Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Can I just leave it as saved and not submit or do I need to delete everything?
    • don't file yet not needed till/by 4pm tomorrow   let andyorch check things over 1st    
    • well the claim is stayed so don't panic for now.   is this the ONLY payment made and how did capquest get this out of you? by phone?   explain what caused you to make the payment and how you did it please   dx                
    • Lovely stuff.    1.The claim is for the sum of £882.53 due by the Defendant under the CCA 1974 for a Shop Direct account with the account ref of ********************    2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been complied with.   3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 08/01/18, notice of which has been given to the defendant.   4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £70.60 - The claimant claims the sum of £953.13   #####Defence######   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of a legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)   4. On receipt of this claim form I, the Defendant, sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of the said request.   5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimant’s solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.   6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim   7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed   8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.   I will get this put into the defence section. Thank you again.
    • just remove the 2nd part where you mention some reply.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 253 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

BA has already explained he cant do that.

 

its not £275 its £235, but as you didn't get the notice of enforcement either he cant charge that £75 either.

 

pers i'd be complaining to the council at all the lies you are being told regarding these fees as they ARE responsible for the actions of the bailiffs they employ to do their dirty work.

 

so as no bailiff enforcement is currently 'in force' as none of the fees can yet be charged...why not see if they'll let you set up an arrangement wit them directly?

might also be worthy to RING your local councillor tomorrow and make a pest of yourself too!!

 

search for posts by london1971 he has the info in his posts

if you cant find it i'll do it later.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup,

 

Find your local Councillor contact details on the web. Email them and

 

Just explain everything, as you have here, and ask for the Bailiffs to be called off, and all fees cancelled because you never received a Notice Of Assignment. However make sure you say that you are willing to pay any outstanding Council Tax direct to the council.

 

Do this, and there is a 90% chance of this being solved in the next 24 hours.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:whoo:

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for the delay in replying had no internet, thanks for that info , we moved 180 mile away so probably being thick but do i find my councellor where i live now or the one for back up where the address was previously to contact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

old council


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BA has already explained he cant do that.

 

I am afraid this seems to be incorrect DX

 

pers i'd be complaining to the council at all the lies you are being told regarding these fees as they ARE responsible for the actions of the bailiffs they employ to do their dirty work.

 

so as no bailiff enforcement is currently 'in force' as none of the fees can yet be charged...why not see if they'll let you set up an arrangement wit them directly?

might also be worthy to RING your local councillor tomorrow and make a pest of yourself too!!

 

search for posts by london1971 he has the info in his posts

if you cant find it i'll do it later.

 

As far as I can see this is incorrect, as the first(compliance) fee £75 is due on receipt by the bailiff of the order.

 

Stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered – enforcement other than under High Court writs

 

5.—(1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

(a)

the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;


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

Hi all , not sure if anyone can help..

 

.. still got this ongoing issue.

 

.. I have emailed the councillors for the area (as theres 3) a few times

 

one email I got a reply saying they had passed info over to relevant department!  

I’ve not heard anything back 

chased it again today, but not holding my breath.

 

 I’ve just received a phone call from the enforcement team saying they were at my door for removal of goods (I’m at work so good luck with that one)  

 

is my next step citizens advice ?

Or are they a waste of time

 

Bristol & Suitor are still saying “they can’t remove those charges”  as per my previous posts ..

 

even though I’ve still not received any letters apart from the one I had off them after my last phone call but that had all the charges on not just the £75..

 

I don’t know what else to do & it’s starting to get to me that I can’t just sort it out with these idiots.. any help appreciated 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Paying the council in an attempt to avoid fees, will of course not work, never has.

They will just send it on to the bailiff.

 

Your two choices are to suit it out until the EA sends the account back to the authority.(nulla bona) .At which point the fees will drop off, and you will be left with the original debt.  Conversely you could come to an arrangement with the bailiff to pay him by instalment. If you do this he may want to take control of your goods under a controlled goods agreement. Upto you.

 

 

Edited by Dodgeball

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
On 18/01/2019 at 15:56, ericsbrother said:

you need to know when it went to court to give the council the liability order.

 

being at an old address they probably did this but that also means they may still be chasing the debt at the old address rather than asking the court to change the paperwork.

 

This menas that you are likely to get a set aside if you apply for one and then you can pay what you owe rather than the fees as well.

 

Also a poke in the eye for the councl if they knew they were chasing you at the wrong address

You cannot set aside a liability order, it is made at a Magistrates court.


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
2 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

You cannot set aside a liability order, it is made at a Magistrates court.

 

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Posted (edited)
On 27/03/2019 at 12:43, md13 said:

Hi all , not sure if anyone can help..

 

 

Bristol & Suitor are still saying “they can’t remove those charges”  

I don’t know what else to do & it’s starting to get to me that I can’t just sort it out with these idiots.. any help appreciated 

 

When a new address is located, an enforcement company must abide by Regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement as outlined in my previous post (number 18).  You mention that Bristow & Sutor are continuing to disagree. Do you  have this in writing?

 

Edited by Bailiff Advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For the avoidance of doubt, in order to legally 'take control of goods' or to charge fees, an enforcement agent must issue a Notice of Enforcement and this MUST comply with Regulation 8 which states that the notice will not be considered as being legally served unless it is sent to the debtor:

'At the place, or one of the places, where the debtor USUALLY lives or carries on a trade or business'. 

 

In your particular case, B&S have undertaken checks and have established that you have moved. In this respect, they should have issued a fresh Notice of Enforcement to the address where you USUALLY live (which is number 6A).  Unless they are willing to do so, the position is very clear. They can neither take control of goods...or charge fees. To do so, would be unlawful.

 

You may wish to remind the company that unless they are wiling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement to your USUAL address (number 6a), that you will be looking to pay the ARREARS direct to the council. 

Edited by Bailiff Advice
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Andyorch said:

 

Indeed, but really no more than a potayto potahto situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bailiff Advice said:

You may wish to remind the company that unless they are wiling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement to your USUAL address (number 6a), that you will be looking to pay the ARREARS direct to the council. 

 

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

Nope 

 

One of the reasons liability orders are issued through the magistrates court is that none of the civil CPR apply.

You cannot set aside any magistrates court action. Can you imagine the chaos. if liability orders could be challenged in this way.

 

 


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
1 hour ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

Well no. I think when you say set aside most think of the civil precure, this is not the case here, as said CPR does not apply. From the link

Q&A: Setting Aside Liability Orders

Q.       The council is planning to enforce a liability order, but the debtor is seeking to set it aside on the basis that the debt is disputed.  How should we deal with this?

 

A.      Whilst the magistrates’ court does have the power to re-open criminal cases, there is no corresponding power in respect of non-payment of council tax or business rates, which is a civil matter.  Equally, there are provisions within the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside court orders in the county court and high court, but the CPR do not apply to magistrates’ court proceedings. 

 

Which I think is what I said.


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
1 hour ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

World of difference between what BA is saying and what you are suggesting. This is not about avoiding fees, its about showing the EA the possible consequence of his actions.


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
13 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

Well no. I think when you say set aside most think of the civil precure, this is not the case here, as said CPR does not apply. From the link

Q&A: Setting Aside Liability Orders

Q.       The council is planning to enforce a liability order, but the debtor is seeking to set it aside on the basis that the debt is disputed.  How should we deal with this?

 

A.      Whilst the magistrates’ court does have the power to re-open criminal cases, there is no corresponding power in respect of non-payment of council tax or business rates, which is a civil matter.  Equally, there are provisions within the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside court orders in the county court and high court, but the CPR do not apply to magistrates’ court proceedings. 

 

Which I think is what I said.

 

Not sure why you stopped there - being a little selective aren't we? The rest of that section says:

 

Common law route

However, the authority to set aside liability orders has now been established as a common law principle following a series of three cases beginning in 2002.

 

Etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

World of difference between what BA is saying and what you are suggesting. This is not about avoiding fees, its about showing the EA the possible consequence of his actions.

 

BA advised the OP to inform the bailiff that if they don't send a new NOE he will pay the arrears direct to the council. This surely means that although the account is with the EA, paying the arrears direct to the council is a valid option, otherwise why even advise it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Not sure why you stopped there - being a little selective aren't we? The rest of that section says:

 

Common law route

However, the authority to set aside liability orders has now been established as a common law principle following a series of three cases beginning in 2002.

 

Etc, etc.

Not reallyzsure why you stopped there.

The debtor has no entitlement to do so simply because the liability order is disputed.  In the recent case of Dias v London Borough of Havering [2011] EWHC 172 the court held that even though the majority of liability order proceedings may be viewed as a “rubberstamping” exercise without the protection of a full judicial process and with limited rights of appeal, a bankruptcy court cannot look behind the liability order unless the debtor or interested party is able to demonstrate that it was obtained by fraud, collusion or a miscarriage of justice.

I think you are confusing common law and civil law. Again setting a principle and being able to actually make the complaint are miles apart, if you did read the whole case, it is about a completely different scenari to a member of the public just challenging his bill. You were thinking of making a claim, to the civil court etc. now you seek to enlong you mistake into other teriories wont work this time.

 

Enough nonesense now.

Edited by Dodgeball

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
Just now, Dodgeball said:

Not reallyzsure why you stopped there.

The debtor has no entitlement to do so simply because the liability order is disputed.  In the recent case of Dias v London Borough of Havering [2011] EWHC 172 the court held that even though the majority of liability order proceedings may be viewed as a “rubberstamping” exercise without the protection of a full judicial process and with limited rights of appeal, a bankruptcy court cannot look behind the liability order unless the debtor or interested party is able to demonstrate that it was obtained by fraud, collusion or a miscarriage of justice.

I think you are confusing common law and civil law. Again setting a principle and belong able to actually do are miles apart, if you did read the whole case, it is about a completely different scenari0o to a member of the public just challenging his bill. You were thinking of making a claim, to the civil court etc. now you seek to enlong you mistake into other teriories wont work this time.

 

Enough nonesense now.

 

Oh for heaven's sake, you've quoted from the section about bankruptcy.

 

The fact remains that a liability order absolutely can be set aside. Not by the CivPR obviously but by other means, ie LGA 2003 s82. Another part of the page says:

 

3.             The application to the justices for the order to be set aside must be made promptly after a defendant learns that it has been made or has notice that any order may have been made. Prompt action means a matter of days or at most a very few weeks, not months and certainly not as much as year.

 

Your earlier advice simply implies that there is no means of removing a LO once in place, even if it's made erroneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You were thinking of making a claim, to the civil court etc. now you seek to enlong you mistake into other teriories wont work this time.

 

Don't recall where I said anything about making a claim. Just merely stating that a LO can be set aside.

 

Can't decipher the rest of that sentence I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

BA advised the OP to inform the bailiff that if they don't send a new NOE he will pay the arrears direct to the council. This surely means that although the account is with the EA, paying the arrears direct to the council is a valid option, otherwise why even advise it?

3 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Oh for heaven's sake, you've quoted from the section about bankruptcy.

 

The fact remains that a liability order absolutely can be set aside. Not by the CivPR obviously but by other means, ie LGA 2003 s82. Another part of the page says:

 

3.             The application to the justices for the order to be set aside must be made promptly after a defendant learns that it has been made or has notice that any order may have been made. Prompt action means a matter of days or at most a very few weeks, not months and certainly not as much as year.

 

Your earlier advice simply implies that there is no means of removing a LO once in place, even if it's made erroneously. 

What are you talking about the words liability order are mentioned in the quote? That complaint has to be made via the authority, I think you will find and the criteria above still apply. IE not for just saying the bill is wrong, the authority has to agree and send the complaint. Wandering about again, typical.


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

As for the other silly remark, again BA is talking about continuing the enforcement you are talking about fee avoidance?


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
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 253 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...