Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5573 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

Helping a friend who has received a warrant of execution today from their local county court re a small claims case where they were the defendants (small business partnership - issued under company trading name). The decision was ruled in the claimants favour (rightly so) and instead of dealing with it last year, they did the ostrich impression. They do not dispute the amount and now they have a couple of days to repsond.

 

My thoughts are to advise them to complete a form N245 to apply to repay in instalments - it could be paid in full but they are a small business and it would cause them some considerable hardship to find it all in one go. They are thinking of repaying in two-weekly instalments over a period of 2 months. which I personally thought was quite reasonable.

 

Is the above advice correct? Do they have to approach the bailiffs direct (they are the court ones, not a private company fortunately) or can they deal directlywith the claimant, and copy in the bailiffs? (Payment options would be easier).

 

They're going to contact the bailiffs tomorrow morning, but I said I'd ask here first.

 

Many thanks, K

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again KJD,

 

If you're friend has every intention of paying contact bailiffs direct and straight away, you know they like to charge for everything:mad:

 

If its for a large amount then they will probably want to do a walkin possetion before agreeing to installments.

 

This is only what i've picked up from cag myself though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, you can download the N245 here Her Majesty's Courts Service - Home. Select Forms and Guidance from the menu on the left hand side and enter N245 in the box. You can then go to the page to download the form. There is a fee of £35.00 when you put the application in at court.

 

If they complete the form tonight or tmorrow morning they can deliver it by hand to the local court where the bailiffs operate from. No further action by the bailiffs can take place while the N245 is at court awaiting consideration. If they intend to repay over two months they should have no trouble getting the judge to agree. There is no hearing to attend, the form will go in front of the judge, probably in the next week or so, and then the decision will be posted to them.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Ell-enn

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris - good to see you again!

 

And hi Ell-en.. (I see you've been getting even more great results recently :))

 

Thanks so much for your replies. Have sent that link to friend and given them a verbal 'kick up the proverbial'. I've even offered to drive them down to the court in the morning and walk them to the desk!

 

However I know what their next question will be... on the form it asks about employment details and then details of finances. How do they fill that in if the warrant is issued under the company name (partnership with a trading address)?

 

K

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm, I would say the income is the income from the business on a monthly basis - and the expenditure is what they have to pay out in bills for the business each month. Might be a good idea to ring the court first thing in the morning and ask - the staff are usually very helpful.

 

Ell-enn

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so with much trepidation, they called the court this morning. The number took them straight through to the bailiff office :eek:. However, the chap they spoke to, who is the bailiff dealing with their case, was extremely nice. He told them not to bother with a N245 as it would cost them more money. He was happy to accept a cheque for just under a quarter of the total to be sent out in the post today (I've recommended they deliver it in person tho) and the same figure in two weeks time, etc. He said that as long as it doesn't bounce, he is happy with that arrangement. He will not add any costs to the total and does not need to levy.

 

Okay, so fundamental rule broken (ie speaking to them on the phone) so I'm going to help friend to draw up a letter with full 'transcript' of conversation to accompany first cheque.

 

But friend will be able to sleep tonight (got several texts in to the wee hours from them!) and everything can eventually go back to normal.

 

I know their experience is different from those dealing with bailiffs for council tax arrears etc, but hope this might help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have come to an arrangement with the bailiffs to pay the warrant, and there are no good reasons to have the CCJ set aside, (given the fact that they didn't respond to the original claim) then I think they have got a reasonable deal without any further expense.

 

I think we just have to be realistic sometimes:)

 

Ell

  • Haha 1

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right, Ell-enn. There are no real grounds for getting it set aside - don't think judges will accept 'I was being an ostrich' as a reasonable excuse. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?!

 

I've tried to stress to friend how seriously they must stick to the arrangement (have pointed them to this site and in particular this section to scare them in to it if nothing else!), and have made a note in my own diary of the dates the cheques must go out.

 

In this climate, I think they're going to come out of this fairly unscathed.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to know what I said about genuine county court bailiffs (in Detained by Police For Unpaid PCN) just yesterday proved to be correct. It just goes to show that those who do have authority are always far more reasonable than those that have little or none but who have to work on commissions for a living.

 

This story looks as if it will be resolved peacefully and sensibly.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

KJD, if you rang the court and ended up at the bailiff's office then bailiff is a County Court bailiff on a salary and not a certified (self-employed) bailiff on commission.

County Court bailiffs are several degrees more reasonable then certified bailiffs.

 

I would still get the agreement to repay in stages in writing.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I thought too.

 

The cheque and letter to bailiff in one envelope, plus a copy of the letter to the bailiff (named) in a separate envleope both being delivered by hand to the courts this today - the first to the general office as instructed by the bailiff on the phone and the second direct to the bailiff's office. Friend has asked for confirmation of the agreement to be sent to them.

 

It does give you a bit of hope when the bailiff has been so agreeable on this occasion. Mind you, I expect he may be quite relieved this one has been sorted - imagine how many he'll be dealing with which aren't so forthcoming?!

 

Thanks again for everyone's support :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the main I have to agree that County Court Bailiffs are helpful and fairly reasonable to deal with. However, I had to help an employee of ours who was being scared stiff by a little Hitler from our local CC!!

 

He would turn up at her house banging (not knocking) on her door at between 6 and 7 o'clock in the morning, when she didn't answer the door he would bang on the front windows (scaring the old lady next door so much she needed a doctor to be called later) and then stood in the middle of the front lawn looking up at her bedroom window. All this was obviously done to cause maximum embarrasment and stress.

 

Found out later the little g*t was new to the job (suspect background as private bailiff! or henpecked somewhere else and now pushing his chest out with importance at his new "powers"). A stiff letter to the court from myself being the lady's employer and finding her distressed and unable to work kept him at bay until she could get payment made.

 

Made me mad that did:mad:

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...