Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Sorry,  I'm not familiar with terminology.  Direction questionnaire is what I've seen online as next step. Witness statement: I haven't gone that far, that's why I put the question marks.
    • 2. Is correct disregard 1. You must attend ad per the order 
  • 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

tv license may be decriminalized


Fulhamboy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3701 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

Morning all,

Just heard on the news that the tv license may be decriminalized . The prosecution of non payers is clogging up the courts . Oh joy some common sense at last next the council tax, I wish, LOL.

If this goes ahead Barstons will no longer be able to hunt down non payers like a pack of wolves .Pursuing you up and down the country regardless of how old the debt is.Being a cynical Londoner , I am wondering how many palms will be greased by said bailiff company to keep this law in place ?Have they got an inside man in the MOJ ? Shurley shome mistake !

Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC and Crapita TVL will lobby and fight this all the way, as their funding streams fgo down the pan, It was noted on the news today that MPs feel it is ridiculous that 70 people a year or more are jailed for non payment of criminal fines an offence that should be civi, as in £145 is too much for poor peole to pay just to be allowed to watch TV legally anyway.

 

As well as opposing the move the BBC basically want to extend the TV Tax to anything that can show video, live, streamed or from a file.

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

Part of the reason they are looking to change it, is because people now view TV programmes in a total different way. You don't have to watch live TV per the schedule and can view programmes when you want via i-player or similar. People also can watch online content, via Netflix and similar. You can have a TV in your house, but never watch any live programmes. I can watch TV programmes from all over the world via various online sites, without ever watching any UK TV.

 

There is also the issues of people watching TV programmes via portable devices, when they may not be in a household where there is a TV licence.

 

I predict that the TV licence will be scrapped within the next 10 years and it may be replaced with something else. Perhap instead the government adds £10 tax to the purchase cost of every mobile phone, i-pad, laptop/computer, TV that is capable of receiving live TV broadcasts. That would generate a lot of money, that the government could distribute to broadcasters. The BBC would have to move away from being reliant on TV licence and use advertising/product placement.

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

An excellent summary UB The BBC TV Tax model is so last century, and the TV Tax needs to go

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

TV Licensing could save lots of money by unnecessarily chasing up people harassing and threatening them. I went to live abroad for a while and wrote to them explaining I would be renting out and would notify them when a tenant moved in. After three months they starting sending a barrage

of mail to the house. Unfortunately the estate agent had gone out of business so I didn't know anything about it. The language in the letters was so threatening. I know it happened to someone else whose mother went into a home. The house was empty but despite informing them the letters just kept coming. In the end they were just ignored and said their system could only stop correspondence for 3 months. I'm sure this could be changed. I wonder how much such unnecessary enforcement costs. Apparently they have a list of all properties in the UK without a licence and continue to check them. Quite frankly I won't be sorry to see this draconian system disappear. I pay mine at the beginning of the year but this year I was a little late. I had you are under investigating notice in the same post as my licence. If the BBC want to treat ordinary people like this I for one don't care if they lose a few radio stations. Get advertising like the other stations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the first person to mention this but the way forward is to make the BBC channels pay per view. Then you have no choice but to cough up, thats the logical step.forward The reason why they probably dont is how many people would subscribe . At the moment they have a captive audience but if we were given a choice ! Jailing people for not having a license what are we coming to ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would surprised. I think many people would pay say £2 a week to get all BBC channels. But it would be a lot less than the current licence amount, so they would need to earn money in other ways.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...