I normally manage to avoid the store exit reps, those who are selling double glazing, conservatories etc, However, yesterday whilst I was at the Range, I got caught by a lady working for a law firm offering an hour's free advice on how to avoid assets being gobbled up by Care Home Fees and Inheritance Tax. I have already written a will, as has hubby, with the help of our own solicitor - we are tenants in common on a mortgage free property and have both nominated our son to inherit our share of the property and assets in the event one of us dies before the other. The chances of our having property value and assets that would create a need to pay inheritance tax is in the realms of fantasy (unless we come up on the premium bonds or win the lottery). The lady who was making appointments for her firm seemed to bat back my responses to her questions making like despite the plans already in place, that the authorities would still be able to place a charge on the home in the event one of us requires admission to a care home - despite the other still living in the home ? I have had a read of the following article in the Guardian and used their calculator using a hypothetical situation. According to the result of the Q/A - then if only one of us required admission to a care home and the other left still living in the property then the person who was admitted would not have their share of the property included in any calculation for fees.. this was not what we were told at the Range ? https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/28/tenancy-common-care-home-fee-solution I have also looked at Age UK's website http://www.ageuk.org.uk/ I believe that I might have been misled by the above person in order to secure an appointment. The flyer I have been given indicates that there will one hour's free legal advice worth £200.00 VAT. I am assuming that if we were to go ahead with the appointment then any time outside of that hour will be charged at that rate. I will not be taking the Firm up on their offer, instead, I will contact my own solicitor on Monday to ensure that we have covered all bases, but would still be interested in hearing if anyone else has been caught out like this ?

Consumers who are forced to have prepayment energy meters put in should face a maximum installation fee of £150, the regulator has proposed. Currently such energy users - already the most vulnerable to debt - face a charge of up to £900, said Ofgem. As many as 4.5 million people use prepayment meters for electricity, while 3.5 million use them for gas. Ofgem is suggesting that the maximum fee should be between £100 and £150. For particularly vulnerable consumers, such as those in financial hardship or those with health issues, it says there should be no charge at all. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37349013 Ofgem is now inviting comments and responses to its plans before it finalises them in Novembe and. has published a series of proposals

Hi, Before I start, a big thanks to CAG for past help with different matters. If you read any of my other posts you will see I had debt problems in 2007, with a failed company and business / personal debts to near £150k, its taken 9 years to clear everything, finally debt free I'm looking back over accounts to see where I can claim back some of the huge interest amounts and fees whilst paying off credit cards overdrafts etc.. my wife has a Barclays account, it's still her current account and its been active for over 30 years, due to our extreme financial hardship in 2007, we had big monthly charges, as I mentioned we had cci's and £150k of debt to repay, we had to sell the house, remortgaging with a sub prime lender, DB, Yep DB! it was a real nightmare, looking at her account you can see our mortgage, gas, electric and all necessity bills bouncing every month for years, I have statements, letters etc to prove hardship... To be honest we are not in financial trouble anymore, after 8 years working 24 hours a day, we have cleared every debt, and have brought a house and live mortgage free, I know its been said in a few posts that you have to still be in hardship and that its maybe to late to claim now. I had a thought about this though today, the figures are: Barclays current account, charges including reserve charges up to £200 a month max, we had charges every month from April 2008 to September 2015 total charges nearly £5,000 If hardship and the 2009 time scale is out of the question how about the fact we have just had three PPI claims upheld against Barclays one on this account dating back nearly 25 years, we had a payout of just over £9,000 (which is great) could I not use this as a argument that if she had not been paying these monthly amount (which they agree was mis sold and have paid) she would not been overdrawn and therefore would not have received these charges. Thinking about it there is a note on the PPI payout letter which asks if you incurred any other financial costs... Should she be going down that route or treating it separately this way? I have gone through every statement and noted the date and cost for each charge, put them on an excel sheet and used the template for hardship, I wanted to get feedback first before sending, and only thought of the note on the PPI payout letter whilst typing As always thanks for your comments in advance! Dave

Hope this is the right place, my issue is in relation to Scottish Law. In March 2016 I signed up for a home study course, I had two options. Either sign up for each module individually or 4 of them which gave a greater discount. I signed for all 4 and paid about £1k on my personal credit card. It was suggested a higher discount was available and that seemed appropriate. The plan was to recover the cost from my employer now that did not work out as I planned and ultimately they paid nothing. Although some months have passed since my initial sign up I asked for a refund of the fee’s for the modules not started so that I could pay that back to my card, from there I could then pay for each module as I pass the previous. They have refused to do this stating that I agreed to terms that refunds were only due within 14 days. I did not understand that I had agreed to such terms. Each module is available from the provider as a standalone course, although I have paid for them all I have only received material for the first module. They will not issue any material for the subsequent modules until I complete the previous one. they are in no way out of pocket for anything but the first module. Part of the fees paid are for exams for those modules which would only be payable to the exam provider in the future. At first they said they would consider a refund, then they accused me of dishonesty suggesting my employer had paid the fees and I was trying to get them back from them. I offered to get a letter from my employer confirming they have not paid fees however they then ignored that and have insisted they can speak to my employer and explain the value in the course which is none of their concern quite frankly. As far as I am aware the contract is ultimately between them and myself, nothing to do with my employer as they had not agreed to pay them anyway. At this point the relationship has broken down completely, especially after their suggestion that I was being dishonest in requesting a refund. I have no desire to continue studying with them and want to move to another provider. My question therefore is whether I have a case to raise a small claims summons to recover the remaining fees or even a charge back on my credit card? T hey are just stalling now. I have even offered a compromise in that I will accept £100 less to cover their administration for processing the refund. I have not had to sign anything throughout the process. This is what they say covers their position; Fees are not refundable after two weeks have elapsed, but a transfer to another course of comparable value may be considered. Such a transfer may be subject to an administration fee,depending on how far you have progressed on the first course. (Where software has been supplied as part of the course, and the seal on this has been broken, no refunds will be considered for this particular item.) Would welcome some thoughts on the best way to approach this in order to get a refund if you are of the opinion I am entitled to one.

Hi there, Thanks for reading. I'm new to the forum, and hoping I may be able to find a little help with my current situation. I'm in a bit of a tangle!. Essentially I received an N1SDT CCJ claim form in the mail, too late to reply, and subsequently received a CCJ. I believe the debt to be statute barred, and intent to have it set aside if possible. I'm currently trying to claw my way out of long term unemployment by starting a small business (via the JSA/NEA scheme. I'm in the very early stages), so this is pretty awful timing. On the 18th of August I received a claim form dated 25th July. Obviously at that point it was too late to submit a seemingly simple defense, and the court ruled in favour of the claimant. I have received a 'Judgment for Claimant' notification, and correspondence from the claimant. The debt is from a capital one credit card dating back to August 2007, and was apparently 'assigned to the claimant' in Oct 2009 (this information is taken from the 'particulars of claim' section of the claim form that I received). I have no records of the debt, but have had no contact with anyone regarding the debt/account since the point were I stopped making payments (which I assume is 2007). I'm hoping that I can have this CCJ set aside, owing to the debt being statute barred. I'm currently claiming JSA, have no savings/additional income, live in my father's home, and I believe that I meet the requirements for a full remission of court fees, should I be able to go down that route. Though I'm not really sure how I go about doing that. Also I'm not entirely sure what kind of evidence I would have to supply. I have no records from the time, and assume I'll be needing them. Any advice with regards to my options at this point would be greatly appreciate. My understanding's pretty limited, and time is of the essence it seems. Thanks for any help.

There continues to be confusion about the charging of 'multiple fees' by bailiffs when enforcing more than one warrant (or Liability Order) at the same time. This confusion has lead CIVEA (Civil Enforcement Association) to seek legal opinion on the subject and as a result, they have issued the following Guidance to all their members. CIVEA Guidance Notes are designed to address issues which have arisen on the proper interpretation and implementation on a particular part of the regulations (in this case, 'multiple charging'). PS: CIVEA represent the interests of all private certificated enforcement agents in England and Wales. http://www.civea.co.uk/editorimages/Multiple%20Instructions.pdf

Hi I hope I'm On the right thread ...I sent in the reclaim letter to Santander regarding my arrears fee charges (Mortgage) and they've replied with a standard terms and conditions in contract letter could you please advise as to my next course of action please

The Ministry of Justice has introduced a shortened list of the new Court Fees for County Court, High Court and Family Court proceedings. In relation to the bailiff section of the forum, the following fees will be of interest: Varying a judgment, suspend enforcement or suspend a warrant of possession £50 Set aside a County Court judgment £255 General Application: £255 (N244) The general application fee (of £255) apply in cases where an Out of Time witness statement has been rejected, and the respondent wishes to have the decision 'reviewed' at a hearing in person. A 'review' without a hearing is charged at £100. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fees-for-civil-and-family-courts/court-fees-for-the-high-court-county-court-and-family-court

Hi, this is my first post on the site and I hope someone can help. I am self-employed, based at home and have 2 Limited companies (1 active and 1 dormant). Business has been very difficult over the last couple of years and cash flow has been a major problem. On the 9th July a high court writ was issued against my dormant business for £1,717.66 and Court Enforcement Services Limited were given the job of enforcement but I did not receive any Notice of Enforcement from them. On the 1 Aug, 2 enforcement officers came to my home (where the dormant business is registered) and said they were High Court Bailiffs and had come to seize goods. I asked to see the writ but they only very briefly showed my an Ipad type device but wouldn't let me examine it. They then just brushed passed me and entered my home through a patio door. I informed them that I had not received any notification which they just dismissed out of hand and said that we were now at stage 2 anyway. I told them I didn't know what they were talking about and needed to see the proper documentation. I asked what the amount owing was and they told me £3,399. I told them that the business was dormant and had no assets and they said that they would take whatever they wanted from the property and began collecting my laptop and printer. I told them that those items did not belong to the dormant company but I was told I had to prove it. I began finding proof for them and I also told them that removing any other items was going to affect my ability to work and run my active business. They ignored this. Having proved I owned the items I was asked if I was refusing to pay which I said I wasn't refusing to pay I just needed some time to get the money. I was told I needed to pay immediatley or other goods would be removed. They threatened to remove a horse transport lorry whose value is far in excess of the amount owed. I was able to prove that that vehicle was on a HP agreement. They also threatened to remove horses from our field. I had to repeatedly ask to see paper copy of the writ and they eventually went to their van and printed one. That is when I saw that the original amount was only £1717.66 and I asked why they were demanding so much more. They said it was down to the fees that had been added. I asked for a breakdown of their fees and they said they would provide that later but said that because I wasn't going to pay we were now at stage 3. I told them I still didn't know what they were talking about but they didn't explain. I had also been telling them that I could pay because I was owed money through my active business and the payments were due to go into my account at any time (I even had remittance advice notes from companies making payments but they were not interested). They repeatedly threatend to remove goods and apply more fees unless I paid immediately and they then began going round the whole of my house (kitchen, bathrooms, bedrooms, childrens rooms etc.) looking for things to remove, I told them I needed some time to make some calls and get the money, which I did. Luckily I was able to get someone to pay me straight away and once I had received the money in my account I paid the enforcement officers by debit card. They wrote me a receipt but failed to give me a breakdown of the fees. I asked for one but they claimed they couldn't get an internet signal to print it from their van. They said they would email it to me but I didn't get an email from them either. I emailed their office the next day and they provided this breakdown: Dear Sirs With reference to your email dated 2 August, please see below a breakdown in this matter as requested: Writ amount: £1,717.66 Interest on writ amount (@8%) from date of writ to date of payment: £9.46 Compliance Fee: £90.00 Enforcement Stage 1 Fee: £228.00 7.5% Fee of amount over £1,000.00: £65.41 Enforcement Stage 2 Fee: £594.00 Sale of Disposal Fee: £630.00 7.5% Fee of amount over £1,000.00: £65.03 Totals: £3,399.56 The above fees are inclusive of VAT at 20% They also added: "There is no requirement to actually remove goods for the Sale or Disposal fee and 7.5% fee to be applicable, the commencement of the process is sufficient for the application of the sale or disposal stage fee." Having done some reading and trying to check the facts I think they have charged too much because this was their first visit and full payment was made, no initial Notice of Enforcement was received, they failed to give proper notice of moving to the next fee stage, no 'Notice After Entry' form was given, nothing was itemised or removed, no control of goods notice was written up or issued. They also knew the exact total figure (Including the fees) shortly after entering the premises. They provided no explanation of that, or their fees and no explanation of my options/consequences etc. They were just very high pressure and applied more pressure whenever I asked a question. I am going to make a complaint to them because I believe they have charged too much and I think I should be refunded some the fees. I accept that they attended my property so up to level 1 Attendance on the fees scale is correct but above that I think is incorrect. Can anyone with knowledge in this matter please advise me? Sorry if my post is too long but I wanted to give as much info as possible. Any help or guidance will be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

Re: GE MONEY. Hello, I an new here and am in the same situation as many of you with GE Money mortgage charges etc. I didn't know how to post my query, so I am sorry to do it on this post. Hello. I am new to this site, but have spent many days reading through the threads, looking for answers. I have been with GE Money with a mortgage for 9 years. I have 28 months remaining. Some while ago I fell into mortgage arrears (£704 - which equates to 1& 1/2 months mortgage) Subsequently they have been adding monthly Admin charges of £40 per month for 40 months and the last 7 months £50 per month. direct debit recall charges of 18 x £25. field Agents fees - 4 visits charged, only 1 executed. Total of these visits fees £274. Grand total of all of theses fees and charges £2,674. (Plus interest - although I do not know how to work that out - sorry. Back in May of this year 2016 I received a letter from GE informing me that they have transferred my mortgage to Kensington. These money grabbers have written to me stating that I am in mortgage arrears of £705.68 PLUS Fees and Security Charges of £1598.07. And that my mortgage account has an overdue amount of £2303.75. They also say "You are breaking the terms and conditions of your mortgage and it is important you make a payment to clear the total amount shown above. I understand that Charges and Fees cannot be treated as arrears. Arrears are missed contractual payments. I pay £493 per calendar month and have done so for as long as I can remember. I offered GE a paltry £10 a month extra payment back in February (mainly because I am on a pension and at that time had NO work) They refused and continued to add charges etc every month and then they transferred me to Kensington. I have my SAR from GE and that is where I calculated the fees and charges they have imposed on me. Do I go to GE for a refund of these charges or is it now Kensingtons responsibility. Thank you

I mentioned yesterday on the forum that since the new regulations came into effect in April 2014, the Local Government Ombudsman has dealt with 304 enquiries relating to a council tax complaint that involved bailiff enforcement, and 418 enquiries relating to a penalty charge notice (including congestion charging) that involved bailiff enforcement. The following decision has just been released and again, another local authority has agreed to refund bailiff fees an Out of Time witness statement has been accepted at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The following is an extract of the decision. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Mrs X complains the Council failed to refund bailiff costs and the parking fine following the decision of the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). Background: 4 The Council issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) to Mrs X. It says Mrs X did not either appeal the notice or pay the fine. The Council continued to take action to recover the outstanding amount which resulted in bailiffs visiting Mrs X’s property. 5 Mrs X says the first time she knew of the PCN was when the bailiffs visited. She says she panicked when the bailiffs attended and so paid the fine in full. Afterwards she decided to challenge the recovery as she had never received the PCN. Mrs X made a late appeal to the TEC. Her appeal was upheld. 6 The bailiff sent a cheque to Mrs X for £310 on 17 February 2016. This was the return of their fees following the decision of the TEC. The Council retained £82 which is the original penalty charge of £50, £25 for the non- payment before the Council sent a charge certificate and £7 for the debt registration. 7 The Council says it has retained this amount because it did not form part of the TEC decision. It says at no time has Mrs X challenged the PCN and so it is still valid. 8. In response to my enquiries the Council says it will reissue the Notice to Owner to Mrs X. This will give her the opportunity to challenge the original PCN. If it is found the PCN was not correctly issued the Council should make a further refund. Final Decision: My decision is the complaint will not be pursued further. The return of the bailiff fees has provided a remedy for most of Mrs X’s complaint. When we spoke on the telephone previously, she said this is what she was seeking. In addition the Council will now reissue the Notice to Owner which gives Mrs X the right to appeal the PCN if she considers it was wrongly issued. I consider this provides a suitable remedy for Mrs X’s complaint so I will not pursue it further. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/15-017-156

Hello I am hoping to receive some initial guidance/advice on the following situation in relation to my daughters nursey place. In brief summary; We were hoping to secure a place at a nursey, where our son had spent 2 very pleasant years before moving to reception at school proper. We received and she signed the registration forms as attached. ( I hope) As you may, in reviewing attached, see, Jxx, as a lecturer, was unsure what her hours would be and was happy, after discussions with a deputy manager, that the situation was flexible and we could amend the dates time in due course to suit our needs. As it happened the number of days reduced from 3 to 2. We contacted the Nursery immediately on hearing this. We were astonished that they were going to charge for 3 days for the T&C's 3 month notice period. We attempted to negotiate with no success. I can upload this correspondence if it will help? As the uncooperative and entirely inflexible attitude of the nursery had destroyed our original high standing of the establishment, we have decided to withdraw our daughter completely. We are now being told that we will have to pay in full anyway for the sessions we will not use for a 3 month notice period. This amounts to somewhere near £1000. on top of the deposit! This all appears a little unfair. Particularly in noting the following; we have not both signed the form the paragraph about making every effort to accommodate changes the fact the T&C's are separate The fact that we have even noted on the form the level of uncertainty the fact that we were assured a change in dates due course would be accommodated they are apparently oversubscribed and the place will most likely be filled anyway In any case I’d love to hear thoughts and advice where possible Many thanks Juzz

Hi all. Today I received a letter detailing my arrears on my mortgage. Now Kensington have recently took over my mortgage from GE Money. GE sent a final letter to us a short while ago showing arrears of around £8000 (bad I know) but now Kensington have sent me a letter (received today) showing : Payment Arrears : £8946 Other : 0 Insurance Related Charges : 0 Fees and Security Related Charges : £4496 Total arrears : £13442 Does anyone know what the hell FEES AND SECURITY RELATED CHARGES are and can they add that much to an already heavy debt/burden? I dont know what this fee is for and they do not explain anywhere as to what is it for? As for as Im concerned, my arrears are £8946 and no more! We are paying are regular monthly payments as normal but trying to add a little extra each month to get the arrears down. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Foxtons is facing an £80m “class action” lawsuit that if successful could force the giant estate agency to pay back hundreds of pounds in fees and charges to every tenant who has rented a property from them. Michael Green, whose law firm CaseHub is behind the group action, has obtained legal opinions from senior barristers that Foxtons’ fees – such as a £420 adminstration charge, £300 for name changes and £165 for checking out a property – could be illegal under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and its successor the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. Green estimates that the real cost for administration and references should be around £55, and a renewal fee should be no more than £10. But if the claim is successful, Green says it will not just be tenants of Foxtons that will benefit, but millions more people as all letting agency fees charged to tenants could be challenged. In total, he estimates that tenants in England and Wales pay moe than £300m a year in fees to letting agents and could potentially claw back £2bn paid over the previous six years. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jun/25/foxtons-fees-80m-lawsuit-tenants-legal-fight

Hi As the subject suggests, can anyone please tell me what is the time frame in which to start (or complete if required) a case to reclaim mortgage fees etc from acenden? thanks

Good morning, I had a bank account with natwest bank. I have recently noticed on my credit file that the account defaulted on the 31/10/2011 for £831. I have now spoken with natwest and they informed that i was £1.41 in credit and a payment of £20 tried to leave my account. Because there was not enough funds i have accumulated this £831 in unarranged overdraft fees. They have offered me an offer of £332 to settle the balance. Now i am at a crossroad as this is affecting me getting a mortgage but i do not want to pay this amount.

I am seeking some advice, I signed up for a gym membership in January 2015 under a 12 month contract in GymEtc Preston, Lancashire. In May 2015 I had to move back to Northern Ireland I asked a receptionist at the gym if I could cancel my membership but they told me I couldn't as it is a contract I took their word for it. As I was moving and had no job to go to I had to cancel the direct debit. I cancelled the direct debit in May 2015, my last payment was 1st May 2015. Harlands/CRS act on behalf of the gym (which I wasn't aware of at the time of signing up) they then started sending me letters chasing me for money - a total of £410. I agreed to pay them £15 a month beginning October 2015 and because I was paying instalments they charged £2.50 per installment which then added another £100 onto the balance making it £510. It wasn't until recently I started looking into this more and reading reviews on Harlands/CRS, which aren't good as all. I had already paid 4 installments of £25 to the gym before I cancelled the direct debit. If I had of stayed with the gym at £25 a month I would a paid a total annual cost of £300. I then called Harlands/CRS to see why the amount was so high to which they said there were 9 months of payments left on the contract totalling £225. Also 2 x £25 for missed payments, a debt recovery fee of 36% which was £99 and £36 for tracing me to my new address. The only terms and conditions of the gym mentioned on their website are; - If you fail to pay any monies due under this agreement or if any Direct Debit is returned unpaid or any cheque is returned unpaid or if any other form of payment is not honoured for whatever reason , you shall pay us on demand an administration fee of £25 (which we require to cover our costs of seeking to pursue such payment from you). - If you fail to pay any amount due under this agreement for a period of more than thirty days , then we may pass the debt to a third party company for collection. The reasonable and direct costs incurred in employing the third party company will be borne by you including costs in tracing you if you have changed your address without telling us. In the terms and conditions it states: CANCELLATION •Relocation: This agreement can be cancelled in the event that your new permanent address I s more than 15 miles away from the facility upon receipt of a copy utility bill or bank statement showing the new address. I have since spoken to the gym and they have waived all their fees and said they would backdate any debt agency fees for my relocation to the month I moved (May 2015). I have already paid Harlands/CRS £105 and they are still wanting £99 for their fees. Are the fees they are charging enforcable by law from what is mentioned in the contract terms and conditions? I contacted the FCA to see what they could do and it turns out that Harlands/CRS are no longer regulated by the FCA so they can't do anything about it, however they were regulated by the FCA at the time I became a member of the gym. They said any rules would only apply if the agreement with the gym was a consumer credit agreement, which I emailed the gym and they have replied saying it is a consumer credit agreement. I then complained to the Financial Ombudsman as stated in my terms and conditions that I could do so: "CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (”THE ACT”) You have a right to complain in relation to consumer credit matters to The Financial Ombudsman Service. CRS sent me a letter to confirm the receipt of the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. They also added, Please be aware that the contract you entered into is not a credit agreement and therefore outside of their jurisdiction to deal with. We can confirm the administration fees of £25 are stated in your contract. It is also stated you would be liable for our debt recovery costs and trace fees. In view of this we maintain that all fees are valid and legal." They have attached a copy of terms and conditions which are Harlands terms and conditions and not the gyms, which is not what I signed up to originally. Then they have also increased the balance from the agreed £99 to £212.50. The issue is no longer regarding the gym as they have waived their fees from the month i moved back home to Northern Ireland. The gym have told me it is a credit agreement, Harlands/CRS have told me it's not. I have already paid them £105 and they are still wanting £99, plus for paying that back by instalments another £2.50 per instalment charge would be added!!! I don't want anything going on my credit file and definitely not a CCJ/DEFAULT. What should I do? ***PLEASE NOTE: ANY PHONE CALLS I HAVE MADE TO HARLANDS/CRS HAVE BEEN RECORDED ON MY PHONE SO I HAVE PROOF OF CONVERSATIONS MENTIONED*** I would be so grateful of any help I can get. Thank you in advance

Hi all. Is there a time limit on attempting to reclaim packaged account fees? I was charged for a packaged account with HSBC between November 2008 and December 2010. They continued to charge the fee even when the account went into an unauthorised overdraft and closed due to default in December 2010. I believe I took the account having been told it would mean I could have an overdraft - which I never actually got. It also provided breakdown cover but I do not drive. I do not know what the other benefits were - I was suffering from mental illness at the time. The delay on me looking into this is due to my illness - I only obtained statements at the end of April this year. Over £350 of packaged fees, but most of them are over 6 years old. Does a time bar apply?

Since the introduction of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, it has been very interesting to observe the number of forum posts (here and on all other websites) where debtors (and indeed regular forum posters) consider that in cases where a debtor is identified as being ''vulnerable', that the local authority (or creditor) should be obliged to recall the account from an enforcement agent.....and remove all bailiff fees. In the majority of cases, the fees under discussion will be £310, consisting of a Compliance Fee of £75 (applied when sending the Notice of Enforcement) and an Enforcement Fee of £235 (applied when an enforcement agent attends the debtors premises in person). In the following post I have outlined my opinion on the above.

I have lurked around this sites before looking for advice relating to my problem and have found it very helpful. My problem is related to my gym and their agency responsible for debiting money Harlands. I see that they are often mentioned here. When signing up for the gym, gym staff signed me up without letting me read through the contract. I knew I would not be there for 12 months, but they assured me I could cancel it provided I prove I have relocated which seemed reasonable. Extra charges were of course not mentioned. I did not actually see terms and conditions as one of the members accepted terms for me in a hurry. They never mailed me the contract either, I had to obtain it from their website. One of the terms does state that upon failing to pay Harlands will charge me an additional £25 for the effort of having to find me. I changed addresses and was not able to view their letters. I did not know why they were overcharging me. I canceled the payment each time as every month they tried to take the increased sum rather than the normal gym fee. So each month was stacked up. Each payment was more than 2x of the gym fee on its own. I emailed them initially thinking I will be dealing with reasonable people, back then I didn't know their business model was ripping people off that don't know any better. I have pointed out to them that under Consumer Protection Law 2015 62 Requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair (1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer. PART 2 UNFAIR TERMS SCHEDULE 2 Section 63 CONSUMER CONTRACT TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR 6 A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. By my interpretation requiring me to pay more than double for a “administration charge” would be qualify as disproportionately high and hence that term would not be legally binding. I have emailed them saying that I am more than happy to pay what I owe to the gym, but will not pay the charges. Response was, I am legal bound to pay them. At first I tried reasoning with them that I will pay a single late charge as I do like using that gym. This was refused, had no reply from the gym. I had emailed the gym saying that I am unable to use the gym because of the problem Harlands have with me. I am canceling my contract with them as I can’t pay for service that isn’t provided. Again I said to them that I am willing to send them a cheque for what gym fees I owe them and deal with Harlands separately. Every reply I received since then from Harlands was that I signed contract and every contract is legally binding, ALWAYS. Even if a term in it would require me to fight the queen, sell my blood to them or anything else which can’t be a legal clause. Right now the sum I owe them went up to about £300 pounds, it will increase more once they pass on my case to their in house goons “CRS”. The language almost tries to hint at compound interest. My questions is am on the fair grounds for gym cancellation and what power do CSR/Harlands actually wield? Have they ever actually took anyone to court or not as they know they can not win. I am ok with being harassed with emails for next few years. I just want to know where am I standing was this actually to go to court. Thank you . Sorry if I have misspelled or confused some legal term, this isn’t an area I know much about.

For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'. Yesterday, the Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice; Shaliest Vara, clarified the position regarding enforcement agents fees....the 'pro rata' distribution of payments.... and most importantly, how courts deal with direct payments (after a warrant has been past to the enforcement agency. A copy of his statement features in my second post. By way of background, the following is a copy of a post that I made earlier this month: In the past couple of weeks I have received reports of six cases where a locksmith had been used to enforce a debt for magistrate court fines after a debtor had relied upon misinformation on the internet and believed that paying the amount only of the court fine (minus bailiff fees) to the court (as opposed to the enforcement company) would mean that the warrant had been satisfied. In four cases, payment had been made to the court on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (when bailiff fees of just £75 had been added). In the remaining two cases, payment had been made following an enforcement agent agent visit (fee of £235 had been applied) In each case, the person had relied upon the following statements featured on social media sites (with close links to the Freeman on the Land movement). The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980. Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged". In each debtors case, after making payment to the Magistrates Court they had received notification from the court that their payment had been forwarded to the enforcement company so that the company could properly deduct their Compliance fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation. By following the inaccurate advice, each debtor had incurred substantial additional fees. In four cases, an enforcement fee of £235 had been added and in each case locksmith fee had also been applied.

Every day, without fail, I receive an enquiry about an enforcement agent charging 'multiple fees' and in fact yesterday, two enquiries were received on this forum on the same subject. Clearly there is a need to provide guidance on this subject. In 2014, the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 (and other supporting legislation) came into effect and introduced significant changes to previous bailiff enforcement. The situation now is that when the enforcement agent receives instructions from the creditor (commonly; the Magistrates Court (in the case of court fines) or local authority (in the case of council tax arrears) the enforcement company are under a legal obligation to send to the debtor a Notice of Enforcement. This notice must identity the debt and invite the debtor to submit a payment proposal by the date set out in the Notice. This period of time is referred to in the regulations as being the 'Compliance Stage'. It is important to note that when the Notice of Enforcement is sent, a statutory 'Compliance fee' of £75 will be added to the debt. If full payment is not made, or a payment arrangement set up by the date given, the account will then be referred to an enforcement agent. He is then able to make a personal visit to the debtors property for the purpose of 'taking control of goods'. Once the account reaches this stage....it is much more difficulty to get a payment arrangement set up. It is only at this stage of enforcement that the important subject of 'multiple fees' comes into effect. Prior to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 being introduced, it was sadly the case that the previous regulations allowed bailiffs to charge 'multiple' fees when enforcing more than one debt at the same time.This led to dreadful instances of injustice and in particular, with debtors who had one or more penalty charge notices. To avoid these situations being repeated, the government imposed a condition that 'multiple fees' cannot be applied....in certain circumstances. The actual legislation can be found under Item 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/11/made?view=plain However, particular attention needs to be given to Item 11(b) as this is where most of the confusion about 'multiple charges' arises.

Hi, Please can you advise? In March I had a couple of in depth conversations with a programme advisor for DPG - a company that offers training in HR. In these convos I covered much territory including what if I don't pass (they claim you won't or your money back), what if I lose my job and can't pay etc (they allow for mitigating circumstances). One of my questions was 'what if I just decided to drop out because it wasn't for me/wasn't convenient at that point? Is it that you lose whatever money you've paid?' and I was told that is indeed the case. As a result of these calls I signed up for a 10 month course costing £4200 and I paid a deposit of almost £800. In return they sent me a mini iPad as a welcome gift. They provide no other materials other than access to the online training content. Within days I had my life ripped apart. My fiancee, the love of my life, ran off with my best mate and I am in pieces. I've suffered insomnia, weight loss, violent outbursts,spontaneous bursting into tears, paranoia and truly feel I am losing my mind. Seriously, I am on the verge of cracking up. I tried to struggle on, bury my head in the course to distract myself but it was no good. After just 4 hours use of the training programme I called to say I was leaving. The person on the phone asked for details and I broke down in tears on the phone as I told the whole story. To my surprise she said that as the 14 day cool off window has passed that I am liable for the full fee of the course. This is when I was expecting a sizeable refund of the £800 already paid! At no point in my conversations with programme advisor who answered all my questions - who also took my payment - was there any mention of the 14 day cooling off period which I would like to think would be required as they are effectively distance sellers and their product was purchased over the phone. She said mitigating circumstances may result in a 'partial decrease' and would speak to her boss. I told her that she's had £800 for just 3 weeks access to learning material and just 4 hours was used and that £800 is more than enough. I also said that charging the full fee is scandalous and immoral - not the way a HR-orientated company should operate. As they are a business I made the financial argument that they can keep the £800 as it will be a huge profit margin for them. I was asked to put everything in an email so I did. The programme director replied, ingratiatingly sounding caring and concerned yet and offered the option to defer for the - get this - 'admin fee' of £495 or that I can leave altogether, at which point there is nothing he can do and the full fees must be paid in order to be "consistent and fair as a business". Annoyingly he then said that he can waive all fees if I provide medical documentation stating I cannot continue with the course - which means he can waive the fees if he so wishes! My life is in tatters! My social circle is gone as many knew what was going on behind my back and my so-called mate works in HR which means I have no desire to go that route anymore. I pointed out that I feel trapped and cornered at a time I am most vulnerable (and about to go off work with stress) and that the only options he is leaving me with is to deteriorate further to the point where medical intervention is required (which is sadistic) . Pre-course they mentioned mitigating circumstances - isn't what I'm going through 'mitigating'? He replied saying he understands and doesn't want to add to my stress (ha!) but that he wants to help me (really?) and be fair as a business (by charging £3500 for services not yet rendered). Please help! This cannot be legal, surely? Companies are prevented from applying excessive parking charges because the amount demanded is disproportionate to the loss to their business. What is fair and reasonable about anything they are doing? What is fair and reasonable about basically saying "I can waive the fees if I want to.........but I'm not going to"?

Hi My wife and I recently made, and had accepted, an offer to buy a property. The first line of the particulars said "A most spacious five bedroom detached family home with approximately 3,000 sq ft of living accommodation..." There was a plan of the property later in the particulars but no dimensions on it. There were dimensions on a room by room basis included as part of the description of individual rooms. I had a full survey done. That states "The overall internal floor area extends to around 2085 sq ft". We have withdrawn from the sale principally because the property is a lot smaller than we thought. At a minimum I would like to recover my lost survey fee. The selling agents are members of the Property Ombudsman Scheme. Worth going to them? Or straight to small claims court? I have some experience of the small claims court and am comfortable bringing claim on my own, and I am thinking probably is worth going straight to court. What is basis of the claim? This looks like a clear breach of Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations but can I claim my losses under those regs or is it best to go under general law of misrepresentation? On this - I was induced to enter into a contract with the surveyor by the misleading particulars - is that what I need to establish to succeed ? Put another way does it matter that I did not have any contract with the estate agents themselves? Any thoughts gratefully received. Many thanks

The countries expert on bailiff law; John Kruse has written in his latest Bulletin about the important subject of bailiff fees when debtors make payment to the creditor (i.e. Magistrate Court, local authority etc). This is a subject that has been discussed often on the forum and thankfully, with the regulations now having been in place for two years, most local authorities understand that if a direct payment is received from a debtor after the account has been forwarded to the enforcement agent, that the Compliance fee of £75 needs to be deducted at source and the balance apportioned on a pro rata basis in line with regulations. The position with Magistrate Court fines is very much simpler. If a debtor makes a direct payment to the court (either in person or on-line), after a warrant of control has been issued, all courts write to the debtor to advise that the entire payment has been forwarded to the enforcement agent so that they (the EA) can deduct their fees in line with legislation. A extract from John Kruse's excellent article is copied in the next post: PS: An detailed explanation of how direct payments are allocated and the pro rata distribution can be read here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453047-Bailiff-enforcement-Setting-up-a-payment-arrangement-and-whether-you-can-pay-the-court-or-the-council-direct