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.
      • 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

JBW bailiff forced me to pay - can I do anything


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4355 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

A couple of weeks ago a JBW bailiff visited my friend around 7:20 in the morning saying he had a warrant for some unpaid parking penalty.

 

Without asking permission he entered the flat.

 

As my friend doesn't speak english too well and was not aware of the situation

 

he let the bailiff in and called his 16 years old daughter to interpret.

The bailiff demanded instant payment of £400 - £700 in different moments of conversation.

 

He was not willing to deal in any way, refused to leave and kept on asking for payment.

 

Asked if he can come another time he said no.

 

Asked for instalments he refused as well and threatened the family that he will take away the car or he will put my friend to jail.

The whole situation lasted around 40 minutes within his wife, 16yo and 3yo daughters was present.

They started crying and stuff and eventually my friend was forced to pay £570 with his credit card on the spot.

He only showed the warrant on his mobile device and never left any copy of it.

 

He left hand written notice of seizure and a receipt only.

 

We read different sources and we are sure he breached his competence.

 

Now we do not really know where to start and what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is story repeated every working day. Early morning call (steel capped shoes kicking the door?), Bailiffs have adopted the unlawful assumption that they can flash a PDF copy of 'warrant' that was recently typed out in their office on commercial software.

 

Its a con. There is no legislation that allows this.

 

There is legislation that requires the local authority to print a warrant within 7 days of its authorisation by Traffic Enforcement Centre, but if that had happened the bailiff would have brought a copy with him.

 

Jail? Another con by an shameless idiot who has absolutely no authority at all in this respect

Link to post
Share on other sites

disgusting

 

do this:

 

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/

 

he paid under duress

 

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

Hi, thanks for the answers.

 

I heard about the chargeback process but never actually went across. What steps should I take to make it happen? Do I need to contact the police? Can I do it online or on the phone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

erm...read the link?

 

phone the card provider

 

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

Also get a complaint off to the council that issued the PCN and JBW. They should have left the premises as soon as they had realised that the debtor did not understand English. Disgraceful behaviour JBW, sort your bailiffs out!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a letter to the bank demanding Chargeback form, will see what they say.

 

Here is what I conceived as a letter of complaint. I would very much appreciate any help with wording as parts of the document I took from a template and parts of it wrote myself. Any suggestion greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haringey Council Parking Service

P.O. Box 4789

Worthing

BN11 9QA

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

JBW Ref:

Client ref:

Visit by your bailiff on

 

Formal Complaint Stage 1

 

 

I have had an opportunity to seek advice and I write on the understanding that Case Law has ruled an Authority is liable for its bailiffs. I therefore ask you to deliver to me at the above address a full refund of of £573.04 within seven days from the date of this letter.

 

I have all reasons to believe that the bailiffs behaviour was disgraceful and regard the whole process as fraudulent.

Please allow me to present you with the circumstances we experienced:

The bailiff came in early in the morning at 7:20AM

He was invited inside the house as we did not suspect any such visit.

We never received any letter or any information of a possible bailiff action.

I do not speak fluent English and therefore had to call my under-age daughter to interpret.

The bailiff was acting rude aggressive and abusive towards me and my family during his whole visit. He was threatening me with removal of vehicle, goods from inside the house and jail sentence towards myself. Please bear in mind my wife and 16yo and 3yo daughters were present the whole time.

Despite several attempts he refused to pay another visit, delay payment or allow instalments.

He threatened us with a phone call which we believe was fake for a removal vehicle.

After all this with all my family thoroughly shaken and the bailiff refusing to leave the premisses I was left with no other choice then pay. I am a father of two and the only working person in the family and as such I did not have anything close to the amount and had to pay using credit card causing another debt.

At no time I was presented with Warrant of Execution which I believe is necessary for a bailiff to undertake any action.

 

 

 

Apart of all this I have reasons to believe there is several inaccuracies in the Notice of Seizure I was issued:

There is no entitlement for your bailiff to charge me a fee for Levy fee because I paid the bailiff when he attended.

There is no entitlement for your bailiff to charge “Other” fee because the law does not provide for any fee of that description.

 

Charging these fees only is fraud and I understand it is a criminal offence under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and anyone receiving or benefiting from the proceeds of a crime may be subject to a criminal investigation.

 

I appreciate the public are less-informed of the prescribed fees bailiffs are entitled to charge, I believe they have taken advantage of this to make a gain or obtain an unlawful money transfer for himself or another. While I am quite sure the council did not intend to contract a firm of tricksters who have been found defrauding a member of the public in this way, I would be grateful if we can settle this matter quickly and quietly by refunding me within the next seven days. They may be bailiffs but that does not make them less liable than any other public service contractor, e.g. a plumber. However, a bailiff is in a position of trust and in abusing that position they commit an offence under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, that in your failure to furnish me with a refund within seven days, I will automatically file a claim in the small claims track without writing further and this will invariably involve an application for costs, and I'll inform the LGO that you the council is aware that a contractor working under your instruction is engaging in criminal activity by defrauding memebers of the public. If you wish to start an investigation of your own, please be advised that in the absence of a refund this doesn't delay legal proceedings or filing a criminal complaint with a police authority.

 

This document is a notice of intended proceedings and delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it to be served on you by the ordinary course of post in the meaning of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and therefore your responsibility and it’s in your own interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...