Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • An update to this case as I’ve not been on in a while.    I am still awaiting a charging decision in the case. The two police officers involved have said their personal belief is a section 47 ABH charge is the most likely outcome but this isn’t a sure thing of course.    The EA certificate from the issuing court has now lapsed. The court have refused to recertify him until they’ve had a hearing in to the case, and the district judge has issued orders to surrender all evidence, footage, photos etc.    I have done so promptly.    the EA, not so much . Equita have claimed they cannot provide his bodycam footage as the camera he was wearing is the EA personal one not one of theirs.   the EA has claimed he has asked Equita and the police for the footage as he claims he doesn’t have it.    the police have confirmed they didn’t seize his camera and they don’t have it.    so they are basically pointing the finger at each other all the while failing to comply with the district judges order to provide all evidence they intend to rely on at the rescheduled hearing.    The district judge has stated the hearing for his certification will NOT be the hearing for my complaint as there is no charge as of yet, and just as to whether he should be recertified or not.    I’m not 100% on why that can’t be done at the time, but I’m not about to question a judge…..      
    • Thanks FTMDave, I like the cut of your jib - I'll go with that and obtain proof of postage. Encouraging that NPE have never followed through and seem to blowing hot air, let's see where they go after this   Regards
    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. 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. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations 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. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. 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. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This 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. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
  • 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 998 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

How come there was never a date set to activate it, maybe they never will :)

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris Johnson is apparently looking to get shot of Cameron quickly and to trigger article 50 before Brexit is stopped. Apparently consent of Scottish Parliament is needed before UK can exit the EU. This is required under the Scotland Act.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/can-brexit-be-overturned-what-brits-are-asking-each-other-20160625-gprz3u.html

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leading 'out' campaigner Boris Johnson says the margin by which the UK voted to leave the European Union was "not entirely overwhelming"

 

This was on Sky. Me thinks Boris is looking for a way out and a second referendum

 

Cameron and Boris have been partners from the start in my opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leading 'out' campaigner Boris Johnson says the margin by which the UK voted to leave the European Union was "not entirely overwhelming"

 

This was on Sky. Me thinks Boris is looking for a way out and a second referendum

 

Cameron and Boris have been partners from the start in my opinion

 

Boris sounds like a hypocrite now..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need the permission of Scotland, we voted as the UK and to which Scotland is part of. The result of the referendum is to leave the EU and the will of the majority must be respected..

 

Because of fhe complicated legal relationship between four separate countries in a union. The UK is not really one country, but a union of countries. For example Scotland has a different legal system to England and Wales. Northern Ireland also has different ways of doing things.

 

Under the Scotland act, before the UK parliament could change such a fundamental thing as Scotlands membership of the EU, the consent of the Scottish parliament would be needed. It is whether the Scottish parliament are willing to frustrate the whole of the UK and cause a major constituitional crisis between countries. If i were the SNP, i would use this as a way to negotiate a better deal for Scotland.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Article 50 explained

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36634702/article-50-the-simplest-explanation-youll-find

 

Experts say it will probably take the UK 10 years to leave the EU !

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

just Bye Bye that is it, get on with life. all this pussy footing we must do this that & the other, and the big money job for the Boys taking over to attend a stupid meeting which produces the same end product without a meeting which cost 100,000s or more! ahhhhhhh

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt will ever will now, as pointed out Cameron has handed the poison chalice of pushing the nuclear button of applying for section 50 to the next leader, Boris clearly had doubts about it and there are serious legal issues such as parliament has to agree to leave and as Heseltine pointed out, the majority do not want to, mp Lam has expressed concerns, Boris and gove have suggested "discussions", leaving also adds Scottish and Irish complications.

 

Even many leavers now agree that the while thing is an absolute mess, it is also beginning to tear apart both the Tory and labour parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just Bye Bye that is it, get on with life. all this pussy footing we must do this that & the other, and the big money job for the Boys taking over to attend a stupid meeting which produces the same end product without a meeting which cost 100,000s or more! ahhhhhhh

 

Divorce is never easy and Brexit will be a complete nightmare costing a fortune. The cost to the UK will be tens of billions.

 

As long as people don't mind seeing a cut in pensions and withdrawal of others benefits they receive. That could well happen, if the economy does go into recession as predicted. The other silly thing is that more people from the EU will come to the UK before any exit date and that will mean more pressure on public services. 17 million people voted to be in a worse position, but if sovereignty is important to them, then they may see it as a price worth paying.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone got any views on this article.

As the dust settles on the EU referendum battleground, some 33 million voters await with bated breath to see what the victors will do now that the nation has spoken to leave.

 

Political commentators forecast a dark future for the UK: Jeremy Corbyn has just sacked Hilary Benn to head off a coup, and Boris Johnson could be prime minister come November.

 

David Cameron’s decision to resign before enacting Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which sets out how a country could leave the EU, may have much bigger implications for Conservative hopefuls eyeing up the Prime Minister's seat than they bargained for.

 

While panic ensues, one person’s musings in the comments section of the Guardian has an interesting hypothesis on these complications:

 

The comment, which was picked up on Twitter, has been shared thousands of times.

 

If true, that is some parting gift.

 

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-really-really-hoping-this-theory-about-david-cameron-and-brexit-is-true--bJhqBql0VZ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of fhe complicated legal relationship between four separate countries in a union. The UK is not really one country, but a union of countries. For example Scotland has a different legal system to England and Wales. Northern Ireland also has different ways of doing things.

 

Under the Scotland act, before the UK parliament could change such a fundamental thing as Scotlands membership of the EU, the consent of the Scottish parliament would be needed. It is whether the Scottish parliament are willing to frustrate the whole of the UK and cause a major constituitional crisis between countries. If i were the SNP, i would use this as a way to negotiate a better deal for Scotland.

 

its called , i want more power and unless you give it too me we wont help you , personally all the scots ive spoken to cant stand her

Link to post
Share on other sites

its called , i want more power and unless you give it too me we wont help you , personally all the scots ive spoken to cant stand her

 

SNP hold a very powerful position in Scotland and will use any legal position to benefit the Scottish people. Given that the pound is heading for parity with the Euro, changing to Euro after independence might not be as unattractive. I don't think a new Tory MP would stop a new indy ref.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

SNP hold a very powerful position in Scotland and will use any legal position to benefit the Scottish people. Given that the pound is heading for parity with the Euro, changing to Euro after independence might not be as unattractive. I don't think a new Tory MP would stop a new indy ref.

 

 

how ever the eu has already said scotland would be at the back of the que , also how are you going to survive without the blank check from the rest of the uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

how ever the eu has already said scotland would be at the back of the que , also how are you going to survive without the blank check from the rest of the uk

 

I am not Scottish (or a Scottish resident) and don't think independence would be a good idea, unless they came up with an economic proposition that made sense.

 

However, Scotland is a net contributor to UK Treasury and even without oil/gas revenues could do well with the right economic plan as an independent country. Scotland is important to the UK strategically, paricularly Faslane nuclear submarine base. The only possible alternative other UK base is Portsmouth or Falmouth, both of which have issues which would be difficult to overcome. If you search online there are articles on this by experts and they make it sound like UK would not have a nuclear submarine base if Scotland became independent.

 

If Scotland has a legal right to stop Brexit, so they protect their interest, that is their entitlement. Some think that article 50 being started by a new PM, would stop Scotland preventing Brexit, but there are legal questions about this.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Article 50 explained

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36634702/article-50-the-simplest-explanation-youll-find

 

Experts say it will probably take the UK 10 years to leave the EU !

 

And judging by this excellent article, there is no need to invoke Article 50. Very interesting indeed.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/stop-brexit-mp-vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe

Link to post
Share on other sites

And judging by this excellent article, there is no need to invoke Article 50. Very interesting indeed.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/stop-brexit-mp-vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe

 

That is a good article.

 

I hope MP's block Brexit, but most MP's are saying that they are democrats so must accept how the UK has voted. Whether this is because of the current sensitive situation and they change their position later remains to be seen.

 

I am listening to a very good Australian talk radio show on ABC at the moment to gain an outside view. Very interesting and is covering things not being talked of here. For example, Ireland post Brexit will not be able to agree a direct trade deal with the UK, but would have to go through the EU. This means that if the trade deal is bad for Ireland, it could massively affect the Irish economy and there will be problems with the border with N.Ireland. For example, Irish Beef might be subject to tariffs on export to the UK, so it gets trucked up to N.Ireland to avoid the tariff.

 

When i look around i see a lot of French, Italian, German, Spannish owned companies based in the UK who will now be considering whether they will continue in the UK as they are at the moment. The same will be the case with Ford, Nissan, Toyota etc and as soon as people see the consequences of Brexit, they will get onto their MP's and there will be a change in mood.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that MPs might block brexix does not sit right with me and it shouldn't sit right with anyone. Any government that ignores the will of the people is seriously asking for trouble..

 

You have obviously not read and understood the Guardian article linked to. It explains that this referendum is not binding in any way. If government wanted it to be binding, they could have put wording in the bill passed to say it would be implemented by government. But of course they can't do that because the UK does not have a written constituition. We elect 650 MP's to consider and vote on what the government put Forward.

 

Do you really expect government to proceed with Brexit even if the consequences are proving to be very bad for the economy and people ? For example if the currency falls to a very low level, Banks start getting into trouble, companies start cutting jobs etc.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fully aware that it is not legally binding but it is morally and the government still uses the peoples money to do what they want. If the government wants to do its own thing and not act for the people by the people then I would urge the people to start withholding there taxes until such a time the government acts on the will of the people. Its either democracy or it is not. It can't be had both ways..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie now wishes he voted remain.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zqwlc#play

 

A lot of people have changed their minds and it will be interesting what happens.

  • Like 1

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 998 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...