Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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 Posts

Good evening. Hoping to keep this short and concise. Any help really appreciated!

Sent originated from council tax in 2019. 

I moved address for a new career 240miles away in December 2019 and have lived here ever since. 

A distant friend resides at previous address. 

A CCJ was filed regarding this debt in January 2020 but no correspondence was received my end or at the old address. 

Move forward to this year; early April I learn of a letter received from Bailiff - Notice of Enforcement dated 13/03. Stated I had ten days to settle a payment/payment plan or £75 will be added after ten days from 13/03 and bailiff instructed to visit. 

Obviously I was unaware of this letter till well after the time period passed. Attempted to contact Dukes via email but zero response. Asked for breathing space in order to check the original debt with the respective council (I wasn’t awarded a week of Housing despite being on UC for a short period due to a contract date given by the old employer). 

29/04 a note was left at the old address stating a bailiff had visited. New balance £310 more than original outstanding. 

I’ve since contacted both the council and the bailiff agent to state I’m more than happy to settle the original debt over a payment plan but at this stage they will not remove the fees despite all correspondence not being sent to me and obviously me only seeing them much later than one would have expected. 

Tried live chat today with the company and firstly was told the fees will remain because I spoke to the enforcement agent - I have never spoken to him/her. 

secondly told the fees would remain because “I tried to use their web chat service to complete an income form” - I have zero recollection of doing this and I also wonder if it’s another tactic?

any help on where I stand with the fees added would be incredible. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CowboyG said:

A CCJ was filed regarding this debt in January 2020

you cant get a CCJ on a CTAX debt...you mean a magistrates liability order.?

if you have not receive a notice of enforcement at your PRESENT address

nothing can be added.

dx

  • Thanks 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

  • dx100uk changed the title to CTAX debt & Bailiff fees added - old address

Thank you dx 

 

yes as you say - the magistrate liability. 
 

im in two minds as to whether to complain to the bailiffs and hope they deduct the fees. Or go back to the magistrates court to dispute the added fees under the ciurcumstances. 
 

or a third, I pay the council direct on their automated service - settle the debt and ignore the bailiffs. Fair chance they won’t find my new address. Risky but if they do find me I can then dispute the fees

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing to do with the magistrates court, they are rubberstamped.

council is your target.

dont play silly russian roulette by hiding, always works out bad. never run from debt of any kind!

the councils CTAX legal dept will be well aware the NOE thus the fees are unenforceable, but they probably dont know it was not served to your correct address.(bailiff they employed not doing their job properly!)

have a chat with them, and get the org debt paid off say by small monthly sums.

NEVER just pay it by a portal without human intervention as to why you are paying what because of a disputed sum.

do things legally and properly

 

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

Thanks Dx 

 

merely trying to avoid the fees added considering the circumstances. 
 

Will ring the council tomorrow 👌

Link to post
Share on other sites

can't levy the fees then.

the NOE must go to your present and correct address. no ifs or buts 

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

Just to be clear, the (£75) compliance stage fee is triggered the moment the instruction to undertake the Schedule 12 procedure is received by the enforcement agent/company - not on sending the Notice of Enforcement.

That said, if you don't pay it, it can only be recovered using the Schedule 12 procedure if the Notice has been correctly 'given'.  To do that it must be given to the place, or one of the places where you usually live or carry on a trade or business.  Which, as I see it, has not been achieved. 

The (£235) enforcement stage fee applied by attending an address where you don't live or carry on a trade or business is not enforceable and cannot be recovered using the Schedule 12 procedure.

If they find your current address, they would have to re-issue a Notice of Enforcement to you at that address before being able to undertake the Schedule 12 procedure.

In your place I would pay the debt plus the £75.00 direct to the council, leaving them to pay the £75 to the enforcement agent/agency.  While not (at this stage) enforceable, the £75 is due under the liability order (debt + costs).

If you pay the debt direct without paying the £75, the distribution of any payment received, while the liability order is still with the enforcement agent/agency, requires the £75 to be paid first - leaving £75 of debt!

Hope this helps

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Blfuk

that helps enormously

many thanks 

If the Bailiff company were to hand the debt back to the council as unrecovered would the £75 then not be payable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

they still tried.

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

If the council withdraw the liability order or the agency return it for whatever reason, then no fees are payable.  But they would need to withdraw it prior to any payment, as any payment made (direct to the council) while it is still with the enforcement agent/agency is subject to the Fees Regs which require the compliance stage fee to be paid before any debt is paid. 

In reality, if you paid the debt sum in full [without the £75], the council would likely keep it all [rather than hand £75 to the EA] and advise the agency to continue to recover any outstanding fees - not the right way but technically it is £75 of debt, not fees, they would be enforcing. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only mention it as I've been on the other end of people who have tried to avoid the fees by paying the exact sum of the debt direct to the council only to find they are visited for the £75 and end up paying another £235 on top - makes no sense!  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve now paid the debt + £75 direct to council.

Will email them to confirm this and add some of the above regarding the incorrect address and £235 fee added by Enforcement

many thanks again 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reply… Not sure where that leaves me with and the council with the bailiff company…!

Thank you for your recent correspondence, I apologise for the delayed response, we deal with all correspondence in date order and unfortunately have a back log.

 Thank you for making your payment to us,

I can confirm the £75 compliance fee will be refunded back to you,

please can you provide your account number, sort code and your name as it shows on your account so we can process the refund.

 

Kind Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats good 

off you go, no harm in giving the details wanted

let us know when you have it.

dx

 

  • 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

For reference that reply was from the council.

Presumably they have contacted the bailiff and mentioned the proper procedure hasn’t been followed….?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no id just suspect they've refunded it without contact.

dont forget they are the ones that employ the bailiffs so are also responsible for their actions. 

dx

 

 

  • 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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...