Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In essence I am trying to win a loosing battle i take up the 33 % discount on offer me thinks
    • Whose duty?   you can use civil law to pursue the GDPR issue with the police (though, as I’ve stated: it may not do you any benefit).   The court isn’t bound by any duty under GDPR that the police may (or may not) have. I can only repeat, the duty of the magistrates regarding verdict is “is the offence proven beyond all reasonable doubt?”. They can’t, and won’t, be influenced by the GDPR issues at that stage, and you are misguided if you continue to believe that it will make a difference to their verdict.
    • the duty of the police
    • Hi Andy   The following is my WS2 in reply to their WS2, please do let me know if i need to mention/amend/add anything to it, the attachments are in my previous post #78.   Can i add my costs as this is the second hearing for it?   Also i don't know if this will help but i also have an old Capital One Credit Card which i don't use anymore, so how can i possibly have 2 Capital One Credit Cards as this claim is clearly for the Luma Credit Card....   SECOND SUPPLIMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROLAND I, Roland, the Defendant in this case, will state as follows; I make this second Witness Statement as a supplementary to my first Witness Statement dated 22ndNovember 2019 Page 1-2 and Amended Defence dated 17thDecember 2019 page 3-4 in Exhibit xx1 in response to the claimant’s second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020.    THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT  1. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.     2. The stay was lifted by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 and the Claimant’s application for summary judgment and/or strike out was dismissed.   3. My amended defence was filed and served 17thDecember 2019.    4. I received the Claimant’s Second Witness statement 21stJanuary 2020.   5. It is accepted as per my Amended Defence para 2 insofar that I have once held a contractual relationship with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for a LUMA Credit Card and not a Capital One Credit Card.    6. The Claimant’s point 23 in their second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020 refers to me providing supporting evidence that my application was for a LUMA Credit Card, and that their position that it is for a Capital One Credit Card. This is for the Claimant to prove it’s a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card, when this matter was heard by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 he also questioned the Claimant’s advocate the same.   7. The Claimant’s point 24 refers to the Reconstituted Capital One Credit Card Agreement in their Exhibit JK1 pages 2-3, that a firm is able to reconstitute a copy of the agreement and that there is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature, then why has an electronic signature and date been applied…regarding the same question by Deputy District Judge Mitchell on the validity of the signature on this Reconstituted agreement to which the claimant’s advocate stated that it may have been an online application, which is not true as it was a signed postal Luma Card Application and not a Capital One Credit Card online application.    8. The Claimant’s point 25 states that they would say that the 16 digit account number in the top left hand corner on the Reconstituted Agreement is now not the account number but a ‘document number’ and that the Account number is on Page 9 of their Exhibit JK1, which is a blank page with my name and a 16 digit Account number on it. The Claimant is backtracking and clearly16 digits are Credit Card/Bank Card numbers.    9.  The Claimant’s reconstituted Agreement has failed to be a true reconstituted version and failed to provide any supporting document to confirm that this claim is for a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card.     10. The evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA 1974 request.  Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.   11. For the reasons set out above I invite this court to strike out the claim and request my costs as litigant in person to be awarded.      Many thanks, Roland 
    • By severe penalty you mean ? criminal record is criminal record right ? isnt it still their duty comply with GDPR albeit Civil
  • Our picks

Seminole

Bailiff Charges

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5018 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

Anyone who has ever had the "pleasure" of dealing with bailiffs will know that they can sometimes be quite "imaginative" in deciding what costs they want to recover from you.

 

I'm talking here about private bailiffs and not county court bailiffs who operate directly under the authority of the court.

 

Private bailiffs are used to, for example, collect council tax arrears. There is a prescribed scale rate for these charges but anecdotally I believe that this is often ignored. People being terrorised by these bailiffs will often just pay up to get rid of them. In other instances where there is no scale rate, the bailiffs just seem to charge what they like.

 

I'm wondering if there is any legal basis to these charges? Can there ever be a contract between bailiff and victim and if there is no statutory authority or it is exceeded, can the victim get their money back?

 

I detest these sorts of bailiffs. They prey on people who are, at least at the time, pretty vulnerable and I would like to find a way of fighting back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From National Debtline:)

 

BAILIFFS CHARGES

You may be able to complain about bailiffs charges. The amounts they are allowed to charge for council tax and poll tax are set out. You are entitled to make a written request for a full breakdown of the fees the bailiffs have added on to your debt. If you feel you have been charged too much you can complain in writing to the council and the bailiffs. You may be able to ask the county court to look at the charges.

 

You can find out what is 'reasonable' by making enquiries on a local basis. For example, if you have been charged £80 for attendance with a van, and local enquires indicate you could hire a van for a morning for £40 this is clearly unreasonable, especially as it is likely that bailiffs will be visiting several properties at once, and many companies own their own vans.

 

In the first instance, complain to the bailiffs themselves. You can tell them you know their charges are excessive and that you will be taking further action if the charges are not reduced to the levels shown in the schedule.

 

You can then complain to the council as the bailiffs are acting as agents of the council. There have been recent cases that have been taken back in front of the magistrates' court over these issues, with the result that the councils have been forbidden to take any further recovery action, or in other words, the debt has been written off. So it IS worth complaining.

 

You can apply to the county court for the costs to be checked. An application for a detailed assessment of the charges needs to be made within three months of receiving the bailiff's bill. They will decide if the charges are excessive or not. There is a fee to pay to the court for this application. If the court decides not reduce the bill at least 20% you can be liable for the bailiffs firm's court costs. You need legal advice first. Phone us for advice.

 

Some private firms of bailiffs belong to The Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies or The Enforcement Services Association. You can complain to a trade association as well as the council. Both trade associations follow a set complaints procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seminole,

 

I have a growing list of 'new projects' for the Mods and Admin to consider when the Bank Action Group has been fully successful.

 

Shall I add this to the list? I think it is a very good observation on your part esp. given your current position.

 

LOULA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seminole,

 

I have a growing list of 'new projects' for the Mods and Admin to consider when the Bank Action Group has been fully successful.

 

Shall I add this to the list? I think it is a very good observation on your part esp. given your current position.

 

LOULA

 

:D At this moment I think bailiffs may just be the greatest people in the world!

 

I think it would be a good thing to have a look at this at some point/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted elsewgere about my problems with bailiffs, not least the fact that they send you a letter saying "pay up or we'll take your goods" etc.

 

What the are supposed to do is send you an itemised statement or list of their charges, but I've had dozens of letters and not one has itemised or even explained the costs, so as far as I'm concerned they are in breach of contract (or of the rules at least) and the literature they sent me isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

A seperate section wouyld be a good idea, because they really are a law unto themselves, or at least they think they are.


I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

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 5018 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...