic, any tree roots in drains are usually a secondary issue where a pipe had existing damage and to resolve it will require a permanent repair to the pipe to prevent recurrence.   the only options i see here are to calculate the height allowed under high hedges legislation (it varies depending on what direction the property faces , the location of hedges etc) and try to enforce that which will involve the fee. Otherwise there is little you can do as the private homeowner has a right to have trees in their garden although they may be liable if they were to cause damage to your property (such as a shed) or the councils property in the future.
    • Served on 16 Feb.   On reviewing the MCOL website today for an updated, I noticed that 1) Hermes has aknowledged the claim, but not yet filed a defence, and 2) that I there was a glitch / error on the form. Essentially, it looks like I had accidentally left the "I will send detailed particulars of claim" box ticke (I thought I had unticked it), with the result that the claim section has been truncated, and some extra text has automatcially been added - in red below):   "...Claimant seeks £XXX, plus I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of..."   This is obviously not ideal. Is it better to try to amend the claim somehow, or to just submit a brief POC that a) clarifies that I am seeking £XXX plus costs (which was automatically truncated), and b) sets out my calculation of the £XXX?  
    • Hi   It amazes me how they pass the buck as they don't want to deal with a private homeowner but if the shoe was on the other foot they would be hammering down on you for breach of tenancy.   As this is council housing you need to make a Formal Complaint in writing to the Council Housing about this (as a social housing landlord they have a complaints process they have to follow). you need to exhaust their complaints process. Make sure and title your letter Formal Complaint.   From what you have posted this tree is not just a nuisance but also a Health & Safety risk:   1. The tree being overgrown is now a danger to the occupants/Guest/Visitors to your property   2. The tree has overgrown into the Council Housings Boundaries your property causing damage/endangerment to the occupants/guest/visitors.   3. As the roots of the tree are also overgrown into your property you have concerns that these may be causing/damaging to any underground pipework that may be within the boundray of the property.   4. So far the Councils actions have been to treat their Council Housing tenant as a third class citizen with a private homeowner aloud to cause endangerment/possible damage due to these overgrown trees which are encroaching on your council house property/bounderies.   You also require clarification why you were sent the Healthy Neighbourhood Information which states I have to pay £375 to make a complaint. (make sure and attach a copy of the response that states this cost)   You also require copies of the following:   1. Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Customer Service Standard (not the leaflet) 3. Health & Safety Policy (not the leaflet) 4. Public Liability Insurance Policy. (not the leaflet) 5. Clarification from you if their is any underground pipeworks running through the bounderies within the garden area (you should have full knowledge of this it being your property/plans) 6. Compensation Policy (not the leaaflet) 7. Equality & Diversity Policy (not the leaflet)   When you get the above policies sit with a pen/pencil/highlighter and take you time reading them and just think to yourself 'DID THEY DO THAT' if not mark it then leave it for a while then do the same again this way you can basically throw/write back stating the haven't followed x policy with which part of that policy and your reason. (you are building evidence to use against them using their own policies. I would also like to refer you to The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1976: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/57/part/I/crossheading/dangerous-trees-and-excavations     You need to remember yes it is the Council but the Council Housing is a separate entity and is a Registered Social Landlord (RSL)   Is the Council Housing classed as a registered Charity? (what is their registration number whether charity or RSL?)   Also have a wee look at this CAG link:     
    • @rocky_sharma   Fame at last!!   Dunno how much help it would be in your case, but I could try digging out the txt of my defence if you think it might be relevant to your defence. We might hafta do this via PM, then e-mail though if ya wanna go down that route.   Good luck with yours anyway mate.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 596 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

Not sure if anyone's seen this, I doubt it will make it onto the Can't Pay show.

 

 

DCBL agent forces his way in to a residence where the occupant has told him he is not the debotor and does not know the debtor, Police are called and as usual support the agent in his incorrect actions

 

 

https://tinyurl.com/yad63obg

Edited by dx100uk
link sorted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many wrongs....

On behalf of the owner of the property.

I'll pick up on two.

The person named on the warrant is linked to the address.

So I the named person isnot resident then the owner must prove the items belong to them and nit the debtor.

2nd.. A warrant has to be shown and signed. Statement by the owner..

Wrong. The existence of the warrant is all that is needed. However they normally carry an electronic copy to ease arguments and it has to be wet signed.. Wrong. Stamp of the court I all thas needed.

 

This all stems from wrong sites spouting wrong info along the unicorn food lines of FMoTL...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to Discussions.

 

 

Andy


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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sniff sniff fMoTl


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HCEO bailiff can gain peaceable entry via any unsecured entry point.

When confronted with Bailiff, most people lie.

Bailiff should take steps to confirm/deny his assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% fotl just like all the other YouTube videos


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy did himself no favours, all he had to do was fetch ID, rather than wind Sandbrook's finest up; deffo FMOL angle in that one.


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 OTHERS

 

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
sniff sniff fMoTl

 

 

The video maker might be but I'm not and Crimebodge is not.

 

 

Ignoring the rubbish the video maker says the agent does push his way into the property.

 

 

My opinion is that if the video maker had said hold on there I'll just go and get you some ID the agent would have walked in and the video maker knew that so tried to shut the door but the agent wasn't having that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be hard without sounding like a FMOTL... But if the EA is there to enforce against a previous householder (for example), why should someone have to prove their identity?

 

Whilst I agree that this would make the EA realise that the person they're looking for is no longer there, surely it is up to the EA to prove that they do have the correct address, not up to the householder to prove that they don't.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its for the current to prove who they are. The courts have gone to great lengths to try to make sure current addresses are correct.

How many times do you think the debtor turns round and says that's not me.

But they are on the lease or recently connected to the address.

 

The EA CAN sieze goods and its up to the owner , if they are not the debtor, to prove ownership.

That is quite clear in legislation. Taking control of goods act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm not saying you're wrong and that's not how it is, but it just doesn't sit right with me. Someone comes to your door and demands to see ID.

 

They'd only get one answer from me :evil:


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DPA should prevent discussing debt with anyone named on the writ. Anyone can decline to show ID and suffer the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I'm not saying you're wrong and that's not how it is, but it just doesn't sit right with me. Someone comes to your door and demands to see ID.

 

They'd only get one answer from me :evil:

 

 

 

I agree, to any tom dick of harry.

 

But they are commanded by the court to enforce a warrant.

Different kettle of fish entirely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Indulge me.

 

An EA comes to my door looking for a debtor that I have never heard of, and, as far as I am aware, has never lived at my address. Therefore the debt is absolutely nothing to do with me.

 

Whilst I agree that some people will always lie to an EA, what right does an EA have to demand that I show them ID? They may well be commanded by the court, but I'm not and therefore I feel that I do not have to prove anything to them. And I'm afraid that if they attempted to force entry or otherwise enter my home, they would very quickly find themselves in a heap on the pavement.

 

I'm not talking about scenarios where a debtor is (correctly) linked to an address and the person at the door is lying through their teeth, but if there's been a mistake at some point, an EA demanding ID from me and/or trying to enter my property is not going to end well for them.

 

If they asked nicely, maybe they'd get my ID, if I was in a good mood. But if they come at me with the attitude that some do have....

 

 

 

I must stress that this is entirely my own opinion and may not be the opinion of the site and/or any other member of the site team.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Dragonfly.

 

Any warrant is to recover money or goods of value from the debtor.

A third party living at an address has nothing to do with the matter and no enforcement officer has any right command any action from them.

 

Has to be peaceful entry, which is either being invited in or entering through an unlocked/or open door. If they are met by a third party at a door and advised the debtor is not at the address, then it is up to the EO to make further enquiries if the third party does not wish to assist them.

 

An EO acting on a court warrant must have access to resources that enable them to trace people and if if their searches still show the address, then there are other court actions that the debtor can take e.g. Bankruptcy if relevant, court request for debtor to attend court for questioning.

Edited by dx100uk
Quote

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 OTHERS

 

 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is EA might try to accuse the occupier of obstructing him, at which point any innocent might get done and summonsed. Anyone can be accused of obstructing the EA even a passerby who intervenes, or a courier delivering a parcel to a debtor's address EA cannot demand parcel as not signed for and is not an authorised signatory, but could try obstruction for spite.


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 OTHERS

 

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

Dragonfly, you are correct that your not commanded by the courts but as you choose to live in the country you abide by all its laws so it does have a sway. If you dont like the laws then move or petition to have the laws change. Its a democracy.

 

The courts go to great lengths to check addresses.

 

The thing that needs to addressed here is yes Te EA has to gain peaceful entry on the warrant shown in the video but its not always like that.

Civil or high court warrants require peaceful entry.

Magistrates warrants do not. Forced entry is automatically granted if required.

 

This is where people get confused sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragonfly, you are correct that your not commanded by the courts but as you choose to live in the country you abide by all its laws so it does have a sway. If you dont like the laws then move or petition to have the laws change. Its a democracy.

 

I can assure you that I do, and always have abided by the laws of the land.

 

However, what I wouldn't do is allow myself to be pushed around on my own doorstep. If the EA comes up with a law that says that I must identify myself to them, I'd be happy to comply. But until then...

 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one I think.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not disagreement.

I'm not for one minute suggesting you fall foul of the law.

 

 

99% of enforcement agents are extremely professional and polite.

 

The videos that appear on YouTube are the exceptions not the norm and unfortunately, in most of those the EA is reacting to a debtors attitude and not the other way round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, I don't disagree with that. There are always the proverbial bad apples.

 

But taking the video linked in the OP as an example (bearing in mind that there may (or may not) have been events that happened before the video starts) the EA's opening gambit appears to be "you need to prove it to me" when the person at the door says that he is not the debtor named on the writ.

 

For the EA to then go on and compound that by (seemingly) pushing the person backwards so that he can gain entry is just not on. It would very much end in tears if an EA tried that with me.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EA tries to snatch parcel, he stumbles

EA hits the ground

Ambulance hits 90

 

Well officer he fell over when he couldn't snatch the parcel I was trying to deliver, and he grabbed and threw my delivery tracking device at the wall

Edited by dx100uk
Quote

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 OTHERS

 

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

Hi

 

There is nothing on the writ or warrant about any address for the debtor , if you look on the CPR it is not required.

The address may be sent as an aid to enforcement with the writ, but the only legal instruction as to delivery is in the TCE Part 14 which states "where the debtor lives or carries out a business".

 

The only point is, that it may lend credence to the NOA not being delivered earlier and therefore the

debtor not receiving notice under section 7.

Interestingly, if the address is not a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under Part 66.


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

Great discussion guys and one of particular interest to me as recently I have started getting phone calls from JBW for a person I have never heard of.

 

 

I have lived in my home for 6 years (I own it) and I have the phone number for about 5 years.

 

 

It seems in my case the information held by JBW is out of date and I presume they got that information from the court.

 

 

I have told JBW they have the wrong number every time they have called but they keep calling so I suspect a visit is imminent.

 

 

I am inclinded to agree with Dragonfly but I shall judge my reaction (if they visit), on their attitude at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show them a council tax bill then tell them to Foxtrot Oscar whilst filming them. having gone outside and closed the door behind you to deny them access.


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 OTHERS

 

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

Sounds good to me.

 

I have a porch so the door gets locked behind me before I open the porch door.

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...