Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • 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 
        • 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

Complaints about Bailiff Companies enforcing PCNs


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5725 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

I'm new to these forums so firstly my apologies if I have posted this in the wrong place.

 

Is anyone able to tell me how to make a complaint against a bailiff company - Equita - as opposed to an individual certificated bailiff?

 

I have had the misfortune to experience two roadside collections by bailiffs - one for TFL (collected by Equita) and one for a PCN (Camden). On both occasions the bailiffs act well outside their code of conduct and in a dangerous manner. The case concerning the Equita bailiff has now been passed to Northamton's enforcement section and will be put before a judge in November. The second is still an on going complaint with the company themselves (Task).

 

In the case of Equita, they ignored my complaint and request for further information for 8 months. This was in spite of letters, phone calls, dozens of emails and a request from the bailiff's association. They only responded once it had been passed to the Court Service. I also took up the issue of the scale of charges, which again, Equita have ignored.

 

I have spoken to the Court Service who tell me that they only deal with individual bailiffs. They suggested one of the bailiff associations, but in my experience they are useless.

 

Does anyone have any ideas of how to complain about Equita?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Hi Can anyone help me! I had a car parking ticket from southampton, I do have the ticket! but apparantly it was not clearly displayed. I have now recieved a letter from a EQUITA CERTIFIED BAILIFFS! FOR A CHARGE OF £353.74. this is for a £30 car parking ticket!

they visited my home in the early hours of the morning and put a sticker on my car and folded a peice of paper through the door with the hand written amount on of £353.74. no time was specified, the date was hand written and it was not signed! it said to phone within 24hrs!|

 

I still have the actual car parking ticket what should i do?

 

Please help

 

thanks:?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask a moderator to move your post on to its own thread.

 

Find out who issued the ticket and ask them for an Out of Time Statutory Declaration. That stops enforcement.

 

The fees dont look right. They should be made up according to Schedule 1 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 and amended in 2003. I assume no goods were removed and you havn't signed a walking possession agreement.

 

£90 ticket including time limit charge

£5 court fee issuing liability order

 

Bailiffs fees:

 

£11.20 - Letter fee (only one allowed)

£26.60 - 28% on £95.00 ticket & court fee

£11.52 - VAT on bailiff fees

£172.31 -Total payable to bailiff on first visit.

 

If a bailiff tries to charge you more then consider a Form 4 complaint against the bailiff for trying to defrauding you with his fees. Form 4: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/form4_0606.pdf Have ducks in a row before shooting.

 

Im puzzled why you didn't receive any mail. You should have the NTO, Liability order, Charge Certificate (mandatory under Section 66, 76 and Schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991) et-al before the bailiffs visit. Is your vehicle correctly registered at your address?

First to fly the Airbus A380

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask the bailiff how he makes £353.74. If he comes down in price then you've caught him with his underwear at half-mast and you can go straight to a Form 4. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/form4_0606.pdf

 

If the bailiff becomes defensive then tweak the following as necessary.

 

Name of Bailiffs

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Address 4

 

[DATE]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: YOUR NAME + ANY REF: Request for Information & opportunity to mitigate incorrect fees

 

I write pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and enclose payment of £10 the maximum prescribed under the Act and request you send me the following.

 

a) An itemised breakdown of all the fees charges orders costs and other monies that make up the total obtained by your bailiff being £[AMOUNT].

 

b) The name and address of the court that certificated your bailiff.

 

c) All letters documents emails comments faxes personal opinions memos and other related information which would qualify as information defined under the Act.

 

d) All other information relevant and related to this request and occurrences therein.

 

e) Whilst I appreciate the Act allows you 40 days from the date of this request to fulfil your obligation, I look forward to receiving the above at your earliest convenience.

 

This notice gives you an opportunity to examine whether you or your bailiff has charged fees correctly truthfully and complaint to prescribed law regulating bailiff’s fees for this type of debt and amount. If you find an irregularity you now have an opportunity to refund me the difference in the next seven days along with a written explanation why I was overcharged. In the absence of that refund and an irregularity is later discovered, I will automatically file a Form 4 complaint before the bailiff’s certificating court for committing an offence under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006. This may also involve a criminal investigation by the police and your firm’s director may be liable for receiving or benefiting from a money transfer originating from a crime.

 

This document is delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it to be served on you by the ordinary course of post in the meaning of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. Its therefore your responsibility and in your own interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation. I regret I am unable to discuss this matter by telephone or in person.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

[NAME]

First to fly the Airbus A380

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recieved a letter dated 6/6/08 but revieved on the 9.6-08

which stated to pay £143.41, then on the 18th i recieved the visit in the early hours of the morning no knock on the door just a sign on my car and a folded up piece of paper through the door with the hand written amount of £353.74.

are these costs still excessive?

 

thank you michelle

Link to post
Share on other sites

£353.74 sounds like a figure that has basicly had a letter, 1st visit second visit and van call fee added to it, this is indeed extortionate if you HAVE NOT received anything other than a first visit, however in my experience many people will lie and say this is the first visit they have had, not saying your lying atall but just ensure you are correct in what you say as the advice would change accordingly, oh and by the way good luck the bailiffs from the company you talk of that i have come across are in general complete bar stewards and thats coming from a bailiff !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recieved a letter dated 6/6/08 but revieved on the 9.6-08

which stated to pay £143.41, then on the 18th i recieved the visit in the early hours of the morning no knock on the door just a sign on my car and a folded up piece of paper through the door with the hand written amount of £353.74.

are these costs still excessive?

 

thank you michelle

 

 

So this basicly then is not the first correspondence you have had, see what i mean about being factually correct!! However the fees should still not be this exessive providing you are indeed correct about only having had the 2 letters!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The parking structure for a bailiff is Letter by post first, then 1st visit from bailiff with letter, then second visit with letter hand delivered, then third visit with letter hand delivered, then van call which is an enforcement visit which would be up around the fees that you have been asked to pay, therefore if you have not had all these letters then i would follow the advice of WWOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

My feelings suggest the difference is an 'attending to remove' fee has been charged. I dont quite know if this applies when no entry to a property has been made, and you don't appear to have signed a walking possessions agreement.

 

I think it should be £172,31 as explained above - a difference of £181.43.

 

The law doesn't prescribe a value for attending to remove and a walking possession fee, only provides for 'reasonable cost' and it would ultimately be up to a court to interpret whether £181.43 is reasonable cost. You would need to file a Form 4 to have a court decide this.

 

Send a PM to Tomtubby whose more clued up on attending to remove fees, but the law doesn't provide for a fee of that description so I cant comment.

First to fly the Airbus A380

Link to post
Share on other sites

£181.43 minus 17.5% = a pre-VAT fee of £154.41

 

Send the above letter & ask the bailiff. It'll be interesting to see his arithmetic.

First to fly the Airbus A380

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hello,..im new to this site,..but am also having trouble with "Equita", over a parking fine,.i received a letter from them saying i owed my local council(sutton) £168.00,..i immediatley called equita, to ask if i could pay this sum in 2 monthly instalments,..as i can only work part time,..i was in formed that the bill had increased to £224.00!!!, when i enquired why this was the case, i was told a bailiff had visited my home address,..i told them that this was the 1st correspondance i had received from them,.and that no-one had called or left a note! , the guy on the phone then told me,that the bailiff wouldnt have neccessarily knocked ,or left a note?

is this right?...now, some months later, i have recieved a demand,threatening to call any time ,day or night, to remove car/goods,..i then rang the bailiff himself, because the letter had no amount stated, only to be told it now over £500.00!!!!!!!!i again tried to come to a payment arrangement,..but he said it was now too late, yesterday,..i recieved another letter,..this time through the post stating more or less the same, within 48 hrs?

Can anyone help me with this?? im at my wits end! many thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...