Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • See what the latest data on school suspensions tells us about the UK education system and early intervention.View the full article
    • The world's largest economy grew less than expected but rising inflation may delay a rate cut.View the full article
    • Hello, Following the submission of my defense, last night I received an email from DCBL indicating that the claimant intends to proceed with the claim (I've attached a screenshot of the email for reference) along with the N180 directions questionnaire. I'm unsure how they obtained my email, but I suspect it was through the courts' form when I completed the Acknowledgment of Service. This email almost slipped my attention. I have also today received a letter from court to state they have received my defense.  It appears they are requesting an online telephone hearing with the court. Could you please advise me on the necessary steps I should take at this point? Thank you for your assistance. Letter-Email 25-04-24.pdf N180 - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track).pdf
    • Default Amount £9237.88, all this started in 2006 Admitted debt £9075.65 Weightmans added £1515.01 immediately they became involved, no explanation The Statement shows when Marlin bought debt in May 2011 £10439.25 Their statements, not received until the SAR, are based on this. Cabot deducted £1515.01on their statements in January 2019, again did not find this out until SAR. Weightmans added in  2007 after the CH1 etc was confirmed by the court £741.50, made up of Process server fees, Court Fee (they tried for bankruptcy), Solicitors fee and Land Registry fee. Unspecfied Legal costs were added by Marlin in March 2015, again I did not know this until statements received with SAR I had been paying monthly, without exception until December 2018. I am minded to take the property charge, CH1 amount ,deduct all my payments and the subsequent fees, and request/demand a refund on the final payment made? I consistently disputed Weightmans balances, but they never responded. I also told Mortimer Clarke/Cabot that I disputed their amounts.  
    • Just follow this link and have read of some threads so your familiar with the process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5178739
  • 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

Debtor found guilty of criminal damage for using angle grinder to cut off a wheel clamp.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3248 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

Last week yet another debtor appeared in court for cutting off a wheel clamp.

 

In this case, a bailiff from JBW Group applied a wheel clamp to the debtors car in relation to a debt for council tax. The debtor 'claimed' that he thought that the clamp had been left on his car by a friend as a joke and accordingly, he used an angle grinder to remove the clamp.

 

Clearly the court did not believe his story and after admitting causing criminal damage the court ordered him to pay £435 which was made up of a fine of £250, costs of £85, compensation of £75 and victims surcharge of £25.

 

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-used-angle-grinder-cut-wheel-clamp-car/story-26547903-detail/story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That was his first hearing and he was bailed until June 18th but the hearing for sentencing was brought forward.

 

The problem that faces debtors who get prosecuted for cutting off a wheel clamp is that they not only end up paying a lot of money (in this case £435 ) but they have to endure two court hearings and a criminal record that could hamper their future employment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was his first hearing and he was bailed until June 18th but the hearing for sentencing was brought forward.

 

The problem that faces debtors who get prosecuted for cutting off a wheel clamp is that they not only end up paying a lot of money (in this case £435 )but they have to endure two court hearings and a criminal record that could hamper their future employment.

Just as bad if the vehicle clamped is NOT the debtors, and the lawful owner cuts off the clamp.

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 particular case was due to be heard a couple of days ago and I would think that news about the outcome will start to surface in the next few days. I do know that the appalling 'Prosecution' and 'Defence' 'statements' have been seen by many people in the past few months and I was even sent copies myself a number of times !!!

 

 

NB: The above reference to 'statements' is the reference to the document posted on the internet (post number two here:)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440949-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-......UPDATE&p=4688873&viewfull=1#post4688873

Link to post
Share on other sites

That particular case was due to be heard a couple of days ago and I would think that news about the outcome will start to surface in the next few days. I do know that the appalling 'Prosecution' and 'Defence' 'statements' have been seen by many people in the past few months and I was even sent copies myself a number of times !!!

 

 

NB: The above reference to 'statements' is the reference to the document posted on the internet (post number two here:)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440949-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-......UPDATE&p=4688873&viewfull=1#post4688873

 

Are the 'statements' in question those discussed here previously (around February I think) that relate to the poster CAM ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as bad if the vehicle clamped is NOT the debtors, and the lawful owner cuts off the clamp.

 

Can someone explain this ? This scenario.

 

Clamped Vehicle is not the debtors i.e. mine ? Can I not lawfully remove something added to it to prevent my use ? What if there is no contact details of the clamp owner ?

 

EA could contact the police on the registered owner of the vehicle and claim CD, but the registered owner could

i) deny knowing about a clamp

ii) counter claim for damamge

 

Surely any costs from NOT having access to the vehicle are due to me ?

 

Can understand in BA's post why this happened as the goofs were seized correctly in this case..

 

N

Link to post
Share on other sites

That particular case was due to be heard a couple of days ago and I would think that news about the outcome will start to surface in the next few days. I do know that the appalling 'Prosecution' and 'Defence' 'statements' have been seen by many people in the past few months and I was even sent copies myself a number of times !!!

 

 

NB: The above reference to 'statements' is the reference to the document posted on the internet (post number two here:)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440949-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-......UPDATE&p=4688873&viewfull=1#post4688873

 

Having now read these 'statements' again last night I notice that mentioned is made that the bailiff had 'apparently' not been certificated on the date (17th September 2014) that he visited the debtor (CAM). This is actually not true and a simple check with the MOJ bailiff register will confirm that the bailiff was granted his certificate on 12th April 2014 !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like a canal?

No canals by me, so on the back of the scrapman's truck probably.

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...