Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • 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

Sheriff Court Decree - SAAS debt not mine - Unable to Recall Decree


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2400 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

On the 4th November 2016 a decree was granted against me for the sum of £1550,

 

I was in attendance however had no defence at the time. I had absolutely no knowledge of the matter and very little paperwork. The matter relates to money paid to a bank account by the Student Awards Agency For Scotland. I'm 49 and not a student. They claimed that several payments were made to me via a Lloyds Bank account very recently.

 

No money had been paid to me and I believe it was an administrative error on their part, the bank account in question is not my bank account but on the day I had nothing with which to prove this and the Sheriff granted a decree against me.

 

For many months I’ve been writing to Lloyds Bank and finally they responded a few days ago to confirm that I had no links to that bank account but also that the account was dormant and that no money had in fact been paid into that account. Obviously I thought I could have the decree overturned.

 

The court have rejected having the decree recalled as they say I was present in court, I could have it recalled if had not attended. The court have also refused to allow me to appeal since an appeal must be done within 14 days of the decree being granted.

 

So I seem to be stuck in a place where I’m now faced with possible bankruptcy over money which I never owed in the first place and does indeed seem to be an error.

 

Can you advise on how I might proceed? I had considered contacting the Sheriff Principal in Edinburgh to ask her to reconsider the case.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

why did you not convey to the sheriff that you were awaiting paperwork from Lloyds to prove what you've now found out?

the 1a claim? would have been issued months in advance of any hearing /response date

you should of had well enough time to sar Lloyds, I gather that's what you did?

 

 

more info please

 

 

there is also no harm in directly contacting the pursuers

who were?

they can cancel it

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

Thanks for the input.

 

The pursuers are The Scottish Ministers (Student Awards Agency For Scotland [sAAS]).

 

I got a letter mid 2016 stating I owed them money for student loans made as I hadn't completed my course; these were paid out in November and December 2015.

Confusing as I haven't been a student for over 30 years.

 

They didn't respond to any letters,

They started court proceedings and there were two preliminary hearings at which the only evidence provided was an application form printed from the internet.

 

Then remember the Sheriff at the prelim hearing holding up the application and telling their solicitor that this really wasn't evidence.

 

I had informed the Sheriff that I had contacted Lloyds Bank to find out about the account where the money was paid to.

 

At the proof hearing it was a different Sheriff who was very dismissive of me, continually interrupting.

I had asked since the application was made online if there was an IP address available of the person who made the application and the Sheriff ignored me.

 

SAAS had an employee give evidence that the payment was made to Lloyds Bank account and that Lloyds had told her the account was in my name.

 

I really had nothing to offer in defence other than a letter from the University stating I wasn't a student, hadn't been offered a place and had never applied, SAAS already had this information in their productions along with the online application.

 

I informed the Sheriff that I was still waiting to hear from Lloyds but she said she wasn't prepared to wait any further.

 

Her ruling was that it was entirely likely that I had applied for the student loan and received the money.

 

I had made a comment that SAAS had provided no physical evidence that any payment had been made however she shot me down entirely saying that that was not the issue before the court (??).

 

based on that the Sheriff granted SAAS their decree against me.

Lloyds finally got back to me a few days ago with an apology (thanks) and their letter states firstly that account information is never divulged and that they have a duty of confidentiality.

 

They then go on to state they can find no link between the Lloyds account details provided by SAAS and myself and confirm the account is not in my name nor based anywhere near my home address.

 

They then go on to say that the account is dormant and there have been no transactions on the account since June 2013.

 

Having previous had my identity stolen

I had considered that someone had made a fraudulent application in my name although for some reason SAAS admitted they didn't carry out their usual checks to see if I had enrolled on the course before paying out the loan.

 

I had also considered that it may be an administration error as my daughter attends the University listed in the application and receives a loan from SAAS although her reference is different to the one on the application relating to my name.

 

I've tried contacting SAAS but they have simply responded saying their next step is to petition for sequestration.

 

I've written directly to SAAS as well as The Scottish Ministers who simply pass the matter back to SAAS.

 

I've been turned down for legal aid; I'm currently on Carer's Allowance as my wife is seriously ill.

 

I'm unaware of the "1a claim" and I simply wrote to the bank,

I didn't make a SAR,

they obviously wouldn't provide the name of the actual account holder however I just needed them to confirm that I wasn't the account holder.

 

As I said, the Sheriff simply dismissed it and stated she wasn't prepare to adjourn.

 

Is it worth contacting the Sheriff Principal requesting that the decree should be set aside and another hearing be set?

 

The court says that this can only be done when I've not appeared in court at the hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ouch that's very poor

I cant say ive not almost been in exactly the same situation

 

 

i'm really surprised that SAAS are not taking your findings seriously

 

 

it obviously an admin error p'haps compounded by the identity theft and daughter 'link'

 

 

even though I help an live in Scotland

my actual knowledge is limited with the way courts up here work being a southerner!!

 

 

have you tried something oddball like contacting the sheriffs clerk officer at the court with this?

 

 

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

SAAS just aren't interested in anything I have to say.

 

Spoken to the Sheriff Clerk who told me she's she spoken to the Sheriff who confirms that I can neither recall the decree or appeal it and that I should see further legal advice.

 

I was going to contact the Sheriff Principal in Edinburgh to raise the fact that there should be some kind of recourse in this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that might be your only option

this is poor system.

 

 

have you spoken to Scottish CAB?

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

i'd chase them up

you are in danger of arrestment of wages etc if you don't act?

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

Yes, it's constantly on my mind. I phoned CAB again this morning and they said it would be the end of the week.

 

My wife recently developed a serious health condition which meant giving up work for a while until her condition improves, so at the moment I receive Carer's Allowance, not sure if that'll satisfy them.

 

Already had Sheriff Officers at the door twice and explained the situation and that I was trying to get the decree recalled or appeal, they were very good and said they'd report back to SAAS and let it go at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they can be very helpful and understanding.

 

 

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

  • 4 months later...

how did this resolve?

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...