Tweet
While reading 'outlawlgo's' thread re illegal council charges on
Councils unlawfully charging Liability Order and Summons costs at the same time - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum
and the link there
We shouldnt let our councils cheat us out of £25 billion a year - Telegraph
I noticed this in the 'comments'
MacK
10/11/2011 06:54 PM
The article misses an additional stunt - the "date of issue" on letters. To explain Capita (which likes this trick) sends pre-franked envelopes with reminder and other letters. Curiously, those letters always seem to arrive 10+ days after the date of issue. Of course the date of issue is meaningless - the legal question is the date on which the letter was posted - placed in the mail - and curiously, the Capita letters never seem to have a postal frank from a meter or anything else, so it is impossible to determine when they were mailed -- all there is is the mysteriously long period between the date of issue and the delivery date - and interestingly enough Capita turns out to be imposing all sorts of late fees, charges for collection etc. There is something odd going on because when you put it to the Capita manager, having gone up the chain, there is a sudden collapse of "stout party."
Capita (or as lawyers call it Crapita) works for many councils including Westminster. In my personal experience they "double dipped" on a direct debit in Westminster and I have a few neighbours with the same experience - good luck getting the money back.... hence I pay monthly.
One of Capita's other favourite tricks, which I have encountered giving pro bono legal advice is the distant court - so for example all Westminster cases are filed in a county court 2 hours from Westminster - and the only apparent reason is to make challenges burdensome. Few people know that they can get the matter transferred to their nearest court. Why councils are not required to file in a court within the council's jurisdiction I do not know - this applies to all sorts of collection actions - Capita will always select an inconvenient court for the defendant.
Which also has implications re, amongst other things, CCA default notices, etc.
Any comments?
Councils unlawfully charging Liability Order and Summons costs at the same time - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum
and the link there
We shouldnt let our councils cheat us out of £25 billion a year - Telegraph
I noticed this in the 'comments'
MacK
10/11/2011 06:54 PM
The article misses an additional stunt - the "date of issue" on letters. To explain Capita (which likes this trick) sends pre-franked envelopes with reminder and other letters. Curiously, those letters always seem to arrive 10+ days after the date of issue. Of course the date of issue is meaningless - the legal question is the date on which the letter was posted - placed in the mail - and curiously, the Capita letters never seem to have a postal frank from a meter or anything else, so it is impossible to determine when they were mailed -- all there is is the mysteriously long period between the date of issue and the delivery date - and interestingly enough Capita turns out to be imposing all sorts of late fees, charges for collection etc. There is something odd going on because when you put it to the Capita manager, having gone up the chain, there is a sudden collapse of "stout party."
Capita (or as lawyers call it Crapita) works for many councils including Westminster. In my personal experience they "double dipped" on a direct debit in Westminster and I have a few neighbours with the same experience - good luck getting the money back.... hence I pay monthly.
One of Capita's other favourite tricks, which I have encountered giving pro bono legal advice is the distant court - so for example all Westminster cases are filed in a county court 2 hours from Westminster - and the only apparent reason is to make challenges burdensome. Few people know that they can get the matter transferred to their nearest court. Why councils are not required to file in a court within the council's jurisdiction I do not know - this applies to all sorts of collection actions - Capita will always select an inconvenient court for the defendant.
Which also has implications re, amongst other things, CCA default notices, etc.
Any comments?
