Equita-Caught red handed!

[roughjustice]

Firstly hello everyone...This is my first post so apologies if I upset/break any conventions.

 

Returned home from work 24/11/06 to find a letter from Equita. (I can guess why its always a friday) They wanted £377+ from me for a PCN allegedly issued by my local council (Sefton MBC) in 2004!

 

I rang them quite bemused and denying all knowledge (truth) to be told if I didn't pay up it would be £540 by Monday (27/11/06) and 'most people just pay up by debit card and sort it out later' I bet they do!

 

I said I would take it up with council and that ( I thought) they required a warrant of execution as a result of court ruling to act and as I had no recollection of being issued ticket and therefore no opertunity to defend myself then surely this waqs not correctly obtained. (hoping I was right!)

 

I did some searching both here and elsewhere and as a result wrote to Equita stating basically;

That I intended to make a statutory declaration to revert the PCN to £60. Didn't dispute that there may have been a ticket but I didn't receive it or 'notice to owner'.

The maximum they could charge in connection with a PCN was £10 for the letter and that I 'presume you will not seek to artificially inflate your charges in contradiction of S78 Road Traffic act....etc'. Enclosed a cheque to them for £10 and as a goodwill, ex gratia, without predudice advance payment a cheque for £100 payable to Sefton Council for them to forward to their 'client' whilst the matter was sorted out. I did this to prove 'fine' was not the issue so much as Equita's parasitic feeding frenzy.

 

Sent this by recorded delivery and E Mail.

 

Sent a covering letter and copy of above by recorded delivery to Council.

 

On 26/11/06 got E Mail reply from Equita acknowledging my E Mail and putting case on 'hold' for a short period!

 

On 27/11/06 got a call from very nice lady at council (yes really!) advising me how to make 'out of date statutory declaration' by applying to Northampton.

 

Made 'stat declaration' as advised and noted both cheques had cleared 1/12/06.

 

Beginning of january received letter from Equita demanding £377+ or they would call in 24Hrs and seize car!

 

I called them and pointed out that I had made 'stat dec' and council had acknowledged receipt of it so matter should be on hold. Also car is now my wifes so any attempt to remove would be considered trespass and theft as they have no 'beef' with her (hope I'm right) and I would react accordingly! (I used to be a bad tempered prop forward) .

 

Next day (funnily enough) new 'Notice to owner' arrives requesting £60 along with another letter from Equita demanding £500 or they will take car in 24Hrs.

 

Rang council pointing out they had £100 on 1/12/06 so they owe me £40! They had no record of this so they rang Equita (seems they have had problems with them before!).

 

This is where it gets interesting....bear with me. Equita stated to council They had been paid £110!!

 

Council tell me this so I explain cheque was made payable to 'Sefton Council' I ring Equita and punch 'Case number' into phone, this time their recorded message states 'this case is now closed'! I bet they wish it was.

 

I have now had copy of cheque back from Bank and yes....Equita have fraudulantly paid it into their account! 'Trustworthy persons' can become certified Bailiffs my @rse.

 

Anyway..had letter from council saying they are attempting to recover £100 from Equita and will extend my 28 days....Once they've done that (so as not to muddy waters) my bank have agreed to persue the fraudulant encashment by Equita and the acceptance by bank counter staff of cheque to wrong payee.

 

If they don't return money can I send in the bailiffs?

[fbnts]

wow! Just shows how these guys operate! I'm watching this thread with interest.

 

Maybe some local publicity about the people the council employ will go down a treat!

 

As I have said before, County Council are the worst of them all!

 

Go Get Em!

 

Tom

[Seminole]

Extraordinary but I expect that it was incompetence rather than anything more serious. It's completely unacceptable that they continued to try to collect the debt though. Make a formal complaint to the Council. Ask them for compenasation for the harassment and refer them to the Local Government Ombudsman if they fail to comply.

[stan5131]

This is very interesting. I wonder if they changed the name on the cheque? Nothing would surprise me!!!

[martonman]

I keep banging on about not sending any monies to bailiffs for council tax or parking fines - rather send it direct to the council, I must be boring everyone by now.

 

Another perfect example of unlawful bailiff activity. Sadly it goes on every day but they just rely on the ignorance of the masses and keep getting away with it.

 

You'll get your £100 back - eventually. But they won't care as they will have got away with this kind of thing a hundred-fold this month alone.

[roughjustice]

Stan 5131

No they hadn't altered the cheque (unfortunately) but its still gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception as far as I'm concerned..

The bank clerk was also at fault though for not noticing it.

I have been busy this week and given council chance to chase it up..

Will start applying pressure on Monday (19/2/07).

[InKogneeToh]

Hi roughjustice and welcome to CAG.

 

You may or may not be aware that several members of this site are currently signing petitions and sending letters to their MPs regarding a proposed bill that will permit forced entry of people's homes by bailiffs and also allow physical restraint of debtors if they try to resist.

 

Please take a look at the following threads. I wonder if you would be willing to send a letter to one of the Lords who are trying to have this part of the bill removed or a letter to your local MP. A description of your experience would be very useful. Just think what might have happened during the period whilst you were trying to sort this via the council if this bill had already been passed. The bailiffs would have been round your house and kicking the door in on that first Monday!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs/61524-baliff-petition-stop-them.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/65926-do-you-want-bailiffs.html

 

Regards, Pam

[solainfrared]

Hello Everyone.

I'm new to this site but seems like a great place to get things sorted. I had my life turned upside down by Equita this weekend. I feel completely powerless. My charges are now at £425 for a £40 parking ticket. I had a visit to my Dad's house because this is where my car was registered. I was told that if I didn't pay straight away they would start taking my Dad's stuff and he would have to prove later it was his. He also told me he had a warrant to allow the police to break in. I spoke to him on the phone after. When I tried to get a break down of the fees he said he was going back to my Dad's place now and hung up. I managed to get him to accept that I would pay at the end of the month but £425 will wipe me out and make it difficult for me to get through the month. I'm looking into this and have found that the bailiifs had to be certificated with the company they are working for. Is this true? If so I've found that he isn't.

Please help. The amount of stress me and my family have had to endure is too much. I wanted to keep my affairs to myself and now feel that everyone knows and I feel ashamed. the bailiff knew this. The anger I feel towards him is boiling over.

Anyone?

[putis]

Hi Solainfrared,

 

I was also clamped on Friday for a parking ticket I had wait for the council to reply after a year. This ticket amounted to £150.00 and £425.00 bailiff charges. I rang the baliff's mobile so that I could have the clamp remove with payment and waited for them to call me back on a Landline (they won't call mobiles) I waited in the car for 7 hours. At 1am in the morning, I looked at the lock and tried a key I had for one of the estates I inspected and it fit. I undone the lock, left the clamp at the roadside and left another message on the baliff mobile telling him I had waited 7 hours for them to attend.

 

The next morning I call the baliff again offering to pay, now they where charging an additional £190.00 for removing the clamp. I refused and contact the council, whom refused to get involved. In turn I will have to pay around £700+ for a parking ticket, that I argued and have still not received a reply.

[martonman]

Hi Solainfrared & Putis

 

OPTION 1

First option is to download the Statutory Declaration Out of Time document from the Northampton County Court website. Fill it in and take it down to your county court for swearing. Basically on here you can claim never to have seen a Notice to Owner document, or a Charge Certificate document relating to this parking ticket. Maybe you were out of the country, had moved address, were working away etc etc. Once this has been submitted the ticket is automatically set back to the original charge of £60.00. The Bailiffs can then be told to get stuffed and to go see the council for their exhorbitant fees.

 

If you have honestly received the above documents then saying you haven't on a Stat Dec is an offence under law.

 

OPTION 2

Don't pay the bailiffs a penny as IMHO both have vastly and extortionately overcharged.

 

Remember that you DO NOT HAVE TO LET THEM IN your house, they can only enter via peaceful means. Basically they know this and therefore will try any lying threats they can to get the money off you. These idiots are most likely self-employed and on a big commission for any charges they can add to your account and collect on.

 

Write to the bailiff firm now by registered post and demand a complete breakdown of all charges they are attempting to apply, including times, dates, names of bailiffs attending and proof of their court certification. Inform them that until you have recieved full clarification as per your request you will not be making any payments to them. You should send this headed 'Freedom of Information Request as per the Freedom of Information Act'. Enclose a cheque or PO for £10 as this is the maximum they can charge for the information under the Act. By law they have 40 days to respond.

 

More often than not they will not respond. Most of these firms are useless administratively and won't even have kept proper records, much less ones that will satisfy the law.

 

Copy the letter to the council.

 

If you do get a response, take it along to your county court for free examination. they can give you a form to make an official complaint if you have grounds (which by the sound of it you do). All these bailiffs have to be certificated by the court, enough complaints aginst them and in theory they are booted out and lose their cash bond.

 

Now you need to find out if indeed the parking tickets were lawful in the first place. Since the Decriminalisation of Parking [problem] (sorry, 'scheme')was adopted by countless councils across the country, many of them have been found to have been implementing it incorrectly and therefore unlawfully. In their mad rush to cream cash of us all they have forgotten to follow the guidelines set out in the 1991 Road Traffic Act. There are threads on this site regarding the legality of certain councils' parking tickets.

 

An excellent site is Neil Herron's at The Peoples No Campaign - home. No fees to pay for help, just make a donation to the campaign if you find the info on there, and Neil's help, useful (which you will).

 

If your council is one of the many to have failed in the lawful implementation of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement then by sending bailiffs after you they are in law vicariously liable for the upset to you and the highway robbery tactics of the bailiff.

 

If your council is one of the few that do follow the rules you will have to pay them their parking penalty charge, which if Charge Certificates have been issued will be £90 plus. Pay the council directly via their website or automated phone service (that way they cannot refuse payment) and then have some fun messing the bailiffs about.

 

So, worst case scenario - if you stick to your guns - is paying £90 plus to the council. A bit better than £400 or £700!

[steelmouse]

I am having similar experinences with Equita, mine was a £60 fine which is now costing in excess of £300, they have sent an auction notice stating they will be clamping and removing the vehicle, we tried to contact them to resolve the situtation as firstly we had asked for bank details to pay them on 5 occasions and secondly when we did call they told us to ring baliff, we called him on 3 occastions but only got answerphone and when we did get through to him he said he had to have money by next day, we don't dispute the penalty charge but we have tried to offer payments on several occasions and as a result of them not responding we now are in this situation which I agree with others is very stressful, does anyone have any template letters which they have sent?

[solainfrared]

Hello there again

 

Just wanted to keep you up to date. I spoke to Equita earlier today and they seemed to of changed overnight. After they recieved my letter, they took the bailiff off my case and Brought my fees back down to £307;) .

What I was wondering though if these are still excessive and if I should pay. There isn't a bailiff on my case so I think the charges should be completely taken off but that's me.

Oh well, at least I got them to call their dogs off. I would advise anyone having trouble to write a letter of complaint to the bailliff company. This helped me.

 

Take care and I hope you find yourselves on top of the world today

[demon_x_slash]

Hi Solainfrared & Putis

 

You should send this headed 'Freedom of Information Request as per the Freedom of Information Act'. Enclose a cheque or PO for £10 as this is the maximum they can charge for the information under the Act. By law they have 40 days to respond.

 

Great information overall - just wanted to correct one thing though, it's the Data Protection Act 1998, not the FoI, but the fee's correct at £10 for a DPA request.

 

Data Protection Act 1998

 

Sola, you still need to dispute the £307; if you've sent them a request for information and a £10 fee, they have by LAW 40 days to respond with the information about your account. If you sent it with the Freedom of Information part and not the Data Protection, and they haven't cashed the cheque, you should re-send the request for info part of your letter, but make it a request under the DPA and advise that the fee was enclosed with your previous (acknowledged by them) letter.

If they haven't cashed it, cancel the cheque and re-issue it with the corrected request.

[SteEqWar]

I love this post becasue it has significance of my dealings with "Equita" Limited the Bailiff Company.

 

My dealings with these so called court appointed bailiffs are as follows.

I receive a letter from Equita demanding £175 for driving through the emmissions zone in London in a car that had not been run for quite some time.

 

I had never received any notifaction from Transport for London, who the alleged debt is being held with.

 

I called Equita who told me that unless I actually paid there the money the bailiff would be arround the next day force his way in and take my goods.

 

We had several arguments on the phone about the legality of what they were stating, After three days of no show by the bailiffs and tons of calls with threats from them my friend decides to build a website about them which is [EDIT]

 

Equita then employed Edwin Co London Solicitors stating that I had wrote the website and that they were going to sue me for £100,000

 

I denied building the website but Equita Solicitors continued to state that I had and pursued the matter through the High Court in London they made there accusations of which I did a defence as follows

 

 

DEFENCE TO CLAIM

 

 

 

 

 

1, The Claimant is a company which collects debts by using certified bailiffs.

 

 

Agreed as true to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx.

 

 

2,The first defendant is the sole director of Winterbourne Consultants Ltd

 

 

 

Agreed as true to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxxx Jxxx.

 

 

2(b) Winterbourne Consultants Ltd which is described on the website [EDIT] (“the website”) as “powering” it.

 

 

Denied as untrue to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxx Jxxxx The defendant has never seen the words used in this manner on the “website”. i.e. “powering it” or words to that effect involving the company of Winterbourne Consultants Ltd the defendant believes that the accusation is false and malicious and is only mentioned in this case in an attempt to pervert the course of justice and to prejudice a case against the defendant Sxxxxx Jxxxxx

 

 

3, The second defendant (“Mr Txxx Wxxxx”) is the registered owner of the website.

 

 

 

Agreed as true to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxx Jxxxx.

 

 

4, From a date in February 2009 and continuing the defendants have published the following photograph on the website at [EDIT] which defames the client.

 

 

Denied as untrue to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxxx Jxxx. The defendant Sxxx Jxxxx has never published or has caused the publication of the alleged photograph.

 

 

5, The photograph is not of one of the Claimant’s employees, It has either been posed or the word “Equita” has been digitally imposed upon it.

 

 

 

Denied as untrue to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx because the defendant Sxxxx Jxxx has no knowledge of how the photograph was obtained, whether it be an employee of the claimant or not, or whether it was a posed photograph or the words “equita” were digitally imposed upon it as it is not the works of the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx and the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx has no knowledge of who took the photograph or how it came about to be on the “website”.

 

 

6, From a date in February 2009 until a date in March 2009 on the website at [EDIT] the defendants published or caused to be published the photograph set out above and the following words which defamed the Claimant:

 

They also threatened us by saying they are going to send someone round our house, break into the property and retrieve goods.

Denied as untrue to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx. The defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx has never published or has caused the publication of the alleged photograph in question or the words the claimant alleges

 

7, From a date in February 2009 until a date in March 2009 on the website at: [EDIT] the defendants published or caused to be published the following words which defamed the Claimant:

 

They threaten to break into your property and take all your stuff even if you have done nothing wrong. They threaten you and they even come down and break your car windows just to **** you off.

 

Denied as untrue to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx. The defendant [EDIT] Sxxxxxx Jxxxxxx has never published or has caused the publication of the alleged words that the Claimant states.

 

8, The natural and ordinary meaning conveyed by the words set out in paragraphs 4 and 6 above is that the claimant illegally breaks and enters into people’s property.

 

 

Denied as untrue to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx, the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed is they threaten to break into someone’s property even if someone has done nothing wrong to justify any type of action there is no mention of the word illegally. Again this is counsel for the claimant trying to twist simple words into something it’s not.

 

 

 

9, The natural and ordinary meaning conveyed by the words set out in paragraph 7 above is that the Claimant will illegally break into someone’s house for no reason and criminally vandalise a person’s car by smashing its windows just to upset that person.

 

 

Again denied as untrue to the best knowledge of the defendant Sxxx Jxxxx, the natural and ordinary meaning of the word would indicate that they threaten to break into your property it does not state there is anything illegal within that context and further has evidence of the claimant does have a reason and is in receipt of a demand to pay £261.13 immediately which states take notice Certified Bailiffs and removal contractors will be calling to remove your goods for sale at public auction. The letter which I hold as evidence was dated 27/05/2009.

 

 

Equita Bailiffs are also aware since February 2009 when they were contacted because of the first letter sent by Equita Bailiffs, that I would never allow them into my property to take goods and the only means of getting into my property would be by forced means or a proper warrant of execution allowing them forced entry.

 

A fax sent to me from their sales office proves that do not get warrants allowing forced entry. The Claimants were advised that there is a 12 foot wall surrounding the property with padlocked gate to enter the property. The defendant [EDIT] Sxxxxxxx Jxxxxxxx was advised by the claimant that they would climb the wall or remove the padlock. They were also advised that there are two guard guards on patrol with correct signage indicating this. The defendant was advised by the Claimant if they got in and got bitten by one or both of the dogs they would have the dogs put down. My dogs freely roam my property and are allowed to do so by law they have never injured anyone, but I have never had anyone try to break into my premises. Because of this threat I can no longer leave my dogs to roam the premises freely just in case Equita bailiffs turn up like they keep threatening to do so thus we cannot enjoy our property in the way we used to for fear there will be more false a malicious allegations made by Equita.

 

 

 

The defendant Sxxxxx Jxxxxx then stated that even at that point there is still a door to get into my property which I would come outside with a handheld recorder to record any conversation which takes place and any damage, threat or violence would be reported to the police.

 

 

 

I was advised by the Claimant that the bailiffs would gain entry whether or not I allowed them and they would then have the rights to come back at any time and force entry at any time. Considering that I would never allow there bailiffs into my property without a correct warrant and Equita have been notified of such in writing and there licence and or warrant does not allow them to force entry/ climb walls remove locks or assault members of the public to gain entry as such, the only way they could achieve what they claim this is either using skeleton keys, damaging the property or assaulting a member of my family this would make the alleged statement on the website “true” and thus cannot be seen as defamation.

 

 

Further the defendant Sxxxxxx Jxxxxx has never published or has caused the publication of the alleged words that the Claimant alleges the defendant denies the allegations as untrue.

 

In relation to the car, it was vandalised and property stolen and witnesses reported this to the police, considering the timing and what took place and what was taken from the car. And what was not taken from the car. The defendant asked a director at Equita Limited if they had damaged the car, The damage to the car was reported to West Midlands Police who believe the crime was done out of malice and was not your usual type of theft from a car the police also suspected that Equita Bailiffs may well be have been responsible for what took place. I have never stated that Equita Bailiffs have vandalised my car and I the defendant Sxxxxx Jxxxxxx has never published or has caused the publication of the words the Claimant alleges.

 

 

10, The Claimant is the largest company offering the services of certificated bailiffs within the jurisdiction.

 

The defendant Sxxxx Jxxxxx understands from your previous letters the word jurisdiction is in reference to the UK (United Kingdom) If this is the case Company House records would indicate a very different story to the best of the defendants knowledge and belief that the statement is false and that “Equita” are trying to paint a false picture as the largest Company in its field and the defendant has no understanding of why the Claimant would want to claim this, the only consideration is that Equita believe by stating this the damages they would falsely win would be substantially increased.

 

 

By reason of the website address [EDIT] with its obvious association with the claimants name a significant but presently unquantifiable number of persons who were seeking information about the claimant would be directed to the website. It is thus to be inferred that a substantial number of persons have read the words complained of.

 

 

I admit that the website [EDIT] has an obvious association with the claimants name and there is a strong possibility that persons seeking information about the claimant may be directed to the website only if they do substantive research into the company as the website only appears on page two of any search engine. (Not any more page 1 now) I further deny that the website is my intellectual property. Anyone in the world can purchase a domain name and rent space on servers for any reason. It is my belief that Txxxx Wxxxxx is the owner/author of the website.

 

 

 

11, By reason of the publication of the words complained of the Claimant’s reputation has been damaged and its goodwill diminished.

 

I Sxxxxx Jxxxxxx the defendant deny strongly that I have caused any damage to the Claimants reputation and/or damage to its goodwill as I am not the owner/author nor have I caused the publication of any such material.

 

 

 

12. Unless restrained by this Honourable Court the defendant will further publish or cause to be published the said or similar words defamatory of the Claimant.

 

 

 

The defendant Sxxxxx Jxxxxx denies fully that he has published or caused to have published any words or images that are defamatory to the Claimant. So the defendant is at a loss as to how the honourable court could restrain the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxxx from further publishing comments in the future about the Claimant defamatory of the claimant.

 

 

 

A further note that the perfect defence to a claim of defamation is truth, I am not a lawyer but I would assume that based upon my experiences with the Claimant most of the statements are true and factual or are basic questions and not statements and anything of a derogatory nature written by Mr Txxxx Wxxxx has been removed by the defendant Txxxx Wxxxx. I further state I have not produced the said website, been an author on the website or acted in any way to request information be put on the website. I have only assisted in helping the claimant persuade Mr Wxxxx to remove certain text from the website which could leave a false impression that the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx authored or built the website.

 

 

And the Claimant Claims:

 

(1)Damages for libel

 

The defendant Sxxxx Jxxxxx respectfully requests the honourable court deny this request based on the fact that the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx is an innocent victim in the whole sad and sorry saga brought about by a company that believes is above the law and has made statements in these proceedings that are false.

 

 

(2)An injunction restraining the defendant, whether by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise, from further publishing or causing to be published the said or similar words defamatory of the claimant.

 

 

The defendant [EDIT] Sxxxxxx Jxxxxxx respectfully requests the honourable court to deny this request because the defendant Sxxxx Jxxxx has never published or caused to be published the said or similar words defamatory to the claimant. This has been made very clear throughout the situation of dealing with the lawyers for Equita Limited Sxxxx Jxxxx believes that if the case becomes public knowledge it would have lasting damage upon the defendant but the defendant also believes that without the honourable court issuing an injunction Equita Limited would then lose their ability to intimidate people into paying money to their company.

 

 

Respectfully submitted

 

 

The defendant believes that the facts in defence of the allegations in this statement of defence are true:

 

 

I got so sick of hearing from this solicitor every weekend with more threats or demanding deeper and deeper information about companies I own that I decided to write a website the site is called [EDIT] and will relay stories and videos about bailiffs activities.

 

 

I even market the site by doing Google Adwords on a pay per click basis pureley to let anyone know what Equita are realy all about.

 

 

To my rekoning it cost Equita £30,000 for the proceedings against me which have now in light of my defences have been dropped

 

 

 

So on the money stakes it Equita 0 Me £30,000 they have stupidly enough again started to write to me again (so funny)

 

 

 

There recent letter has gone up in price and now says this

 

 

AUCTION NOTICE

Dear Mr Jxxxxx,

Re: Congestion Charging penalty Charge Notice TFxxxxxxxxxx

As we have been unable to locate your vehicle **** *** I have arranged for my bailiff to call at your home this coming weekend with a removal contractor when he will remove your goods from your home and deliver them to the local Auction House.

 

 

I would prefer that you were in attendance when the goods are removed and should another day be more suitable I urge you to contact my office immediately.

 

 

Should you prefer to pay the outstanding Congestion Penalty Charge Notice due to Transport for London I will require the full payment to be at this office in good time before the bailiff calls.

Yours Sincerely

Bailiff Manager.

 

 

My answer to this is,

 

Firstly as explained to you in writing back in February I did not drive through London on the date alleged by you or transport for London

 

 

You have never provided proof that I drove through London.

 

 

I have never received a ticket from Transport for London

 

 

I have never had the oportunity to defend myself in any court action.

 

 

I told that you would never receive any form of payment from me and I would fight you in any court any day.

 

 

You employed Edwin Coe Lawyers in an attempt to take me to court for Defamation of Character for libel but have wrote to them several times you drop the case aggainst me.

 

 

You now start writing again claiming falsehoods.

 

 

1) You will not be taking any of my goods.

 

 

2) You will not be auctioning my goods.

 

 

3) You will not be allowed into my home.

 

 

4) You will not be delivering my goods anywhere.

 

 

5) Irespective of whether I am here or not there will be no windows or doors open or unlocked.

 

 

6) To retrieve any of my goods you will have to break the law by either forcably gaining entry to my property

 

 

7) What I will do is call your office and inform you of any action by you is illegal and will continue to do so until you are honest.

 

 

All calls will be recorded

 

 

9) I will email you confirmation again that you are not allowed to do what you claim in your letter

 

 

Jxxxx v Equita round 2

Edited October 10, 2009 by Rooster-UK
Unauthorised links and personal details removed.

[Bodymelt]

Man, you just told everyone your name in No.7.....

[seanamarts]

Man, you just told everyone your name in No.7.....

He did ?? I dont see it

[Bodymelt]

seanamarts, look in no.7 and 9 Defence to Claim and no. 2 Claimant Claims (all in bold print)

[seanamarts]

seanamarts, look in no.7 and 9 Defence to Claim and no. 2 Claimant Claims (all in bold print)

totally missed that.. im sure a mod will be along and delete the name...

[SteEqWar]

Hi there, not to worry about my name, It is in public records anyway and to truthful I'm not bothered about Equita finding out either just check badbiz dot co in the uk you can see all the names including a list of directors details from Equita including there email addresses and mobile numbers

[Guest Happy Contrails]

You are taking one very big risk with your website.

 

You are putting yourself at risk of a claim of libel against you unless you can show 100% your evidence is factually accurate.

 

UK law makes the web host or (person/company with control of the server connected to the internet) legally responsible for any libelous content hosted on their server putting them at risk of action being taken against them. See Laurence Godfrey vs. Demon Internet Ltd.

 

You must re-host your website and domain name in the American state of California where the law specifically excludes you and your web hosting company from any liability for publishing factually inaccurate content on a server connected to the Internet.

[SteEqWar]

Hi there,

Happy Contrails, Thanks for the appreciation, I am not really worried about being sued for libel on the website when they have already tried that once and lost, the cost results are this SJ = 0 Equita £30,000 estimated. So the result again is SJ 1 Equita 0 they want a rematch cool by me they can spend some more money.

 

The problem is for them is that their is nothing libelous on the website, Everything is factual and been investigated properly,

 

You can't sue for libel when it is the truth and trust me there solicitors are very aware of the website. as I emailed them to say that it was up and running.

 

Equita may not like it but that is there problem

 

Bring it on is all I can say

[Guest Happy Contrails]

What is the aim of your website? Just annoy Equita?

If you want to annoy them then just collate lots of parking ticket and council tax cases and reclaim the unlawful bailiffs fees using a bulk-litigation process.

You could model the procedure on something like this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/225532-help-equita-bailiffs-have.html#post2497773 and it can be easily adapted for council tax, tickets, court fines, High Court Officers; in fact any type of debt collectible by a bailiff.

And harvest lots of cases from the public who have paid bailiffs fees in the last six years. This is akin to these personal injury/ambulance chaser claims harvesting advertisements we see on the telly.

Its a potential biz opportunity for someone willing to process bulk litigation and taking a cut in the recovered unlawful fees & the potential market could be worth millions!

[SteEqWar]

I think it was all over the point that I will not tollerate being bullied into paying for something I didn't do. As regards court I am no stranger to dealing with these types of situation. I used to live in the USA which you know is sue happy.

 

I have a county court case on the 23rd October this month yippie!!! against my bank "Halifax" The case is for blocking my wifes debit card while she was back home in the USA causing her to miss her flight back to the UK.

 

No one has successfully sued a UK bank for blocking a debit card so this one will be a first. "Fingers crossed" it's looking good though as they made a mistake doing a defence against the claim form when I had not done a particulars of claim. So hence the Particulars of claim ,destroys there defence,

 

They already fired one Solicitor.

 

The Bad news for them is if they lose the case everyone will be able to sue based on the case.

 

There defence is terms and conditions clause 11.6 which reads, If they think your debit card is being used fraudently or by someone else other than the person the card is issued to they can without notifying you first block the card.

 

They stated that I didn't contact them & notify them that my wife was abroad.

 

And transactions abroad are highlighted to its fraud team

 

My Evidence

 

Phone Bill verifying that I did call them.

 

Their letter stating under a Data Subject Access Request that they have no copies of any calls

 

Bank Statements showing over 100 genuine transactions in the same area

 

Recording of the phone call advising them

 

Recording of the phone call complaining

 

Copies of letters complaining

 

I think they have a problem.

 

I have never had any company sucessfully win anything against me.

Debt Collection companies always back off I enjoy dealing with them for fun

 

For a laugh my friends call me "Lawya"

 

I work for a claims management company dealing with Uneforcable Credit Agreements as well as a couple of businesses one being a domain and website server business

 

Now back to what you were talking about.

 

Oh yes Equita They got that website because I told there Solicitor Edwin Co and Company that the next time I got a letter on a Friday night I would instead of replying to the letter, I would publish a website. Yes it borders libel but it's not.

 

The Solicitors they wrote to me on a Friday so hence the site and since getting the site not more letters on a Friday lol

 

The idea you mention is a good one and I could probably handle it but the site doesn't get enough traffic yet and there is other things to consider ... like a Ministry of Justice Licence.

 

I would certainly take a look at it after the Halifax case is dealt with

 

P.S I know all the success rates with UCA's (Unenfocable Credit Agreements) with every lender in the UK and what gets them written off

Really enjoy working in the field its cool getting rid of peoples debts

 

Ps sorry if the Grammer is a little whacky its 3 am here and no spell checker sorry

[tomtubby]

It is such a shame that you decided to tag this question onto a VERY OLD thread that finished 2 years ago !!! because visitors to this question will need to read so much old information before getting to your post (number 14).

 

Can you start another thread ???

[SteEqWar]

Hi there tomtubby,

To be quite honest I have no clue how to I searched on google and got these posts,, Sounds weired I know how to start things on my own site I will name a new thread called "Equita how far will they go?" hopefully it will work not sure what the number 14 is refering to also

Thanks for the comment.