Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer and that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim and don't add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the members of suggested above – it should be the final version. court, that I would respectfully requestup but I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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

the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act amendment 4a


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3440 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, am very interested as to how the (4A)the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act was amended to allow access to bailiffs, when the whole ethos of the act was to protect the vulnerable from distress, fear and abuse. Particularly when, most the bailiffs I've come across tend to be proficient at intimidation at best or total thugs at the worst.

 

Am trying to ascertain who sponsored and seconded the amendment and their logic.

 

be grateful if anyone could point me in the right direction.

 

thanks

 

ken h.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was lobbying by the Enforcement Industry, although how legalised burglary can be termed an "Industry" is beyond me.

 

A question was asked about the issues contained in the clause here by Lord Lucas:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100616w0002.htm

 

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will revoke paragraph 3 of Schedule 4A to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (inserted by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (on the right to force entry to premises in order to execute warrants of distress issued under Section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980)) to restore the status of unpaid sums adjudged to be paid upon conviction as civil debts owed to the state to be enforced like other civil debts.[HL279]

 

Lord McNally: The Government intend to retain the forced entry powers contained in Schedule 4A to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, inserted by Schedule 4 to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. The powers contained in that schedule are key to successful enforcement which will ensure fines remain an effective and credible sentence. Therefore there are no plans to revoke."

 

So it is all about instilling fear, and is designed to make a debtor pay up or else!

 

It only applies to HMCS magistrates fines, but the bailiffs EAs would love it to bed extended to Civil debt like council Tax etc, and no doubt are actively lobbying for it to be extended to these also.

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

Hi, am very interested as to how the (4A)the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act was amended to allow access to bailiffs, when the whole ethos of the act was to protect the vulnerable from distress, fear and abuse. Particularly when, most the bailiffs I've come across tend to be proficient at intimidation at best or total thugs at the worst.

 

Am trying to ascertain who sponsored and seconded the amendment and their logic.

 

be grateful if anyone could point me in the right direction.

 

thanks

 

ken h.

 

Ken,

 

A most important question but the answer sadly is not a simple one. I actually have the entire background of this is my office so can write further on Monday but I will look to see whether I have any notes on my laptop. In the meantime you may find the attached thread of interest:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?407528-HMCS-Forced-Entry-Protocol-for-use-by-bailiffs-enforcing-Magistrates-Court-FINES

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken,

 

A most important question but the answer sadly is not a simple one. I actually have the entire background of this is my office so can write further on Monday but I will look to see whether I have any notes on my laptop. In the meantime you may find the attached thread of interest:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?407528-HMCS-Forced-Entry-Protocol-for-use-by-bailiffs-enforcing-Magistrates-Court-FINES

 

In my above link a copy of the Forced Entry Protocol is exhibited. This document was the result of EXTENSIVE enquiries and complaints from non other than the Reverend Paul Nicholson (a thread about his sterling work regarding 'summons cost' and his forthcoming Judicial Review application) is on the forum.

 

The person responsible for introducing the amendment was Baroness Ashton and sadly, the amendment was shrouded in secrecy and the timing of her amendment was appalling. The link below explain in more detail .

 

The link is to a debate in the House of Lords in 2007 regarding the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Bill where Lord Lucas is arguing that the right to use force against an individual must not be allowed to be introduced into the Bill . He also refers to the background to the amendment (4A) into the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act 2004.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70220-0004.htm

 

PS: It is worth noting that with regards to the proposal to "use force against an individual" this was the subject of a thread on this forum in 2007 started by one individual that eventually had over 800,000 views. That person set up a petition and managed to gain huge publicity which eventually led to this dreadful amendment (the right to use force against an individual) being removed. We all have a great deal to thank him for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was sent to me at the time by one of the leading campaigners against the measures, i am sure he will not mind me reproducing it here.

 

"The powers of forced entry in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 was a botched attempt to right this previous failing and give bailiffs the 'modern' powers of arrest they needed. I say 'botched' with good cause.

 

The powers are in Schedule 4A of the Act. As the numbering suggests, it was a late amendment to the Bill as it went through Parliament. In fact, it was a very late amendment which, unusually, the Department for Constitutional Affairs had been allowed to insert into a Home Office Bill. This was done without any consultation and, although I later discovered a press notice, none of the advice agencies or bailiff associations knew what was happening.

 

But worse, it seems to me that the eleventh hour amendment to give the powers of forced entry for arrest were, at about 59 minutes past the eleventh hour, supplemented by similar powers for distress warrants. That is why the bits of the 'secret' Guidance that are visible read rather oddly, as if references to distress warrants were added into a late draft.

 

The Minister at the time described the new powers as closing a loophole in the law. He didn’t mentioned that the powers were breaching two historic legal principles that were virtually part of the ‘British Constitution’: the right that an Englishman’s home is his castle and that a criminal fine should be treated as a debt to the State and no differently to any other civil debt"

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was sent to me at the time by one of the leading campaigners against the measures, i am sure he will not mind me reproducing it here.

 

"The powers of forced entry in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 was a botched attempt to right this previous failing and give bailiffs the 'modern' powers of arrest they needed. I say 'botched' with good cause.

 

The powers are in Schedule 4A of the Act. As the numbering suggests, it was a late amendment to the Bill as it went through Parliament. In fact, it was a very late amendment which, unusually, the Department for Constitutional Affairs had been allowed to insert into a Home Office Bill. This was done without any consultation and, although I later discovered a press notice, none of the advice agencies or bailiff associations knew what was happening.

 

But worse, it seems to me that the eleventh hour amendment to give the powers of forced entry for arrest were, at about 59 minutes past the eleventh hour, supplemented by similar powers for distress warrants. That is why the bits of the 'secret' Guidance that are visible read rather oddly, as if references to distress warrants were added into a late draft.

 

The Minister at the time described the new powers as closing a loophole in the law. He did’t mentioned that the powers were breaching two historic legal principles that were virtually part of the ‘British Constitution’: the right that an Englishman’s home is his castle and that a criminal fine should be treated as a debt to the State and no differently to any other civil debt"

 

Thank you D/D for reminding me about this "House of Horrors" amendment.

 

Remarkably, Parliament were then in recess and by the time this 'amendment' came to the attention of the 'advice' sector (and even the enforcement industry) nobody was present to raise a PQ until Parliament returned. I remember the period so well and the government fought for a long time against requests for a copy of all the documents that had been presented to Parliament before this amendment was allowed to be included. Eventually it was released but most pages were black (with almost everything re-dacted). I have loads of information in the office from those days.

 

As bad as this part of the regulations is.....most importantly, we have the thank the sterling efforts of one gentleman on this forum who campaigned so hard in 2007 to stop bailiffs ever being given the right to use force against an individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...