Right of access

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

I've avoided getting involved in this intentionally, and I don't intend to become involved now. It is a theoretical discussion as times have moved on. I'm happy with my view of the notice.

For anyone reading this post, there is always the chance they may make the mistake of thinking this is current.

THIS IS THE POSITION AS IT IS NOW:

Debtors need to be aware that if they are encouraged to 'deploy a NORIROA' (whether at the entrance to their property OR sent to the council or whoever) then this could well lead to a bailiff / EA attending their property and applying a fee of £235.

I'll gracefully back out again now, but just thought it worth throwing in the reminder just in case. Better safe than sorry and all that .........

Just for clarity, are you saying that not deploying the notice will avert the £235 fee?

What are your thoughts on sending a notice after receiving an enforcement notice that doesn't contain the information laid out in Par 7 of the TCG regs?

I've read a couple of posts (possibly on here) when Par 7 hasn't been adhered to.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

In that case, you might want to learn what the difference is between the two :tinysmile_twink_t2:

I don't imagine that the difference has changed since i first encountered both many years ago., makes no difference in the present context however I will explain them to you if you like

[Wombats]

Re: Right of access

I'm saying exactly what I wrote to clarify as things are now. That included the words, "I don't intend to become involved now ....."

All pretty clear.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

Just for clarity, are you saying that not deploying the notice will avert the £235 fee?

What are your thoughts on sending a notice after receiving an enforcement notice that doesn't contain the information laid out in Par 7 of the TCG regs?

I've read a couple of posts (possibly on here) when Par 7 hasn't been adhered to.

Why do you feel that you must persist in this nonsense ?

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

The way you posted makes it appear that the debtor will incur the £235 if they utilise the notice.

With respect, that is anything but "pretty clear" If anything, an unsuspecting debtor could be forgiven for thinking that not getting involved in the notice will somehow help in avoiding the £235 fee.

In the interests of being "pretty clear", I think it should be noted that the notice will have no bearing on the £235 fee either way. It is crucial that the debtor contacte the EA upon receipt of the NOE.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

To make simple, these notices have no value whatsoever in any attempt to stop bailiff enforcement. (never have)

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

The way you posted makes it appear that the debtor will incur the £235 if they utilise the notice.

With respect, that is anything but "pretty clear" If anything, an unsuspecting debtor could be forgiven for thinking that not getting involved in the notice will somehow help in avoiding the £235 fee.

In the interests of being "pretty clear", I think it should be noted that the notice will have no bearing on the £235 fee either way. It is crucial that the debtor contacte the EA upon receipt of the NOE.

Perhaps it is just not clear to you, perhaps I can clarify. Sending the notice instead of addressing the first warning letter will result in a visit DEPITE the notice, the visit will incur the fee.

Perfectly clear ot me

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

Perhaps it is just not clear to you, perhaps I can clarify. Sending the notice instead of addressing the first warning letter will result in a visit DEPITE the notice, the visit will incur the fee.

Perfectly clear ot me

Perfectly clear to you?

Theres a first.

[Amethyst]

Re: Right of access

Thread closed being as you don't seem to be able to discuss it without making personal digs. Couple of posts removed.

Apologies to the OP.