danmcr
-
Posts
117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by danmcr
-
No he is not, he should be a Certificated Enforcement Agent. It has nothing to do with HC enforcement unless it has been to Court (which it hasn't). Please check to see if his name is on the register: https://certificatedbailiffs.justice.gov.uk/CertificatedBailiffs/ This really need's looking into as something is wrong.
-
You may be liable for enforcement fees as the Council will pass all payments onto the enforcement company who will then split the payments as per the regulations.
-
CRAR is only available for use at the demised premises only! Not your home address, next door or your mates house. It has nothing to do with a High Court Enforcement Officer or High Court Bailiff as you put it, only a Certificated Enforcement Agent. The first letter you will get is a notice of enforcement not an "avoidance notice" Court Enforcement Services is a private company headed up by ex Marston directors and a HCEO and I'm guessing the name they use is to try and make it look like some form of official court department. Also Forfeiture cannot be done at the same time as CRAR or vice versa.
-
Forget CRAR, it hasn't been used it seems, it seems the council have taken you to Court and then transferred the matter to the High Court for enforcement. What is the "Avoidance notice" I've never heard of it and it's not a prescribed form for taking control of goods One of the other helpful members will be along soon to help, but it seems to me either something has gone wrong with the enforcement route or the full story isn't apparent.
-
Sounds like unpaid rent which has ended up in Court then transferred up to HC for enforcement.
-
This cannot be CRAR as; 1. CRAR can only be used at the demised premises. (commercial only, no residential element attached) 2. CRAR has nothing to do with High Court Enforcement. Something is not right!
-
and also arrest for resistance and obstruction!/
-
A HCEO may enter a property to seize the defendants good's as commanded by the writ, you are correct in stating force may not be used however there is still a right of peaceful entry. Any person wilfully resisting or obstructing a HCEO commits a criminal offence and runs the risk of being arrested by the HCEO or a constable. Applying to set a Judgment aside does not mean it will be set aside, there are a number of factors such as time limits. You may not also be aware that to stop a HCEO you must also apply for a stay on the execution not just setting the judgment aside.
-
Please do not give advice if you do not understand the rights and powers of a HCEO! To the OP am someone will be along shortly to assist with your problem
-
You may find that Bailiffs can still be used under certain tenancy agreements, however I have not heard of this for a while.
-
@npowerhelp NPOWER>non-existant warrant to force entry
danmcr replied to Mrsshe's topic in Utilities - Gas, Electricity, Water
There are provisions for forced entry but this is normally to change a meter to pay/token meter etc. -
I am on the understanding that good's can be liable for remove and the HCEO can apply for relief as you are married, however can still be wrong. Maybe HCEO can assist further with this as he/she has more knowledge on such matters.
-
I have posted a link above which you can follow to help understand.
-
This is the only thing online that is easy to read for the OP to understand: http://tinyurl.com/kbwvr52
-
National Debtline is wrong.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but as the writ at this moment is live and outstanding what your telling the op to do is commit an offence under Section 92 of the County Court Act 1984. Contrary to what other website say there is a proper process to follow for good's wrongly seized plus the fact the OP is married.
-
TT If you don't mind me asking how much work (if you know) had been done on the cases you mention?
-
Firstly well done on getting some money back. Secondly regarding your comments as someone who works in the industry I have seen much higher fees, fees which have been subject to being challenged and the defendant losing the the claim. Am sure HCEO will back me up on this. The HCEO in your case seems very reasonable and I'm surprised you got some money back. However once again well done at least you have some money to treat yourself to a pint or three this weekend.
-
The officer cannot be a HCEO if it is a magistrates fine?
-
It's a bit strange that 3 bailiffs would attend, Marstons would no do this without cause as it costs them to do this and none of the Bailiffs will make a penny in commision if it's split three ways.
-
What's wrong with dealing with Jacobs? My experience of debt collectors is when you get past all the BS you can get a good repayment plan and in some cases some money off as an incentive to pay off the debt. There is no harm whatsoever in calling Jacobs and seeing what sort of payment pan you can get, call off a withheld number and if they're being difficult terminate the call and try setting up a plan with DWP. However as I pointed out you may get a better payment plan out of Jacobs as they will be able to call someone at DWP who can give a yes or no answer to your offer not some call centre person who's reading off a script. Good Luck.
-
No surprise that Birmingham topped the table. I wonder why they referred debts to Bailiffs and which Bailiff co's the works was passed to.
-
That's a whole different issue and the Council should not allow a company to have such control over it's services.
-
Your forgetting not all Bailiff/Enforcement Officers work on a commision basis and the job of a Bailiff/Enforcement Officer is to seize the goods of a respondent and raise the sums to pay the balance and in most cases are ordered or commanded by the warrant/writ to do so. Payments plans/Walking possession agreements are simply at the discretion of the Bailiff/Enforcement Officer. Bailiffs are not debt collectors nor telephone collection agents, however councils are treating them as such and are using Bailiffs far too often which results in the problems we see on this forum and many others alike. Bailiffs should not be used as a first port of call, sending in the Bailiffs when someone doesn't pay council tax one month should not result in the bailiffs being sent in, especially in these hard times, more discretion should be used by councils.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS