Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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 4614 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

Re: Council Tax and Jacobs

 

Hello,

 

We already asked the council to take back the debt, but they refused.

 

Jacobs asked for a monthly expenditure list so we could come to an agreed payment plan. We sent it recorded delivery and offered them £50 per month, as thats all we can afford, and even thats pushing it.

 

Despite seeing that we can't afford more than £50 pm, Jacobs have replied saying they want a minimum of £100 per month, and this amount is non-negotiable.

 

Are there any options left open to us, as we cannot afford £100 pm. Should I write back to Jacobs restating our £50 pm offer is the maximum and if they refuse to accept that offer we will have no option but to wait until the debt is recalled by the council, and make repayments to the council instead? I'm not bothered about visits and letters because I know the drill - don't let 'em in etc.

 

Thanks to anyone who can offer advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.......I'm not bothered about visits and letters because I know the drill - don't let 'em in etc....

 

That's the funniest and most satisfying statement I've read in a while.

 

This is an indication that the word is getting around as to the effectiveness of these council appointed bailiffs.

 

You said the council refused to take the debt back, this is meaningless as far as I can see. All you need to do is pay them regardless. Use internet banking, pay online, any method that pays directly into their account.

 

The most important thing to watch out for – besides letting them in as you already know – is to keep them from levying on items outside your property, vehicle etc. They will most probably levy on a vehicle that doesn't belong to you, (and without your knowledge) but this is of no consequence to you as any charges can be ignored/disputed now you're aware of it.

 

Others will advise further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a few things I forgot to ask. Can they take a car that has finance still owing on it? Can they take a car that is registered to another person but parked at the debtors house? And finally, even though the council fobbed us off saying the debt is with Jacobs now, is there a way to just start making payments direct to the council online and bypass the bailff altogether? And if so how?

 

Again thanks for any help offered :)

 

 

EDIT: Thanks outlawla, I must have been writing my follow up as you replied as you covered some of the questions I asked :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

no.

no.

use the details on the reverse of the correct ctax bill

 

tell us a bit more about this.

 

i bet you've been had for unlawful fees

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dx100uk. Thats what I suspected re: cars and finance. I will have to dig out the original c/t bill to set up online payments, but in the meantime (and if online payment isn't an option) should we re-submit an offer in writing to Jacobs for £50 pm and state thats non-negotiable to them! Its just that they want a first payment of £100 by Monday (we can't afford that much), so that only leaves us tomorrow to get another recorded delivery letter sent off in time. As for their fees, I think they've only added on one fee for their first visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a few things I forgot to ask. Can they take a car that has finance still owing on it? Depends what type of finance it is Can they take a car that is registered to another person but parked at the debtors house? As long as this is a separate 3rd party - No - although it will not stop them as they are allowed to assume it may be yours, but face that if & when it happens. And finally, even though the council fobbed us off saying the debt is with Jacobs now, is there a way to just start making payments direct to the council online and bypass the bailff altogether? And if so how? You may pay the Council direct via internet banking, the Council website, the Council automated phone line & you can even take it in cash to the Council office where refgardless they are obliged to accept it - if not you take the name of the person and report them for refusing to take payment. You may have to allow for some Bailiff fees if you do any of this - max fee payable £42-50 providing he does not make a levy of any description.

 

Again thanks for any help offered :)

 

 

EDIT: Thanks outlawla, I must have been writing my follow up as you replied as you covered some of the questions I asked :)

 

Do you have Jacobs refusal in writing? If so contact your local Councillor(s) and explain to them, any refusal or reluctance you go over their head to the Leader of the Council and his opposite number.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we just received the letter today stating their refusal to accept our offer. They said its non-negotiable and we have until monday to make the first payment.

 

 

That may well come in handy when you send a Formal Complaint to the council CEO, and leader, as they are supposed to take account of what a debtor can reasonably afford, as per an IOS

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may well come in handy when you send a Formal Complaint to the council CEO, and leader, as they are supposed to take account of what a debtor can reasonably afford, as per an IOS

 

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is IOS?

 

I will write a letter of complaint to the council CEO tomorrow and attach a copy of the bailiffs refusal letter. Should I ask the council to either recall the debt so I can pay them direct, or ask the council to instruct Jacobs to accept our offer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is IOS?

 

I will write a letter of complaint to the council CEO tomorrow and attach a copy of the bailiffs refusal letter. Should I ask the council to either recall the debt so I can pay them direct, or ask the council to instruct Jacobs to accept our offer?

 

Sorry, I should have put Income and Expenditure Sheet, a list of your ougoings and income, ang the amount left after priorities are paid they are supposed to take it into account, but in their greed they will ignore it and ramp up the pressure sending many people into the arms of loan sharks to get money to pay the bailiffs outrageous demands.

 

As you know the pack drill so the bailiff will be out of luck with you.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...