Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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
      • 160 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

Use of Police by Bailiffs/HCEO Companies


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4386 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

I believe that use of the police by enforcement agents should be closely regulated. The Police are being used as a tool to intimidate debtors into paying rather than to prevent a "Breach of the Peace". I think they are being called routinely even when there hasn't been a prior heated "discussion" and the debtor has no previous history. The Police are being used to generate profits for these corrupt companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that use of the police by enforcement agents should be closely regulated. The Police are being used as a tool to intimidate debtors into paying rather than to prevent a "Breach of the Peace". I think they are being called routinely even when there hasn't been a prior heated "discussion" and the debtor has no previous history. The Police are being used to generate profits for these corrupt companies.

 

The problem that needs to be addressed is that the police are unaware, or inadequately trained of the law in this area, and are under the mistaken impression that they are mainly on the same side as the bailiff, so side with him, even in the face of the bailiffs often blatant misuse of his powers, for which HE should actually be the one arrested.

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

The problem is that police officers receive little or no training in how to deal with bailiffs, even though national guidelines are in existence. Another problem is that ACPO regard bailiff matter as "civil matters". Whether this has got something to do with their relationship with the trade associations bailiff and HCEO companies belong to needs to be investigated. The News International scandal has highlighted the dangers of inappropriate relationships between the police and commercial interests.

 

Any training police are given in dealing with bailiffs should include insisting on seeing the court warrant and the bailiff or HCEO's certificate. Any claims by bailiffs that police officers are required to help them gain entry to a debtor's home should be dealt with as a potential attempt to incite disaffection and be dealt with as such. Where a bailiff has made threats, either by letter, or by telephone or in person, these should be dealt with under relevant legislation, i.e. Malicious Communications Act 1988, Public Order Act 1986, Communications Act 2003. Although, under normal circumstances, arrest is the very last resort, in cases such as these, it should be a case of one and only warning before arrest. Where a debtor is classed as vulnerable, this should be regarded as aggravating factors in deciding whether or not to arrest a bailiff after giving them a warning or arresting them without a warning.

 

The police have been mislead by the civil enforcement iindustry and there will be a payback or, more accurately, a backlash and when it comes, bailiff and HCEO companies will not be prepared for it. I can see police officers coming down hard on bailiffs and HCEOs who cross the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that police officers receive little or no training in how to deal with bailiffs, even though national guidelines are in existence. Another problem is that ACPO regard bailiff matter as "civil matters". Whether this has got something to do with their relationship with the trade associations bailiff and HCEO companies belong to needs to be investigated. The News International scandal has highlighted the dangers of inappropriate relationships between the police and commercial interests.

 

Any training police are given in dealing with bailiffs should include insisting on seeing the court warrant and the bailiff or HCEO's certificate. Any claims by bailiffs that police officers are required to help them gain entry to a debtor's home should be dealt with as a potential attempt to incite disaffection and be dealt with as such. Where a bailiff has made threats, either by letter, or by telephone or in person, these should be dealt with under relevant legislation, i.e. Malicious Communications Act 1988, Public Order Act 1986, Communications Act 2003. Although, under normal circumstances, arrest is the very last resort, in cases such as these, it should be a case of one and only warning before arrest. Where a debtor is classed as vulnerable, this should be regarded as aggravating factors in deciding whether or not to arrest a bailiff after giving them a warning or arresting them without a warning.

 

The police have been mislead by the civil enforcement iindustry and there will be a payback or, more accurately, a backlash and when it comes, bailiff and HCEO companies will not be prepared for it. I can see police officers coming down hard on bailiffs and HCEOs who cross the line.

 

ACPO should itself be investigated, as it is a for profit company, as most police forces now are as they are all registered as corporations on Dunn & Bradstreet, Far from being a union for Chief police officers as it is portrayed, it has a malign and corrosive influence to the detriment of police impartiality. and helps to politicise the police to the detriment of the public.

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

.........Any training police are given in dealing with bailiffs should include insisting on seeing the court warrant and the bailiff or HCEO's certificate.........

 

+1

 

As I've said before, HCEO's are sending allsorts to enforce, the registered HCEO should be present in person. It's very wrong that HCEO companies are sending "security" industry people to enforce, There are a fair number with criminal connections and the debtor may find himself being extorted or burgled shortly after being visited.

Edited by Deadwood
Link to post
Share on other sites

ACPO should itself be investigated, as it is a for profit company, as most police forces now are as they are all registered as corporations on Dunn & Bradstreet, Far from being a union for Chief police officers as it is portrayed, it has a malign and corrosive influence to the detriment of police impartiality. and helps to politicise the police to the detriment of the public.

 

I totally agree with you. In the light of the News International scandal, I can see ACPO's relationships with the trade associations in the civil enforcement and private security industries putting put under the microscope. You are absolutely right about the corrosive influence on police impartiality - ACPO are the ones promoting the "It's a civil matter" line with regard to bailiff misconduct. You are also right about the politicisation of the police -that's why officers are leaving in droves. Morale is at rock-bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you. In the light of the News International scandal, I can see ACPO's relationships with the trade associations in the civil enforcement and private security industries putting put under the microscope. You are absolutely right about the corrosive influence on police impartiality - ACPO are the ones promoting the "It's a civil matter" line with regard to bailiff misconduct. You are also right about the politicisation of the police -that's why officers are leaving in droves. Morale is at rock-bottom.

That is a great pity, as a lot of the common sense , and inherent fairness that was typical of the police of old, where a quiet word, and a ticking off did more good than a prosecution, has been lost to a new cadre of apparatchiks who chase targets to the detriment of the public they purport to serve.

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

There is a provision in the Courts Act 2003 directing the Police to assist HCEO's, well I didn't know that.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/39/schedule/7/paragraph/5#schedule-7-paragraph-4-4

 

This reinforces my comments about the High Court being the Queen's Court and The Police being sworn to the Crown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only for fairly specific purposes according to paragraph 3, by the looks of it.

"Modern 'currency' is known as 'fiat money': it is artificially created, has no value in itself and the basis for use in exchange is typically a government edict." Paul Morran, Information Rights Unit of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zaniwhoop - I am looking into what assistance the police are actually allowed to provide to HCEOs. Once I have established exactly what assistance the police are required to provide, I will post it up.

 

Deadwood - I will look into what you have posted about the situation of HCEOs using what appears to be crims and post up my findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...