Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Rossdales bailiffs-Liers, tried to remove car which is not ours!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5616 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi. I'm new to this site so just bare with me!! I have had the day from hell today and i don't know how many times i have been reduced to tears from the dreaded Rossendales. 14 days ago we were contacted about a council tax debt which we had forgotten all about as they had been chasing us at a very old address, even though the council were fully aware we had moved, by a Rossendale Bailiff, to call her ignorant would be polite. Obviously we did not let her into the property but she stood at the front door demanding over 700.00 there and then. Like everyone else i accept my debts but i am a 'can't pay' and not a 'won't pay' so we offered full payment of one of the debts and then offered to settle the second debt with a p.a. She point blank refused our offer and then advised she would be putting a Levy charge on a car which was not ours!! When she left i called the dreaded call centre (was on hold for over an hour!) and asked why this was. They advised me she can make an assumption that a car parked on the opposite side of a busy terraced road no where near our property was therefore ours! We found this very funny seen as though neither myself or my partner can drive!...anyways, stupidy we just ignored it as i thoought they can't remove a car which is not ours!...anyways today we get a call from the Bailiff saying she will remove the car at 5pm, obviously then i begin to panick, i was more concerned over what the neighbour or resident would do to us when they found out it was being removed because of our debt, so hastily i rang the call centre. Again the agent advised she HAD the right to remove a car without doing any checks on the vehicle first and it was down to me to prove the car is not mine, now call me stupid, but how do i prove something is not mine??!! We live very close to a busy town centre, i don't even know whos the car is, it could be anyone's and im not going knocking on everybodys door asking them to hand me their car documents, who would?..i asked to speak to a manager who was very very rude, and advised me that although they employ the bailiffs they cannot have any influence on their decision?!! AGAIN the manager said the bailiff had the right to remove the car without ANY checks!...at my wits end i searched this site and found a really good website on debt advise and i gave them a call....straight away she advised me they cannot touch the car without doing a DVLA check to find out who the owner is, which is obviously not me!!! and that if we offered a part payment (or full payment of one debt) then they should then accept a p.a for the rest of the debt....

Another thing that really annoyed me was that the Bailiff informed us she was coming today but we had 200.00 for her on Friday, we called the contact centre, the bailiff god only knows how many times and she refused once again to come an collect the money!

We have now written a complaint to Rossendales and the council offering full payment of the debt on the 15/12/08 but only to the council as the bailiff had charged us incorrectly, putting on two call out charges with a van when only been the once, and also the levy on a car which was not ours, our starting debt was 507.20 with the council but the bailiff reconed we owed over 700.00!! when we challenged her for a breakdown over the phone she then advised that we didn't owe that much and it was about the 500.00 mark!!

 

I cannot believe how much trouble i have had with these ignorant low life people and i cannot believe that they have lied to us over and over, i am just giving a heads up to everyone on here of what they can be like, but we have not signed or allowed entry to our property at any point, and if they do put a levy against a car which is not yours do not give into their bully boy tactics!!

 

sorry about it being so long

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello nutty.

 

Your first error was to be worried about someone elses car. You told them it wasn't yours and that is the end of your obligation.

The owner would have reported it stolen and the police would have investigated, but you wouldn't have been in any trouble.

 

I can't see why they have come in a van as you say you have not let them in so no levy can have been taken so no need for a van. Dispute this part.

 

There are no proper regulation of bailiff fees, but they must be reasonable and in proportion to the amount being collected.

 

If the council says they can't accept your payment, lots don't want to be bothered once bailiffs are involved, then pay it online.

They cannot reasonably refuse an offer of payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Report them to your local MP. Janet Anderson, isn't it? Rossendales got an award for business practice, their web site says...Rossendales (Collect) can help and has a dedicated team whose strong negotiation techniques and persistence help improve our clients’ (Council) collection rates beyond their expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...