Jump to content

wonky100

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

38 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Does not know the debtors current bank account impact third party debt orders? I'm assuming it would but if you could advise that would be appreciated. Thanks
  2. I'll google Third Party Debt Order (never heard of it). His bank account has been closed down, so I don't have his latest bank account details.
  3. Thanks for the response. He's not a sole trader, he has a partner (in crime, they're definitely scammers). Not a limited company. However, I transferred the money to his private account so the debt is against 1 "builder" (scammer) only. He doesn't own his own home (I've checked the land registry or whatever it is) but he has a car (not a great one) and I know that he has a caravan (just don't know where it is (yet, although not sure how I'll find out)). So he has the means to pay site fees. I also know that he's continuing to scam people out of money. So he has money coming in, just not legitimately. I've also been in touch with my MP who said he'd written to Parliament about the issues of scammers but that was last October and he's ignored any further emails. I've also reported him (not the MP) to HMRC for tax avoidance. I've contacted Citizens Advice Bureau who seem, online at least, to be happy to offer guidance on how people can avoid paying their debit but are not willing to offer any advice if you're owed money. That's legal assistance and they don't receive funding for that! Whilst, I'd like my money back (or some of it), I just want to now cause as much grief as I possibly can and if I can, stop him from ripping other people off.
  4. Been a while seen I've been here. Last time was "builder" troubles and here I am again. You'd have thought I'd have learnt! Paid £6,600 to a "builder" for materials for a garage conversion by bank transfer. Any work was to be paid for once the work was completed. No materials arrived and "builder" gave us the runaround. I contacted my bank and the Police. My bank contacted the receiving bank who put a hold on "builders" account. "Builder" delivered £449 of materials, ripped the windows and doors out, laid a few shoddy rows of bricks and took photos of evidence of work and that they intended to do the job at the advices of their bank. Bank account was unfrozen and we didn't see them again. The bank account was subsequently cancelled due to not complying with the banks terms and conditions. Spent so much time talking to the Police but they eventually decided it was a civil matter as they'd done some work and there was no evidence that they wanted to permanently deprive. Police advised that he advised them that if we sued him and we won, he would pay. Contacted Trading Standards who didn't want to know. Said it was a 1 off incident. However, following my negative feedback on social media, I now know it isn't and I know of others who have since contacted Trading Standards. Banks didn't want to know and a complaint has been made to the FCA. My complaint was rejected (I'm in touch with someone who has received 50% back from their bank) and has been appealed (I'd used CEL Solicitors originally who were a waste of time and have appealed with the FCA directly and with additional info). I also made a complaint against the Police and the complaint has been upheld and the Police need to review the case again, although I suspect they'll just fob me off again. Not heard from the Police since they agreed to review 4 weeks ago. In the meantime I issued online small claims court proceedings. The "builder" contacted us to ask us to drop the case as if we didn't they would file for bankruptcy. So they clearly received the court papers. Refused to drop the case but he said he would pay us £200 a month. WhatsApp messages were exchanged. He never responded to the claim so judgement was made in our favour by default. I then applied for a CCJ. The CCJ has since been returned as "undeliverable". I'm pretty certain that this would have just been sent normal mail and not signed and would therefore have been pushed through his letterbox. The same letterbox that the court papers were sent to and which he acknowledged to us he had received. According to the correspondence received from the courts, the CCJ remains registered with the Registry Trust Ltd, so it could still cause him some issues. Not sure what he thinks he's gaining by returning the CCJ notification. He's told us he's no longer working due to disabilities but I've been contacted by someone who paid him money this year and have seen other negative reviews in April and May. So he's clearly still scamming people. So my question is, should I appoint a bailiff or a debt collector? I'm pretty sure he's still in the same house and is just playing games. Any thoughts / suggestions would be appreciated. Debt now stands at £7,650.29. Thanks in advance.
  5. That's my worry. As each party is usually liable for their own costs in the small claim court but not at Fast Track or Multi Track. I've been to through the small claims and fast track processes previously and was hoping to keep it to the small claims due to it being more informal and the cost implications. I was going to keep the claim amount lowish. It's not about the money, it's the principal and the council being accountable. Almost 7 months after my accident I am still having ongoing tests to establish the extent of my injuries and have been told that I will never have full movement in my left arm following the injuries
  6. I have photographic evidence of the pothole, witnesses to the accident and medical evidence re the injuries sustained. However I need to prove that the council were negligent. They inspected the road in May 18 and identified that the hole was big enough to warrant repair. So they can prove that they have a schedule for inspection. That's in the Council's favour. They need to show that they have an adequate system in place for the reporting of potholes. This, in my opinion, is debatable but I'd need to get a judge to agree with me. They need to show that they have an adequate system in place to repair potholes which are large enough to warrant repair. I need to get to the bottom of this. They identified that the pothole was large enough to warrant fixing but did they fix it? They haven't advised. If they didn't fix it, they could be held liable. However if they did fix it following their inspection in May 18 was the repair reasonable? If it was repaired why were the potholes present in Feb 19? Although to add confusion, they state there were no potholes in November 18 when the road was inspected. So I need to get to the bottom of the repairs. It doesn't matter that they accept that a pothole caused the accident and injury, I need to prove negligence. I'm not in a position to issue proceedings but just wanted to know whether this type of claim could be made in the small claims court.
  7. "In order to question the validity of their pre-accident inspection we would need to be able to prove that the defect was in situ at that time, would have been deep enough to require intervention and that it was missed. Whilst I take on board your comments, I consider it likely that a Judge at trial would prefer to rely on the inspection records and dismiss your claim." We know from the inspection report that the pothole was present in May 18 and was scheduled to be fixed, ie it was deep enough to require intervention in accordance with the Council's own rules / guidelines. What we don't know is whether it was fixed and if so whether the repairs were reasonable. I would want to know this prior to pursing any action.
  8. I'm waiting on copy correspondence but they've denied liability, as you would expect. I'm told that they've not disputed that there was a pothole which caused my injury (& which they have subsequently repaired) but they are maintaining a section 58 defence. I know from their inspection report that they were aware of the pothole in May 2018 and that it should have been repaired. They say it was but I haven't been provided with any evidence. Maybe the solicitor has it but hasn't provided it yet. However, I do know from the inspection report that there are other potholes which they were aware of which weren't repaired. My solicitor said it'll be difficult to prove the size of the hole at the time of the accident however I have photos and they have confirmed in writing that it was large enough to warrant repair and have subsequently repaired it. I'm also told that it'll be difficult to prove that they were negligent but I'm coming at this from the view that they were aware of it in May 18 & I had my accident in Feb 19. I want them to show that a) they fixed it and b) it was fixed adequately. If it was fixed adequately why had it reappeared in Feb 19? Thanks
  9. Thanks Andy The council are already aware. I did have a no win no fee solicitor but he won't proceed on this basis.
  10. Hello Hopefully the title sums up what I want to know. I'm considering taking legal action against my local council for injury sustained due to a pothole. The council have not disputed that there was a pothole and that it caused my injury but I'm told that I will have an uphill battle to prove that the pothole was sufficient enough to warrant repair (although it has subsequently been repaired) and that the pothole was missed during inspections. I know for a fact (in writing) that they were aware of the pothole in May 2018 and that it warranted repair. But I do not know if it was repaired. I had my accident in February 2019. If the pothole was repaired, I need to prove that it wasn't repaired sufficiently. I can prove that the council have not repaired other potholes reported to them effectively but need to do more digging to get to the bottom of the pothole in question. But what I'd like to know in the first instance is what court system I need to use? Can I use the small claims court? Or is that just for commercial claims? Of course if anyone wants to add any other comments that would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
  11. Thanks for the comments. Honestly, I'm not worrying. I'd just like to understand why the charge is not enforceable. Thanks
  12. Photo of signage attached. As this is a TfgM car park does Byelaw 14 apply? I'd never heard of this till yesterday and have done a little reading. Byelaw 14 is part of the Railway Byelaws but according to the signage the car park is for tram users only not rail users. However, signage in the car park does state tram and trail station this way, with an arrow, which would indicate that train users use it. Also, if it does apply, not sure how this helps. Sorry if I'm being stupid. Thanks in advance again Metrolink Rochdale signate.pdf
  13. Sorry, but how do I add a photo of the t&cs which are on display? Will also scan the charge notice when I get to work But don't know how to do that either
  14. Morning According to TfgM it's owned by them and Care Parking monitor the car park. I've had a quick look online and can't find the full t&vs, so I've emails TfgM requesting a copy. I can only find info regarding overnight parking. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...