Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Dukes Baliffs old CTX arrears***Resolved***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1807 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

so what..

you really think  a bailiff is gonna enter a front? garden where kids are playing..

you need to stop putting things that are really irrelevant and your own pers fears to the background and  deal with the issues you have with the ctax debts. and the other debts you appear to have suffered like eviction threats etc..

stop thinking there are magic bullets out there when you've never really investigated things to a conclusion..

 

dx

 

 

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not even sure I owe the debt anyway that is being dealt with

im sure this wouldnt of been the first time id heard about it if it was all as it seemed.

 

why has this 'council tax debt' not been chased after before now?

 

Why 12-14 years later?

 

ps: Its not front garden im talking about its the back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

then exactly what ive said then..

back garden makes no odds.

you are seriously making all these issues 1000 times worse but bringing in your own fears about this and that ..that don't apply at all.

old wives tales.

 

as for why they are chasing 12-14yrs later ...because they can and they are short of cash as the gov't is cutting £1Ms a day to councils..but..the staff and paperwork and TIME taken far outweighs what they ever get back..as you point out in your case..debt shouldn't exist.

 

above BA hinted at what someone should have advised

 

i'll post the check list of things to do a bit later

  • Like 1

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, London1971 said:

I'm not so sure, especially if he pushes via the local councillor route, or even if his MP get's involved.  A note from a medical professional explaining symptoms, medications makes a huge difference, plus the OP is on income support.

 

I think if he does this he can have the debt handed back to the council, maybe on a token payment plan for 6 months.

 

Councils are very wary of pushing families over the edge, it's a hell of a lot cheaper for them to take a hit on the council tax than be forced to re house an evicted family, because they can't pay their rent.  

 

 

5

Oh, you can be sure, bailiffs only recognise the vulnerability of the debtor, and that's it.

 

Authorities can withdraw warrants of course, and in certain circumstances they do.

 

I think we are talking about different things.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mamt35 said:

Yes I know, but my house often has doors open, I really don't want all the hassle of looking over my shoulder. My house is my childrens place of education too, they go in the garden etc. As for the category, it says that unemployed people are to be considered in that category in the TCE

2

There is no categories or lists of vulnerable people in the TCE or regs.

 

There are lists of where vulnerable people are likely to be found in guidelines, but even these do not say that any category should be regarded as vulnerable.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies, its so daunting with all the emails etc,

 

have 2 lots going now, MP with council and Dukes.

 

Hopefully will be sorted and if owed then a reasonable payment agreement.

 

How do you find out exactly how much the original debt was, and how much is charges?

 

I thought it was to ask for a breakdown, but as I showed in my early post, when I asked Dukes it just showed what I have on bailiffs letters, and dates.

 

How do I find out the original amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your original debt will be the sum on the liability order, the council will tell you, the bailiffs should also give you a breakdown when asked, email them, you may get a better response.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to speak to someone at the Council and ask the following questions:

1 - how many Liability Orders they have against you

2 - the dates they were obtained

3 - the addresses they were for

4 - the period of time each covers

5 - how much each one was for

6 - how much is still outstanding

7 - the dates they were passed on for enforcement

8 - the dates & amounts of any payments

Please note they need to prove you owe the debt not just say it is outstanding.

 

Next you need to send off for a breakdown of the charges the Bailiff applied. 
.
Here's an example, 
use and ADAPT at will and best sent initially by email backed up by a copy in the post.
.
"From:
My Name
My Address
.
To:
Acme Bailiff Co
Bailiff House
.
Ref: Account No: 123456
.
Dear Sir
.
With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges. 
.
This includes:
a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.
b - the reason for the fee.
c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.
d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were Certificated at.
e - the date of the Certification.
.
This is NOT a Subject Access Request
uest under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 
You are obliged to provide this information.
.
I require this information within 14 days.
.
Yours faithfully
.
Ripped off customer"
.

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup the bailiffs can't do squat, but if the OP tries (remember he has nothing to lose) and the council see him as vulnerable, then all fees will be removed too, as what happened to me.

 

It's not in any local council's interest to push someone on benefits over the edge,  and behind in their rent because they will only have to pick up a much higher bill for re housing a family.

Edited by London1971

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

well did you ring the council today?

 

dx

 

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no point ringing the council, the debts are franchised out (probably why the council didnt answer me), I found this out from the reply from MP, they have sent request to the private company (I think its called EKservices? shortened to EKS)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.

A private co cant get a liability order

Only the council can.

The collection of the DEBTS can been franchised out but not litigation 

 

Another day wasted.

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they were not employed by the council when you got your LO's

ring the council...they obtained the lo's for that period.

now if the admin is globally held by them for historic times is another matter.

eitherway you must attain the info from either in WRITING. pref.

 

 

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is I feel im short on time, I posted for info too late really, The MP is dealing with that side concerning the council/Ekservices.

 

I do wonder whether they should have renewed the LO as such a long time ago, but dont know much about it.

 

I have received a reply from Dukes, they have rejected my offer (as expected) and want just over £42 a week.

 

They say the extra I said to consider (as not on their I/E) for home education expense are not as important as the debt they are collecting which takes priority 😕

Link to post
Share on other sites

what you' feel' as ive said time and again is totally irrelevant.

and no they cant..re issue a LO 

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/04/2019 at 18:07, Dodgeball said:

83.2  CPR

(1)  This rule applies to—

(a) writs and warrants of control;

(b) writs of execution;

(c) warrants of delivery;

(d) warrants of possession.

(2) A writ or warrant to which this rule applies is referred to in this rule as a 'relevant writ or warrant'.

(3) A relevant writ or warrant must not be issued without the permission of the court where—

(a) six years or more have elapsed since the date of the judgment or order;

This is from the Civil procedure rules. I would ring the council in the first instance, although they may just refer you to the Bailiff. Just ask when permission from the court under section 83.2 CPR was obtained.

In regards to your last post

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, they only take over the authorities part in the enforcement process, so the contact and behaviour of the EA are not affected, different law.

 

You can still ring the authority in any case, the administrator is under the same obligation to withdraw warrants if needed.

 

seems to me that you have accumulated so much information which is either inaccurate or not applicable to your situation that you are stifled under the weight of it.

 

Firstly I would like to know how the bailiff was able to acquire a LO after six years. if as you say the authority got one at the onset, I would like to know who gave them a warrant after six years from the LO being issued.CPR83

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree London 1971. this needs unpicking and looking back to the start might be worthwhile, along with getting the local Councillor involved, they can access information the Revenue Office are wunwilling to provide.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello, just thought I would update. The council have emailed saying they have asked Dukes for the files back with immediate effect, and will contact me regarding affordable payments. Thank you all for the helpful advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Dukes Baliffs old CTX arrears***Resolved***

Excellent

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...