Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. 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 understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 251 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

Just now, Dodgeball said:

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

 

No, just repeating that BA advised that the OP should inform the EA that they will pay the arrears to the council unless a new NOE is sent. BA is very clear in that. Of course as we know previously BA has maintained that once an account is with the EA then a debtor cannot pay directly to the council.

 

Has something changed?

Share this post


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

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.

 

Just to clarify - a LO can be set aside in a magistrate's court. I think Judge Burnton referenced it 4 times in the quote from the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the current position is that Dodgeball says you cannot set aside a liability order, and several judges and barristers, plus common law confirm that you can.

 

The choice is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it cannot, at least not in any way which would assist a anyone on here. Not in the way you initially thought


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, otterlyendo said:

So the current position is that Dodgeball says you cannot set aside a liability order, and several judges and barristers, plus common law confirm that you can.

 

The choice is yours.

The judges of course were discussing a different scenario completely as you well know.

The point is that no one can get a liability order set aside just because they dispute it. your judges agree there also.


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
6 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

No it cannot, at least not in any way which would assist a anyone on here. Not in the way you initially thought

 

All I did was correct you by saying that a LO can be set aside. I made no mention of how - that was just your assumptions.

Share this post


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

The judges of course were discussing a different scenario completely as you well know.

The point is that no one can get a liability order set aside just because they dispute it. your judges agree there also.

 

Well to be fair, no-one can get any judgement set aside just because they dispute it. There needs to be evidence as to why it's disputed.

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

Just to try and get back to earth, this is the sett aside I was referring to.


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
16 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

No, just repeating that BA advised that the OP should inform the EA that they will pay the arrears to the council unless a new NOE is sent. BA is very clear in that. Of course as we know previously BA has maintained that once an account is with the EA then a debtor cannot pay directly to the council.

 

Has something changed?

My position on paying the council direct once an account has been passed to an enforcement agent has always remained the same. It does not work. However, in this particular case...and this case ONLY, the enforcement company appear to be unwilling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement in line with the regulations.

 

Accordingly, I would argue that the ONLY amount that the OP is liable to pay is the council tax arrears. The problem is, if the OP paid this sum to the enforcement agent, then common sense would dictate that the 'Compliance fee' of £75 would be deducted etc, etc. In order to avoid this happening, then in this case ONLY, I have suggested that consideration could be given to paying the arrears direct to the council. 

 

I hope that I have clarified the position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bailiff Advice said:

My position on paying the council direct once an account has been passed to an enforcement agent has always remained the same. It does not work. However, in this particular case...and this case ONLY, the enforcement company appear to be unwilling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement in line with the regulations.

 

So what's different about this particular case from the tens of dozens of other similar cases? In all those other cases you advise to not pay the council direct? Why not?

Share this post


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

Just to try and get back to earth, this is the sett aside I was referring to.

 

You stated:

 

Quote

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

 

That has been shown to be incorrect. Perhaps you need to clarify.

Share this post


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

 

Well to be fair, no-one can get any judgement set aside just because they dispute it. There needs to be evidence as to why it's disputed.

 

I think you would probably have to think the judgement was wrong, ie dispute it, wouldn't you?

Not just arguing for the sake of it by any chance little troll.

However the procedure you have fallen over speaks of other factors, like fraud or actionable incompetence.


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 minute ago, Dodgeball said:

 

I think you would probably have to think the judgement was wrong, ie dispute it, wouldn't you?

Not just arguing for the sake of it by any chance little troll.

However the procedure you have fallen over speaks of other factors, like fraud or actionable incompetence.

 

Why must you start insulting people. I merely mentioned that someone disputing a judgement, ie they thinks it's wrong, doesn't automatically mean it's set aside or quashed. You would need to present evidence as to why it should be set aside or quashed or overturned or whatever term you decide to use. Whether it be a CCJ, criminal conviction or a LO, this would be a basic requirement.

 

Share this post


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

 

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

You said the above, which as shown is incorrect, an LO which has just been mistakenly imposed cannot just be set aside

 

Care to clarify?


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
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why must you start insulting people. I merely mentioned that someone disputing a judgement, ie Nthey thinks it's wrong, doesn't automatically mean it's set aside or quashed. You would need to present evidence as to why it should be set aside or quashed or overturned or whatever term you decide to use. Whether it be a CCJ, criminal conviction or a LO, this would be a basic requirement.

 

I Not meaning to insult, but the requirement for evidence to support your case is not a new concept, not to me at least.

 

Night all

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

I think one or two EGOs need deflating.People come on this forum for help and not be part of the arguments between two supposedly knowledgeable people. The original OP must be well and truly pi..issed off and has switched off

Share this post


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

You said the above, which as shown is incorrect, an LO which has just been mistakenly imposed cannot just be set aside

 

Care to clarify?

 

How is it incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have made the mistake that thier were two supposed expert and will amend that to thier being no experts as far as I can see its just one big EGO trip for both of you and suggest that the  Site team close the post

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, basildonbond1946 said:

I may have made the mistake that thier were two supposed expert and will amend that to thier being no experts as far as I can see its just one big EGO trip for both of you and suggest that the  Site team close the post

 

Not agreeing with this though, not on my part anyway, :)


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 BA points out, as Busted & Stupid seem not to reissue the NOE to the correct address, in this case I concur with BA that OP pays council direct and puts in a Formal Complaint as Council are liable for act, omissions, and any wrongdoing by their agent Bristols & Stupor.


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

Yes indeed.


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

Thread now locked and will remain so until advised by the OP to reopen.

 

Regards

 

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

 

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
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 251 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...