• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Default on walking possession

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Default on walking possession

    Haha agreed......they are like slugs...I hate slugs

    Comment


    • Re: Default on walking possession

      You will know you are on to a winner if the letter about everything from Chandlers starts "Once upon a time ......" as most of what they write will be derived from Aesop's Fables of Bailiff Stories. Let us know what they say and we will help you sort it.

      Comment


      • Re: Default on walking possession

        Originally posted by ploddertom View Post
        You will know you are on to a winner if the letter about everything from Chandlers starts "Once upon a time ......" as most of what they write will be derived from Aesop's Fables of Bailiff Stories. Let us know what they say and we will help you sort it.

        I use to love that book as a girl. I agree, they aren't going to accept it, but it's the council who will decide, they have to prove the levies where improper.
        I shall keep you all up to date. I'll give it a week if no response I'll call Simon back to find out if they've spoken to chandler.

        Comment


        • Re: Default on walking possession

          Originally posted by ploddertom View Post
          most of what they write will be derived from Aesop's Fables of Bailiff Stories.
          Are you sure that wasn't written by the Brothers Grimm?

          Comment


          • Re: Default on walking possession

            Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
            Are you sure that wasn't written by the Brothers Grimm?
            I thought Hans Christian Anderson may have been a contributor, with collaboration from Enid Blyton

            Comment


            • Re: Default on walking possession

              Originally posted by bluebottle View Post
              Chelle... Buttholes are useful, unlike Chandlers who are full of what normally emits from said orifice.
              capita eorum sunt plenis stercorum?

              Comment


              • Re: Default on walking possession

                Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
                In all probability, yes, Cloggy. However, the same could be said of Capita, also.
                Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

                Comment


                • Re: Default on walking possession

                  Originally posted by bluebottle View Post
                  In all probability, yes, Cloggy. However, the same could be said of Capita, also.
                  Wasn't the name "Capita" derived from capita nostra sunt plenis stercorum? msl:

                  Comment


                  • Re: Default on walking possession

                    Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
                    Wasn't the name "Capita" derived from capita nostra sunt plenis stercorum? msl:
                    msl:
                    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Default on walking possession

                      Why not call them Capite mauris? Chandlers unfortunately are another bailiffco that thinks it has the powers of Judge Dredd. It is our task as Beagles to show Capita Chandlers and other bailiffs that they are as accountable to the law as everyone else

                      Comment


                      • Re: Default on walking possession

                        For sure, BB.

                        I know that Cloggy made a comment on another thread about my mentioning the Human Rights Act 1998, but in the case of Council Tax and the manner in which it is enforced and manner in which Liability Orders are obtained, the HRA is a useful cudgel with which to beat the courts and local authorities. Section 6 of the Act makes it quite clear that it is unlawful for a public authority to do anything which breaches or seeks to deprive a person of their rights under the Act. The term "public authority" includes commercial entities carrying out the functions of a public authority, government agencies and departments and local authorities. It includes private-sector bailiff companies collecting CT arrears on behalf of local authorities. My gut-feeling is that when the private-sector bailiff companies local authorities engage to collect CT arrears either realise the HRA applies to them or fall foul of Section 6 et seq, they may well give public debt contracts a wide berth, albeit that it is a cash cow for them.
                        Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Default on walking possession

                          BB a great many organisations who contract with government both national and local, are unaware or indeed choose to ignore their duty and liability under HRA and HASWA Crapita andoits subsidiaries are a prime example and need a kicking.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Default on walking possession

                            Having read this thread and how it stands at the moment for the OP after their councillors have been informed of the actions of this Bailiff I wonder if other councillors at other councils were told each time a rogue Bailiff gets involved that something might be done to stop the problems we read so much about with CT collection.


                            Councils are overseen by Elected Councillors supposedly acting for the people it should be their job to keep the Council collection departments and their contractors operating both within in the law ans in a way where those who can pay pay and those in financial trouble are allowed to pay with AOEs or AOBs thus avoiding bailiffs who care only for money no matter where it comes from.

                            It makes no sense to turn a debt of say 100 pounds into 300 with fees when there was so little chance of getting the first debt and surely even more problems paying fees.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Default on walking possession

                              Agreed Wales, only problem is a whole industry has grown up around it, and the situation will only become worse after April when the new fees kick in, as in £380 ish including VAT, at the first knock, as Mr Osborne and the MOJ have seen fit to make the fees plus VAT so they attract an extra 20% on top. BlueBottle's predictions of civil unrest will become quite likely around September when people are harassed mercilessly by bailiffs for the counbcil tax arrears they wouldn't have had which are caused entirely by the benefit changes.

                              As for the interpleaders, the bottom will fall out of the secondhand car market as bailiffs tow and sell cars at will whether they belong to a debtor or not, can't afford the interpleader Mr third party tough bailiff has your car. Presumably if you see a bailiff after your car for someone elses debt and you show him proof he will have to stop without need for interpleader, but if as is usual he just levies and tows so car goes missing it will need the interpleader, or would providing documents to the bailiff still be sufficient. That is not clear.
                              Last edited by bizzybob; 11th January 2014, 11:21:AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Default on walking possession

                                Originally posted by bizzybob View Post
                                As for the interpleaders, the bottom will fall out of the secondhand car market as bailiffs tow and sell cars at will whether they belong to a debtor or not, can't afford the interpleader Mr third party tough bailiff has your car. Presumably if you see a bailiff after your car for someone elses debt and you show him proof he will have to stop without need for interpleader, but if as is usual he just levies and tows so car goes missing it will need the interpleader, or would providing documents to the bailiff still be sufficient. That is not clear.
                                In my opinion, it is simply legalised theft - or quasi-legalised theft!

                                What would happen if the owner of a motor car, being unable to afford the cost of the damn fool interpleader, issued a money claim against the council instead?

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X