Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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

What happens if you don't pay a CCJ


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6118 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

I was talking to someone today who said that since he moved to New Zealand he's not going to pay the fee's for his CCJ in england because he won't be back in England for over 6 years and by that time it's off his credit record.

 

Is this right or should I warn him otherwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an expert in this area, but he would certainly be in contempt of court. I suppose it is possible that the authorities could chase him in NZ, but I am not certain. It sounds a risky game. If he were right, there would hardly be anyone left in the country!

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO CONTEMPT whatsoever. He's perfectly entitled to ignore the CCJ, it is up to the coeditor to pursue and arrange for his assets to be seized - which may include property. If the due diligence does not work, then after six years both his credit record will be clear and his CCJ expired. However, if it becomes known he's moved to NZ,he could be pursued there also....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest strangewayofsavin

it depends on the common wealth countries laws, If he moved to Austrailia, he can still be persued, however in Canada he cannot, not sure about NZ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting, he may possibly be correct then! Wow, that's good news for any immoral people emigrating to canada!

If that same as Australia applies to NZ I suppose it all boils down to if they can find you over there. Any ideas how hard these companies try to locate people? He told me today it was 30 flippin grand!!! Blimey, my debts don't even reach a third of that and thats enough!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for £30k, there may well be interest in pursuing him, but it probably won;t be the original creditor that will expend the effort. It is well known that credit card firms and other institutions sell on debts to other firms who specialise in recovering delinquent accounts.

 

It would well be sold on for - say - £5k to a collections firm, who will then use the difference between what they paid and what was owed to fund the tracing and formal recovery in ANY administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is up to the recovery agency - due diligence, through Electoral Register, newspaper reports anything else that puts the debtor's head above the parapet is fair game. Only a name change (either formally or informally) removes this possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A CCJ can be enforced at any time - there is no statute of limitations on it i.e. 6 years. However the information will be erased from the CCJ register and therefore your credit record. But the debt still exists and debt collectors can come calling 10 years or more after. It is always essential if you pay a CCJ that you keep the paperwork recording final payment indefinitely

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

his CCJ expired.quote

 

CCJs do NOT expire. In theory one can be chased forever for an outstanding CCJ. The leave of the court may be required for enforcement but fi there is good reason, it will be granted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Scotland they do. A Sheriff will ask why due diligence had not taken within the relevant period (five years) and whilst it can be reactivated, it requires a further court fee to do so - so using the term 'expiry' is quite correct. As to E&W, as you note, leave of enforcement is a similar step so whilst a full hearing may not be required, a renewal of the order would be required before re-service. Therefore as using the original documentation would be deemed incompetent, my saying it would expire is still a valid interpretation. In any event, Registry Trust would cease to list it as outstanding or satisfied whatever the actual disposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
In any event, Registry Trust would cease to list it as outstanding or satisfied whatever the actual disposition.

 

Someone who has an unsatisfied CCJ has every right to reregister it indefinatly (except possibly in scotland, I don't do scotland, LOL).

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only going on a hazy memory (it's the Irn Bru, honest), that whilst a re-registration is feasible the court would have to be satisfied that the pursuer had used due diligence in the past and had been unsuccessful. As an exercise to keep the debt enforcement alive for possible assignation to a debt collector subsequently, I don't think would be a simple task. Also, if they've taken 6 years and got nowhere, why pour more good money after bad (as the pursuer). If they haven't got it in 4 years, they'll probably never get it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT would be a big mistake if they did - a fraud warning simply for not supplying a previous address? They'd never be out of court having to defend their position if that became common practice. According to the CIFAS rules, a provable irregularity or fraud attempt must be perpetrated before the flag is set, but then, nothing surprises me these days. Who needs courts to administer justice when a CRA can do it much better and cheaper without an annoying judicial process?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thats what I had - had a letter from a Barrister no less stating that I wasn't living there at the time and neither the company that were offering the credit nor the cra were willing to remove the cifas warning.

 

There are several cifas warnings and mine was for attempting to gain credit with partially true info/withholding info or somethign to that effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be at the discretion of the lender, and who would ultimately be responsible to support the allegation if challenged. From memory there had to be more than an intent to defraud (by omission) there had to be a provable misleading statement. You can't remember the precise wording?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...