Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, I expect that the mutual agreement was based on "we'll give you this amount of money but part of the deal is that you agree not to talk about what happened during this mediation". I suppose that either party can insert any demands they want in the mediation process and it's up to the other party to accept it or to walk away and then to go on to court
    • Never heard of that....a mediator cant impose that ...nor the defendant unless it was mutually agreed between both parties.
    • Okay ..before you can sue them you need to look and comply with  pre action protocol before proceeding with litigation. This will involve sending them a Letter before claim laying out your grievance and what you require as a refund and set them a deadline to which you expect a response and a last chance to settle this matter.    Have a read of the following.   https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf
    • January 2020 - Paid a deposit of £1K and signed contract for wedding which was scheduled to be July 2020 March 2020 - They asked me to pay another £2K despite me emailing them my concern about the wedding not going ahead but they threatened me that I would be in breach of their contract. So I had to pay.  May 2020 we received an email from them telling us we can either rebook or face cancellation charges as per contract - these are 50% of total venue hire if cancelled within 9 months or 95% of total venue hire if cancelled within 6 months. the total venue hire cost was £6700. Under pressure, I chose to rebook because I did not want to lose 95% and they did not give me an option of a refund. They gave me very specific restrictions in which I could rebook the new date e.g in peak season between April 2021 to October 2021 and only on a sunday. Additionally they increased the price to book for the year 2021 by £200 bringing the total cost to £6900 June 2020 they send me a variation agreement for the change of date which they forced me to sign otherwise I would lose the new date I had agreed which was July 2021.  November 2020 I sent an email that I should be offered a refund as opposed to reschedule. They declined and I sent a solicitor letter giving them 7 days to return the money. They then responded with another solicitor letter refusing and told me that I owe them another 2k as part of the next instalment otherwise I would be in breach of their contract I wrote back to the solicitor that I was seeking legal advice but I have made it clear that I can no longer go ahead with wedding and do not owe further payments.  I should add that when I stated that my contract was frustrated they told me I only made a room hire and this does not include number of guests despite it stating on their contract "up to 500 guests". I wanted to claim back the 3K that I have given them and I am also afraid they will ask for more money as they will claim I am in breach of their contract. 
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3758 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

bailiff's could (if the new law going through the commons is passed)also soon be able to break into our homes and take our pets! Can you imagine anyone letting them, they will also be able to sit on a womans legs etc to stop her defending her animals and goods etc. Surely this could end up being a violent episode with bailiff's and customers possibly being seriously injured in a struggle.

I am mortified but not surprised anymore to even think that our country would let us down so much and give ways to common thuggery!! the goverment who give councils the power SHOULD see wot is happning THIS cannot be right !?! I feel LET DOWN AND worried,that such madness would even be considerd!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This right to force entry & assault you with impunity has for the moment been denied them & they are hopping mad ain't they

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they certainly are:D

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway for those who continue to suggest this is still on the table;

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Bailiffs denied new entry rights

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

An unsealed letter was put through my door three days ago by a bailiff who knocked but fairly gently i'd say-however the envelope was unsealed as i said and it was for my son when he was at a flat for six months. My son is not staying at my address and i am entitled to HB & CT with my pension credits. But neither the court paper or any other paper has the original Flat address on- my address was only an address for care of his post due to him staying at friends. Amongst his papers and with moving about and his small business failing i think last year he would have been entitiled to council tax rebate personally as he had three months with no income and i was buying his food.

 

So there was a letter from council in April with a £58 court charge...it had been a stressful time and he got very depressed. Now papers are at my home and i opened them and there is a notice that is dated 20th February and only now this week several months down the line has it come to my home, notice of distress on reverse-of course unsigned and a receipt for £50 for my son's over the phone payment-however they seem to want too many personal details and they are not going to get them as it is none of these strangers business in these days of ID theft etc.

 

Supposed to be a threat of pay in full in 5 days or we seize goods listed on inventory except i've not opened the door and the council tax debt is not for my home address and nor is it for me and further in capitals it says AND ALL OTHERS WHOM IT MAY CONCERN-as my son told him already he was not here and it is his mother's address.

 

It says that payment plans will not be taken over the phone-yet already a payment was and further there is a sheet for payment methods over the phone and some paying in cheques to their bank account. We are talking Rossendales here!

 

I think already some OFT unfair practice has happened, by way of unsealed envelope and next one showed his name and the beginnings of TAKE NOTICE that by virtue etc showing. I am likely, if he comes again to phone the council-or i may do in any event to ask them to stop these visits or i take out an Injunction for trespass.

 

I have instructed my son does not park his van that is incidently on HP and is under the ownership of a leasing company until ever penny paid, he's doing well with that although i helped for a couple months because i knew he had no chance of working if that went..i think with DVLA it is registered as leasing as owners so that is one concern out of the way and further i don't want the chance of him being seen getting out of it coming to my home in case someone followed him to his current address as he lives in an isolated rural hamlet and would be very vulnerable.

 

So he did default early in year due to no money coming in and the council messing the arrangement up saying he could pay £30 pm then they did it each week. I think i may end up writing or phoning as he did let the tax office know he ran at a loss with his business but damn it his pc internal power supply blew one day when he was going to do his tax and so has not been able to retrieve it as we haven't been able to find one for this model-yet. What a nightmare! What does anyone think here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alderney1965dk

Quote: Without seeming to sound too harsh here i think its about time the bailiffs were given more rights, there are far too many people that WONT pay nowadays, im not critisising the cant pay here please dont get me wrong.

 

Yes indeed there will ALWAYS be those that abuse their powers but realisticly these people are few and far between, unfortunately you never here about the good but you always here the bad, it goes without saying as the good ones dont make good publicity nor good talking points, thats exactly why this reporter wants all the bad ones to come forward, it will as always be very 1 sided.End Quote,

 

How do you mean more rights, these **** need to be taken down a peg or two, we live in a nanny state as it is, why let the government allow these companies more rights than they have already about gaining more access. Surely this decision should rest with Joe Public and not the Hitler Like regime we live in at present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you mean more rights, these **** need to be taken down a peg or two, we live in a nanny state as it is, why let the government allow these companies more rights than they have already about gaining more access. Surely this decision should rest with Joe Public and not the Hitler Like regime we live in at present.

 

 

I think your reasoning here is flawed. You are right in saying that we need to bring the bailiff's down a peg or two! However, in my opinion, we do not need legally authorized bailiff's at all. Most civilized countries do not have court authorized bailiff's and they are doing just fine. Further, we do not live in a ''nanny'' state as that would mean that we are ''cared for from cradle to grave'. We are not living in one of the top ten richest, happiest or even healthy countries. We are actually living in a country that hes socially and economically deteriorated since old Maggie started to run it down. It does not cater for ordinary working stiffs and it is the most unequal country in the western world. Ther is nearly no mobility from powerty to riches and the poor are just getting poorer. What we are living in now, is the birth of a Orwellian state where we are controlled and l mean intrusevly controlled, in all and anything we do. Cameras, proposed biometric id cards, unlimited power to bailiff's, politicians not responsible to the people, phone tapping, internet tapping/ control, secret hearings, confinement without any legal rights and so on. As l said, this is not a nanny state and do not be fooled by the rethoric from the right. lt is now so bad, that l do no longer recognize the Britain l embraced and learned to love in the 70:s/ and l came from a Scandinavian country which really was a nanny state, but, then we still had and have unlimited freedom compared to what is happening here. When countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark have evolved and changed to allow a more free and enterprise friendly society, UK has contracted and devolved in to an almost totalitarian state with ever increasing powers to the state and it's executive and a consolidation of the financial power. Bailiff's are the symptom of a very sick society and this needs to be cured.

 

Finally, ask yourself why the politicos want to increase the powers of the bailiff's? Next step is then to increase the powers of the police in order to ensure that the bailiff's can execute their tasks and whoopla the police can also enter your property without a warrant. The end result could then be that we all need to have cctv cameras in our homes to ensure public security, that you do not waste natural resources by going to the toilet too often and, who knows, a special tax chargeable every time you and your partner ''have it off'' so to speak. Unlimited opportunities, and do not take this too lightly as this type of intrusion and limiting of freedom is always imposed slowly and under the disguise of your security and welfare. Do net forget that there is no real need for private court approved bailiffs, non at all and all civil matters should be handled by private debt collectors who are quite capable of collecting where it is possible. People have houses or properties and court orders can be obtained to levy on such assets. No my friend, it is directed agains the poor and suffering who cannot defend themselves and that is why it is so disgusting. It has nothing to do with rights or wrongs, but, only power and punishment against those who are and have always been treated as chattel and lesser beings. It is not a political issue regarding labour or conservative, they are all equally in the pockets of those who have an interest in bailiff's, i.e. banks and loan institutions, but, a social and moral issue and that is why they should be abolished.

GR

Edited by gustavius rex
change of word coffin to grave
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gus I couldn't agree more - Debt collection in this country is both medieval & barbaric - Also did you know that web sites such as Wikileaks which exposes Worldwide corruption, operates via a Swedish ISP simply because of the freedom of speech laws that exist there & which means they are out of the reach of the likes of Justice Eady

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gus I couldn't agree more - Debt collection in this country is both medieval & barbaric - Also did you know that web sites such as Wikileaks which exposes Worldwide corruption, operates via a Swedish ISP simply because of the freedom of speech laws that exist there & which means they are out of the reach of the likes of Justice Eady

 

 

JonCris, You are my man/woman for ever and a true friend as well.

 

Gustavius

Link to post
Share on other sites

GR,

 

I really hope you can channel your anger into somethig really useful for these forums. :)

 

I have never seen a man so rattled in my short experiences of these forums. BUt do try and stay balanced!!! :D

 

Night pal,

 

FX

Edited by BlurredFX
type - after a pint!
Link to post
Share on other sites
GR,

 

I really hope you can channel your anger into somethig really useful for these forums. :)

 

I have never seen a man so rattled in my short experiences of these forums. BUt do try and stay balanced!!! :D

 

Night pal,

 

FX

 

Morning Blurred,

 

You are right, l am rattled or perhaps incensed is a more descriptive expression. Tell you what it is, it is the absolute disregard for humans other than those with political and financial power. lt goes to the very core of my soul and l find it beyond belief that this can occur in the 21st century and in a modern ''free'' society. As a matter of fact it reminds me of what happend in nazi Germany, people dragged out in the middle of the night and sent off to some camp for minor alledged offences. You tell me if there is another country where a private or privately employed, court certified person (bailiff) can break in to a private property and have the right not only to take your belongings but physically restrain you when so doing. lt is a ''get out of jail card'' for daylight robbery. You have no longer any rights and you can loose £1000:s of pounds worth for a minor fine. All these guys have to do is send someone in and buy your stuff up at bargain prices and you can do nothing. It is shameful and does not belong in a free and open society where each and every person should have equal rights and enjoy equal respect. And l shall maintain this stance until l get a wider audience and a debate going.

GR

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I'm pretty sure there are better ways to collect debts than going into someones house and taking possesions. Most people know its their own fault they are in debt and try and do something about it, but strange men entering your house, taking your possesions can scar a family for a long time, they constantly live in fear of the doorbell ringing. There must be a better way. I have been self employed for years and I'm always having to chase debts, but I have never once resorted to intimidation tactics. Always found it more productive to sit round a table and thrash it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the fact that it was my right by law not to open the door and further they were trespassing by coming to my address in the first place when my son does not live at mine-and of course when i challenged to the Collections young man and yes i even went to the Council and handed a letter in to him and shook his hand,never seen anyone come to collect a letter so fast knowing it was being hand delivered,the response i got was most intimidating and condescending one Citizens Advice Bureau Adviser told me,anyway it is now all paid up,but the absolute lies in the letter from the Collections fella and turning it around on to me says it all, bullies in the Council too, and two faced in knowing he'd broken the law. I seem to have let it go but i might just write to the Magistratres Court yet about the behaviour-yes Rossendales also covered their own backs in denying visiting by the big bully boy who went to my neighbour- he didn't say where he was from. Yet in all this denial it was obvious it was them-but if i challenged it more there was an intimidation of Collections man but not in so many words getting police involved because it must be a fake bailiff,someone impersonating-yeah ok-nobody else was after my son as he was doing his best to pay off other debts,nobody had reached this stage. These people are not so clever really when it comes down to it it is they who are the ****,wolves in sheeps clothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Back in July, my wife answered the door to a tv licensing guy and admitted we had not yet set up a tv licence in our new(ish) house.This despite reminders.He cautioned her and the case went to court.She didnt turn up, choosing to bury her head in the sand and hid the ensuing letters.The first i knew of it was when a Bailiff attended at our home tonight.My wife foolishly invited him in.He then informed us the fine was £250, a letter sent from the bailiffs had cost an extra £50 and his visit was another £50 bringing the total owed to £350.He asked my wife to pay on the spot.She did not refuse but asked what the options were.He then offered a payment plan which was swiftly agreed to by my wife.He told her it would be a 12 week plan and then made a phone call.He then informed her it could only be over 6 weeks.My wife agreed.He then informed her that he would be taking an inventory of goods in the house which would be taken away if the agreement was defaulted upon.He proceeded to do this and at the end, my wife saw on the piece of paper a "seizure charge" of £210.She challenged him about this and he said it was an agreed charge with the court and that he had effectively seized the goods in a walking possesison.I said, if you had told us it woudl cost an extra £210 for a payment plan, i woudl have gone to the bank and ithdrawn the money from our Christmas savings to cover the initial required amount.I then said, forget the payment plan, ill go and get you the money you originaly came for.He then said, i have entered the deal in my PDA and the full amount of £510 is now what you owe.You have 6 weeks to pay this in the form of £85 per week or your goods will be taken away and sold.He then gave the document to my wife to sign who refused as this was not what she agreed to prior to him wriitng it out.He told her in that case the time decreases to 6 days before i take your goods away.She then agreed to sign provided she could write the words"signed under duress".He wouldnt allow this and again insisted on her signature only on the form so she could have he 6 weeks to pay the £510 otherwise with no signature its 6 days.I once again tried to reason with him and offered the original amount in full which he refused again.I presume he is a certified bailiff although he didnt show a certificate and we never requested one.He works for swift credit services.Surely this £210 is not leagl? as it was added without out knowledge or agreement, he basically bullied my wife into signing it which she eventually did as she was so upset and scared at this stage.I found the following information and am seeking clarification on its authenticity:

The law (Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003) only provides for HM Court Service to tender a contract with a fee agreement for collecting unpaid fines, bailiff companies then tender-bid for these contracts. This allows a bailiff to deduct his fee at the agreed rate out of fine paid. A fine is not the same as a debt, and bailiffs cannot lawfully increase a fine by adding fees. The contract is not legally binding on any convict or defendant unless a magistrate has made a Cost Order against the convict (very Rare!)

I have also been informed that its possible the bailiff has committed an offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 by maiking a false representation by adding fees on to the original fine to benefit himself/his company.

I would be grateful for advice on how i go about paying the original fine but not the bailiffs extortionate demands especialy as in my opinion no goods were actually "seized" but just a walking possession conducted.What can i do?are his actions justified and legal? especially as i eventually offered payment in full of the orginal amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites

not to hot with magistrate court fines someone who is will be along to help you

 

bailiffs collecting magistrate court fines don't necessarily need to certificated i think they can work 6mths without a certificate

 

unfortunately your wife was coned proving it though is a different matter

sometimes the bailiff levies goods he shouldn't

can you list the goods levied there is a list of goods that cant be levied also are any of the goods on HP

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...