email FAO: The PARTNERS mail@jacobsbailiffs.co.uk URGENT COMPLAINT Ref: Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to you with an urgent complaint I have regarding your companies behavoiur on the above account. I entered into an agreement to pay £60 per month towards a council tax liability order - since entering into this agreement I have not missed a payment yet your company insisted on increasing the payment to £100 again I paid this with diligence. However, I recieved a letter on the XX/XX/XX informing me my agreement had been cancelled and that payment would now increase to £140 - there is no reason for this to happen and believe quite frankly it is being used as a scare tactic to try and make me pay more money than I can afford. I have contacted you every time you have required so and completed all paperwork you have required of me. Your company is now asking for more than I can afford depite me having never missed a payment. Can you please explain how you can justify such an action? I assume your company is penalising those who pay regularly and ontime and is adopting scare tactics to bully those into paying money they can ill-afford. This is disgusting behaviour from your company to someone that is indeed paying what is owed and doing so on a regular basis. I would also remind your company that I am registered disabled and a single parent therefore am classed as a vulnerable party under OFT guidelines. I now ask that you reinstate my agreement to pay £100 per month. Should this not be done I will have no further alternative but to contact the OFT and file a formal complaint against your company. I will also be informing the council and copying the Revenue Manager into further correspondance. I also expect my payment arrangement to be put back in place with immediate effect - should you find yourselves not able to comply with this I ask that you pass my file back to the council and I will pay them directly. I have attached a read receipt to this email as confirmation that it has been received and I expect this to be acted upon immediately. Yours XXXXXXXXX

Stage 1 - Shock and Awe: Scare the proverbial out of a debtor with a fire-and-brimstone letter threatening to hang, draw and quarter said debtor by sending the following. Unsuspecting debtors fall into the trap immediately. CAG members ask the Mrs what's for dinner. Stage 2 - Awe Shucks: We meant what we said you know, so you'd better contact us. Unsuspecting debtors who haven't responded will go into a flat spin and hide this letter from the other half. CAG members stick another sausage on the barbie. Stage 3 - Aw: We really, really meant it you know. Unsuspecting debtors contemplate calling the CAB. CAG members roll over and have another couple of hours in bed. Stage 4 - Shucks: Honestly, we really, really, really meant it and here's a letter from someone with letters after his name to prove how serious we are. Unsuspecting debtors are now frantically searching the internet in secret and are about to become CAG members. Current CAG members are watching a Fuzzybobble production on YouTube. Stage 5 - Final throw of the dice: OK, so we didn't really mean it and if you pay us now, we'll knock a huge chunk off the balance. You ony reach this stage by being a member of the CAG. Stage 6 - BWAAAAHHHHH.

you have to type a certain amount of chrs# for it to appears.. dx

If it doesn't get paid they will request the drivers details, if you do so they prosecute the driver for non payment, if you don't provide driver details they prosecute you for failing to comply. Its not 'old' legislation just older than more recent legislation which Councils have the option to use.

Fox, I might not feel the best but I hovering around.... LowWill, I know this isnt easy to do, but ignore the bugg**s, all they are doing is getting at you mentally, as has been said above, they should not have sold your account on to a DCA, while they are in dispute, and they know it, but they flowt the laws so much and get away with it all the time, I put in a 3 complaints to the FSA, one they sent a pile of papers from Crap1 had sent them to say "Well we have sent you all the documentation" when checking through, they were statements (with 2 yrs missing I might add) and a "Supposed" copy of my agreement, which was a photocopy of the application form, NO agreement and the FSA fell for it, they said I had no grounds for a complaint. Next the second complaint went to then on the same date the first one did, I have had acknowledgement of it and that's it, and the third one, I had a phone call the other day from the FSA and asking certain questions about my complaint which I answered and I have heard stuff all else. They say they are an indepenant organisation, but why keep saying that Crap1 have complied and close the case, isn't a multitude of complaints ringing alarm bells to them, telling them that maybe they are NOT complying with the rules AGAIN. They were fined a few years back for not following the rules..... but they still appear to be doing the same thing again.... So don't get worried about these so called threats they are just trying to worry you into paying it, but in the end they KNOW they haven't got an agreement that they can produce in court and several CAGGERS on here have found out by taking them to court. We all get down, I have been the same because something nasty happened with my finances a few weeks back, and now we don't even have enough to feed ourselves each month and thats the figures that the government say we should be able to live on !! and its a Government department that has done it. Now I'm feeling a bit better about it and working out our finances we have the princely amount of 35p to pay all our debtors, and I can see some sh*t flying then when they aint getting nothing. My other half is doing a letter to each one enclosing a copy of ourt finances and asking them to write the deby off..... miracles do happen sometimes, but not my way, we will wait and see what happens, and polish my shoes ready for my first court appearance, suit don't fit now so it will have to be the raggist things I can find... Keep yer head up mate and keep saying to yourself, "I am right and I know it, I wont let them get to me" and don't forget we are all here to help each other.

Thanks, that's most helpful. Time now for us all here to put together your initial, more formal request for your deposit to him and see if we can bring this to a close now, without the need for too much 'formality' later. I'd be inclined to keep it short and sweet to start - and simple - with, if appropriate, detail to follow later, as needed. No doubt those with more experience of deposit disputes will assist too. Look forward to catching up with you later.

you mention remortage you did sign a credit/mortage agreement or not your partner would have to sign if a joint mortage cancelation and cooling off period would come into play as well this is def a time to send an sar

Spoke to a manager at Orange a couple of days ago and they acknowledged their mistake and decided to "alter" the dates of my contract to allow me to upgrade to an iPhone 3GS. I was only in month 4 of a 18 month contract (plus 3 months as I upgraded 3 months before end of last contract). Luckily they were launching the iPhone the next day so I was able to get that. I now DO have reception so everythings good. Also I spoke to CISAS and they said they couldn't do anything as its a handset issue and they don't deal with them?? Buzby - if you had bought 4 handsets you should have busted their chops a but harder as just an apology isn't good enough. Thanks for your help guys.

Yes but not on council tax

I have flagged this for the rest of the Site Team. Hopefully someone wuill be along soon. Are these POC's for mcol??

go on John, say it !

yes this is a ploy from barclays they do this deliberately just to confound you... you need to write back to them stating that this is in unintelligable format and you do not understand could they please supply you with the account in a different format ie bank account statements to be in running order from date you first entered and the correct balances and totals...to date the account is still in dispute as they have not satisfied your request remind them that time is still running and soon they will be in breach of your SAR hope this helps patrickq1

no other warning given a van will just turn up and will cost a minimum of £110 this is so the bailiff can charge you a van fee if the bailiff was actually going to remove goods they must give you the time and date of removal there is case law to support this p5 Forcing re-entry The law upon the rights of bailiffs to force re-entry to premises in order to remove goods previously seized has recently been clarified. In Khazanchi v Faircharm Investments; McLeod v Butterwick [1998] 2 All ER 901 the Court of Appeal held that bailiffs may only force re-entry where they are being deliberately excluded from premises. It will thus be necessary in most cases for the bailiff to notify the debtor in advance of the date and time of the visit in order to remove. If the debtor is then absent from home, or refuses entry, force may be employed. You must write to the council and make a formal complaint about the bailiffs so called mistake you have an agreement in place to pay £65 per week(how long have you been paying this have you stuck to this agreement) they cant change it because the bailiff made a mistake there is a list of exempt goods that the bailiff cant levy on can you list the goods on the WPA

When I dealt with these clowns, I got the directors database info from either 192.com or equifax and bombarded each director with letters to thier home address. The letters from thier company stopped. Give it a try, its very satisfying, lol

Do you have receipts? I have to say I have not known anyone to claim charges back so long after it was all dealt with - but I am hardly well versed in the subject. I think if you have receipts and you can show an element of VAT that is a good start, as Bailiffs are not allowed to charge VAT as I understand it. You say that you didn't pay it promptly - I wouldn't give that too much weight - it is down to them to justify their charges. Cheers, Blurred

I would tell the court immediately. Courts don't like surprises and react badly to them.

If you have not made a payment, nor acknowledged the debt for six years then the debt is statute barred, this isn't something they can negotiate their way out of, once a debt becomes Statute Barred, it remains Statute Barred, even if you make a payment after the debt has become SB. It would be down to them to prove that the debt is not SB and if they state that a payment was made against the account (not an attempted payment, whatever that may be) they have to prove that it was you who made the payment. Morgans are Cabots in house team of "Legal Experts" ie they are the ones that can read a bit. They do not write the laws, they do not enforce the laws and they have no input into how the law works, simply adding the word "Solicitor" to their letterheads gives them no more influence than if they'd added the word "Taxidermist". Their sole role in Cabots dubious business model is to attempt to increase the pressure on errant debtors in the hope of receiving payment, and occasionally, when they actually have some kind of paperwork, they attempt to con judges into believing their unique version of the CCA statutes. In this case they are trying to tell you that Black is White and White is Black.

Diddly I've PM'd you

Full SAR compliance by Egg will comprise of a one-inch-high pile of paper costing possibly £50-worth of labour, in return for £10 SAR fee. For years now Egg has offered 2 slimline alternatives in reply to SAR request: All past statements, for £5. or just a list of all penalty charges with dates and amounts, for £5. Not sure if you consented to receive the £5 option. If you opted for a full print of all monthly statements and are not getting all of them, by all means write back demanding the rest as is your right. It is now November 2009, and the 6-year statute of limitations cuts off in November 2003. Some people say it is possible to claim back more than 6 years, I shall refrain from comment. When you have the full list of overlimit and late payment penalty charges, reclaiming them should not be difficult, as Egg only puts up a half-hearted struggle of 2 or 3 computer-generated letters. After that they give in and pay up -- if you know the levers to push. Numerous CAGgers have reported they were DN'ed by Egg without notice through the post. Egg maintained they did send it out, and there is no legal requirement to use recorded post. Egg need only send you the material they have on file, and they would not be obliged to keep a copy of every DN notice sent out -- unless anyone knows different. Unlike on reclaim of penalty charges, Egg fights every attempt to roll back DN like their lives depend on it. One person managed it after 18 months struggle, another managed it after 30 months.

Nice thread and very interesting reading. Just in case, also use swarb.co.uk - lawindex@swarb.co.uk - index Then just pick what you are looking for e.g. Negligence and you get case law

IMHO, At first sight, the CCA sent to you looks to be enforceable but I do have my doubts about its authenticity. The CCA lists Liverpool Victoria as the creditor and is then overlayed on a Hitachi Capital Consumer Finance template, and as such would make the CCA unenforceable. The Default Notice is not one that is normally issued under s87 of the Consumer Credit act 1974, but s86E of the Act which covers secured agreements......a big error by Hitachi. For reference here's s86 of CCA 1974 - Sadly for Hitachi, they need to send a Default Notice under s87 before they can terminate the agreement and pursue the debt. Sit tight and wait for Hitachi \ Liverpool Victoria to terminate the agreement. I would further advise that you do not mention any details of the documentation to Hitachi \ Liverpool Victoria at all.

Gallahad I've been trying to establish this for sometime now. No-one wants to give a definitive answer but I'm working on it and will come over with something solid soon. What we do know is the following. Over 25k and it's almost impossible to get the courts to agree that these are regulated under CCA 1974 and the section that has caused all the difficulties for the lenders is s.18 multiple agreements. It looks like precedents are now being set to neuter this provision in the Act. Constitutionally however common law cannot defeat the statute so the judges are ignoring the Act in favour of their own common law construction. Over 25k is no longer a problem from 2008 onwards. Additionally if it is over 25k and a second charge mortgage it is regulated by the OFT. But I will say this. It is an absolute scandal that a regulatory lacuna could exists where loans were bumped up over 25k to avoid CCA regulation, were then secured against property and treated essentially as mortgages but failing to be regulated if indeed that turns out to be the case. Notwithstanding this. Such loans would come under the FSMA 2000. The issue here is which regulator wants to grab the responsibility for these. Don't all rush forward at once will you?

HI I have looked through this and I think it would help clarifying points of the CCA. It may be relevant to the cca with LBL as well as parts of this site that are concerned with banking issues and deficient CC's. could the site team look through this and post in the relevant section. Dear actionblusox Firstly, Penaltycharges.co.uk is looking for members who have a credit cards claim for penalty/unfair charges going back beyond 5 April 2006, We are currently looking into bringing a claim against the OFT, should we go ahead with this action we will be fully represented by counsel. if your interested and have a claim then please email me at stephen@penaltycharges.co .uk In confidence. please put OFT Action in the subject title DATE OF FINAL JUDGEMENT IS NEAR Yes it been almost 2 years since of the OFT finally took legal action against the banks, Well we have been informed by The Supreme Court listings office that Lord Phillips is nearing completion of writing his judgment and that Thursday 19 November 2009, may be a suitable date to schedule the handing down. Either way it looks like we have a Judgment sooner rather than later. NEW CHARGES ARTICLE BY SKYBEE Whilst the rest of us have been eagerly awaiting the result of the HoL’s judgement to be handed down by the Supreme Court anytime soon, you can rest assured that all the banks have been busy tweaking their current accounts behind the scenes to ensure that any anticipated lost revenues are replaced and profit streams maintained. They certainly haven’t been sitting on the fence wondering what to do! For instance, let’s take the Halifax – a division of the Bank of Scotland plc and see what they have to offer. Their Everyday and Reward accounts have similar charging structures in place and the bank is committed (so we are told) to fees that are clear and simple to understand. Let’s take a look at overdrafts. Use an arranged overdraft up to £2500, they will charge you £1 per day. If you go so much as £1 over this, the fee doubles to £2 per day. So if you’re near the limit and they then take out their charges, your fees double through no fault of your own. Haven’t we been here before? Use an unarranged overdraft by so much as £1 and you take a hit with a daily £5 charge. In this situation, it’s best not to go there or try to get back into credit as soon as possible. That £1 borrowed over a week will cost you £35. To then clear the overdraft will cost you £36. For a month, you’re looking at £156 just to get back into credit. Soon ratchets up as you can see. The Halifax won’t charge you any interest on an overdraft, whether it’s arranged or unarranged. They don’t need to! Should a direct debit, standing order or cheque be presented for payment and this would make you overdrawn, the bank undertakes to use its discretion. If they refuse to pay it they will not charge you, unlike the old days! But still, they have had your money in other transparent ways. Ultimate Reward Current Account This is the one that other current account holders are encouraged to join up to and has all the whistles and bells as an incentive to win you over. I mean, just look what you get with this account:- 24hr on-line banking, telephone banking, worldwide travel insurance, RAC breakdown membership, Mobile phone insurance and also a range of other benefits to boot. I haven’t been able to find out just what these other “benefits” are. Now for the not so good bits – the costs to you as a customer:- A monthly “fee” of £12.50p or if you say it quickly, £150 per year. An arranged overdraft that’s over £300 will cost you 19.5% EAR (under £300 will be 0% EAR but don’t forget the monthly £12.50p subscription) An unarranged overdraft will come in at 28.8% EAR However, Halifax will pay you 2.50% EAR (2.47% gross) on credit balances in the account. So, if my maths is right, a £500 balance at the end of the month will give you a credit payment of £1.04p. Not a lot if your paying £12.50p each and every month whether your in credit or not. You also have to ask yourself, do you really need all the extra benefits that this offers – do you already have a breakdown membership or how often do you go abroad? When every penny counts, these can be tough choices. All the banks have developed their current accounts through discreet changes to their terms and conditions over recent months, as they await their fate to the test case appeal. They know the game is up and they need to replace one lucrative profit stream (penalty charges) with another scheme that can squeeze customers pockets of that little bit extra cash. Many members will use their overdraft facility at some point, whilst at the same time, others will never be out of it and need it to survive day to day living. Now is the time therefore to take a long hard look at what your bank provides for you, how much its costing and what are the advantages to you of staying with your provider. Look around to see what others are charging, go to “compare” web sites for a fuller picture and if you see something that makes you better off at the end of the month, then march with your feet. Good luck. CONSUMER: RECENT CASES, CREDIT ACT UPDATE by ED Thorius – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8282264.stm Reporting suggested that Mrs Thorius’ case was won on the basis of S140A of the Act – an Unfair Relationship as she has been missold a PPI policy on her credit card, and the involvement of a ‘secret commission’. However, the facts suggest that the main failing was that MBNA could not supply the correct documents, or the credit agreement they wished to rely on was deficient. MBNA said: "The deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases.” Carl Wright of the instructing CMC preferred to go with: "This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country. We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity." Ultimately if the credit agreement could not be found, or the one they produced was deficient then any issues surrounding PPI or secret commissions become irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. But they are worth noting for future lines of argument. McGuffick - http://business.timesonline.co.u k/to...cle6868968.ece Contrary to the inaccurate reporting by the media, this case did not rule that debtors had a legal obligation to repay their creditors in instances of unenforceability either owing to S77-79 request defaults or in instances where no credit agreement could be supplied (and such was admitted) or the credit agreement was irredeemably unenforceable owing to a failure which enacted S127-3 of the Act. Read the full Judgement - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2009/2386.html The case started under the premise of redeemable unenforceability because RBS failed to supply documents in line with his S77 request. The correct documents were found and could be sent, making the agreement enforceable again. In order to allow the remaining issues in the case – ie the position on data transmittal to 3rd party Credit Reference Agencies during periods of redeemable, or temporary unenforceability – to proceed, by agreement the claim for unenforceability was dropped and the Bank 'held' the documents for delivery at a later date. In conclusion Justice Flaux ruled that Banks during periods of temporary unenforceability could in fact still request repayment, and transmit account details to Credit Reference Agencies, and that such action did not amount to ‘enforcement’ under the Act. Bentley - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8332124.stm Bentley took out a secured loan in April 2009, for £40,000 to ease financial problems. Personal reasons meant he fell into arrears, and as of October 2009 the loan had ballooned to £47,000. The case was brought under S140A of the Consumer Credit Act (see http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=5981) stating that Blemain had lent the money to him irresponsibly, taking advantage of his naivety, vulnerability and desperation owing to his personal circumstances. Bentley and Blemain settled the matter, and in return for Bentley withdrawing his argument that there had been an ‘unfair relationship’ and agreeing not to pursue the argument again in the future Blemain agreed, to an order from the Court stipulating that they would rewrite his agreement and cut the repayment amount to £150 per month and to cease levying any interest, charges or legal costs ‘whatsoever’. Blemain’s repossession claim was also dismissed and they are precluded from making any further claim for repossession for a period of five years, after which they can only do so should there be at least 12 months of arrears outstanding on the rewritten loan. Blemain commented: “The matter was resolved before it went to court and we agreed to give him further time to repay what he owed. For the avoidance of doubt there has been no court decision on this case as a satisfactory arrangement was agreed." Carl Wright, of the instructing Claims Management Company said: "Peter Bentley was offered a substantial financial settlement, to ensure the case was not heard by the High Court. It is believed to be the first time a mortgage and loan lender has offered a client a legal undertaking not to repossess the client's home.... for the sole purpose of preventing a judge in the High Court from setting a legal precedent against their lending practices." PENALTY CHARGES NEW TOOLBAR We have launched our own toolbar, it has a built in radio, you can check you emails, live Penalty Charges RSS Feeds, the weather, listen to the top 40, and even has facebook stream . Best of all it free, and for each one of you who downloads it this week, Penalty charges will get around 32 cents. So it a great tool for you and a great way to help the site. PARKING TICKET SUCCESS Penalty charges is now one of the leaders in providing on Free advice on Parking ticket thanks to Sammy1 This thread/ report made it to Parking and Traffic Appeals Service key cases http://www.penaltychargesforum.c o.uk...ad.php?t=50755 note the adjudication in post 30 here is the PATAS website http://www.parkingandtrafficappe als..../key_cases.asp if you go down to correct setting of clock http://keycases.parkingandtraffi capp...2090232156.pdf