Think I will issue an N1

Thanks Can you direct me to the legislation that deems these charges to be fair and reasonable? Also is all of the above irrelevant including the court case?

Magistrates

Hi All I had a £30 no waiting PCN, I forgot about it and did not pay, it went up to £45, again it was not paid my fault, I then received a letter from Marston Group and now it had gone up to £120, I arranged to pay this but unbeknown to me the payment did not go through I assumed stupidly that the payment had gone through, the next thing I know a bailiff is at the door from Marston Group, he demanded £320...£200 for a first visit. I paid under pressure by credit card a further £9.60, I later decided to look into the level of these charges and came up with this. Schedule 1 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certified Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 (amended 2003) where it states: For preparing and sending a letter advising the debtor that a warrant is with the bailiff and requesting the total sum due, the fee is increased from £10.00 to £11.20. For levying distress, where the sum demanded and due does not exceed £100, the fee is increased from £25.00 to £28.00; and where the sum demanded and due exceeds £100, the fee is increased from 25% to 28% on the first £200 and on any additional sum over £200, the fee is increased from 5% to 5.5%. If these are the prescribed fees then why has the Bailiff charged me more than legislation allows? The fees the bailiff charged me are contrary to the official published guidelines on bailiffs fees for collecting court fines by HM Court Service (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cour./ex345.pdf) and on page 3 under Magistrates courts, it does not provide for bailiffs to charge me any fees where no goods have been transported or sold by a bailiff. The bailiff did not move any goods in a van and I did not sign any documents for the bailiff. And this court case: Reasonable costs have been defined by District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case No 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that “because the Bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable. At Paragraph 50 of his Judgement District Judge Avent stated that: "Accordingly, in my judgement the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so, I cannot see that Form 7 (Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory) can or should include any costs of removal" On the matter of the charge of £100 for "attending to remove" (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at the Claimant’s home, District Judge Advent confirmed that: "This amount (£100) cannot be recovered because the defendant (Marston Group Ltd) have produced no evidence whatsoever as to how this charge has been arrived at and therefore they are unable to show that it is reasonable”. He also confirmed that: "A bailiff does not have free rein to charge what he likes because the schedule of charges does not stipulate a sum but rather provides for "reasonable charges" Can I take these guys to court? they tell me they have an "agreement" with HMCS in the local area, and it has been deemed that these charges are fair and reasonable does this "agreement" make the level of their charges lawful? Any advice appreciated

They wil sell the debt to Gothia who u wil be able to negotiate with they even offer a reduced F&F offer just stay cool

Sillygirl thanks for this, do you think I maybe able to use Reg5 as the agreement is stacked in their favour?

any ideas how I can defend this please?

Tower Credit of course ! The issue N1s like confetti

Hi I have recived a claim from a pyaday loan company for 356.00 the orginal loan was for £150. These are the POCs The claim is for 321.00 which is in respect of a loan, reference *******, which was due to be repaid on 26.02.2010 and includes costs to cover letters, emails sent and telephone calls made, along with interest and late payment fee as per the loan agreement dated 03.02.2010. Default notice was snet 19th March 2010 to which there has been no response despite follow up emails and attempts to reslove by telephone. 2 emails were revived no letters and no phone calls just a default then a week later the N1 I am willing to pay the original £150 but not the rest. Can anyone help me out I have acknowleged service with intent to defend part of the sum, I need a defence to send in. Any help would be much appreciated.

Yes I do and its a fact you leant money to someone who was at the lowest end of the credit rating scale you will deny it of course but I know it to be 100% true and I have all the facts and figures you will still call me a liar because that the kind of people you are always right never wrong, you and people and companies like yours are so self righteous just because you follow the rule of law you think you are morally right and just in all your actions when you are not.. Of course this is an opinion but in my heart I know it to be right, payday loan companies lend irresponsibly the only way to assertain this is for the OFT to investigate you, but of course this will not happen, the only advise that can be given is stay away from short term loans full stop.

what a joke your response is nothing short of yet again being patronising, you have not anwsered the question yet again, you should take up a career in politics. The FACT is that you leant money to someone who had intensive debt collection activity within 18 months yet you still accepted them even though your web site states otherwise, how is that responsible lending?. Anwsers on a postcard!

from your website I know someone who applied for a loan with yoursleves and had been the subject of intensive debt collection in the last 18 months and was still approved

How low does your credit score have to be to be rejected? most people who use your "service" would have a very very low score if not as low as low can be in these matters, im not convinced by what you say in fact I know its simply not true.

Dark Lord SIGH.................................. Now I know why I don't use this forum much anymore

That makes no sense at all sorry, but if you need to use your service you have no money zero. zilch nothing, so to describe your service as convienence is total nonsense and you know it

TXTLOAN CR You cannot agree with someones personal experience????? so am I a liar then?? what a typical response from a short term lender. Yet another patronising reply if you bothered to read all of what I wrote I did not mean TXT Loan in particular but all short term payday loan companies. You sound like someone who you would phone up an say im having trouble can I pay you in installments please? Your reply " Short-term loans of this description are convenient for covering short-term cashflow problems and should not be seen as a solution to deeper financial issues". The standard payday loan script response. very helpful indeed short term cash flow problems = long term debt if you use these companies. You do appear to reading from a script as you seem unable or unwilling to give us a meaningful response. I really cannot see why you are here. When I get back on my feet and are rid of pay day loans and the like I am going top start a campaign to make them much harder to obtain as they are far to easy for someone to get when they are desperate.

TXT LOAN CR If you think you and your kind are helping people just read a few of the threads on here find me a good story or a happy ending dealing with payday loan/short term loan companies is impossible when you are in trouble

TXTLOAN CR You can try and justify yourself all you like I think you should be outlawed loans such as these are more toxic than cigarette smoke, people only turn to you because money is tight at the moment and they are desperate this is a fact as I have had personal experience of pay day / short term loans so please don't attempt to patronise me or belittle me this is a fact and I know it 1st hand so please do not insult my intelligence any further, you are legal "loan sharks" you prey on the defenceless and weak its that simple and you feed off those who have hit rock bottom "bottom feeders" that is a fact mate and don't try to disguise this its an accurate description why would anyone who is not desperate turn to the likes of your company. Explain to me how you can borrow £300 from your next months wages then pay £75 interest on top and be able to "calculate your finances" accurately, if you are already in trouble how can this possibly help? it makes things worse much worse as you have to reloan or extend or get another loan to make ends meet this is a fact like it or not. SO when I use the word FACT it is through personal; experience and experience from 1000s of others who have fell into this trap Any way I hope you enjoy your dinner tonite knowing that is paid for by others misery.

I would dearly love to see you justify these charges to a judge

Ummm You do exist because people with bad credit cannot get unsecured loans, credit cards etc anymore because of the credit crunch recession FACT therefore the only way to get credit is to resort to sub prime short term loan sharks such as yourselves FACT maybe you are one of the lesser evils, but payday loans/short term loans same thing really are the route to long term debt and depression.

Companies like yours are bottom feeders the credit crunch/recession will not last forever hopefully neither will the likes of you either

Payday Loans should be outlawed simple

"these cases are now not for the courts" who is she to say that? she stated "you can't do price under reg 5 you cant do fairness under 5 as that had already been done in previous judgements", what does everyone think?

So Angela Knight is saying that the judgement and the previous judgments ruled out Regulation 5

It reminds me of Citicard when a CAG member lost in court against them they sent out letters saying we won so discontinue your claim,...... in the end they paid out!