Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2313 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

A few months ago I sold my business which was a Ltd company. There were several debts on the business and I'm in the process of winding up the company with a liquidator. As far as I'm aware I did not offer a personal guarantee to any debt.

 

Out of the blue yesterday, I got a visit at my home from a company called DCBL to collect the debt regarding one company. The bailiff said he was there to enforce a high court judgement and either we pay in full or he will seize the goods in the house. Unfortunately, I had already let him into my home at this point and realised that was my biggest mistake.

 

Whilst I tried to get more information from him about my options he started to take a camera out and began to take pictures of my belongings. Obviously, this was aimed to intimidate me and it worked. When I asked to see his paperwork he refused to let me hold it. Instead, he turned over the 1st page which was more detailed and showed me a page underneath which showed what the original debt was and the charges put on top which is what he was there to reclaim. The total sum he was looking for was just over £11k.

 

I told him that the debt was against the Ltd company and the company had no connection to the home other than that I as Director lived there. We had never received notice from the court about the case and he then said that DCBL would have written to my home. Which they haven't as I had no letter.

 

When I said I needed a few minutes to get the funds together he said: "that's fine, I'll continue to take pictures". I told him that I was going to pay as I didn't want him to take my goods he just ignored me. I got out my debit card and paid the debt and he went away.

 

The issue I have is;

 

1) The debt was in the company name, did they have a right to come to my home to collect it?

2) His aggressiveness in talking to me. I gave no indication that I was not going to pay and actually just queried if he was allowed to collect it from me which he ignored.

3) The paperwork, what was he trying to hide? He was adamant that I wasn't allowed to touch it and when I suggested he hold it and I view it he quickly turned over the pages to show me the page he left with me.

4) at the door, before entering he simply said he was from a company called DCBL regarding a debt to company XYZ. He didn't mention he was a bailiff.

 

Looking at the paperwork he has left me, the title of the page is "Notice that goods have been removed for storage or sale". He hasn't removed any goods. The charges on this page I would imagine are higher than the page where he doesn't have to remove goods? There are charges like;

 

Enforcement Stage Fee

Sale Stage Fee

 

Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I have spoken to DCBL this morning who suggested I write a complaint, which I will do seeking advice from this forum.

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few months ago I sold my business which was a Ltd company. There were several debts on the business and I'm in the process of winding up the company with a liquidator. As far as I'm aware I did not offer a personal guarantee to any debt.

 

Out of the blue yesterday, I got a visit at my home from a company called DCBL to collect the debt regarding one company. The bailiff said he was there to enforce a high court judgement and either we pay in full or he will seize the goods in the house. Unfortunately, I had already let him into my home at this point and realised that was my biggest mistake.

 

The total sum he was looking for was just over £11k.

 

I told him that the debt was against the Ltd company and the company had no connection to the home other than that I as Director lived there. We had never received notice from the court about the case and he then said that DCBL would have written to my home. Which they haven't as I had no letter.

 

When I said I needed a few minutes to get the funds together he said: "that's fine, I'll continue to take pictures". I told him that I was going to pay as I didn't want him to take my goods he just ignored me. I got out my debit card and paid the debt and he went away.

 

Thank you.

 

Can you confirm that the writ that DCBL were enforcing was definitely against a LIMITED COMPANY as opposed to you personally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you SOLD your business yet you then say liquidators are involved.

If you sold it then who to?.

 

What assignments did you make and what exactrly did you sign over?

 

You say the visit was out of the blue,

well to get to where bailiffs visit it has to go through a lot of other stages

so where would have all the other letters have gone to if you didnt get them?

 

you can ask the local court who issued the writ for details of the judgement

then you will know who it was who sued you (or the company)

if that was procedurally flawed set about undoing the judgement.

 

As part of the payemnt there will be set fees for each stage of enforcement,

Ask for a copy of the breakdown of this

then check it against the MoJ list as it may be that you have paid for stages that werent reached and have grounds for reimbursement of those fees and a complaint to the company and the MoJ about the visitors as a minimum

Link to post
Share on other sites

You sold the company, and are liquidating it? What did you sell?

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

Can you confirm that the writ that DCBL were enforcing was definitely against a LIMITED COMPANY as opposed to you personally?

 

thank you for your advice so far.

 

I have contacted the court and it appears the name on the writ was the company name and the address was the company address.

 

You sold the company, and are liquidating it? What did you sell?

 

Hi, I think in confusion I wasn't clear.

I sold that business that operated but not the company itself.

 

The new owners have continued the business on their own new ltd company which has nothing to do with me.

 

As per usual on a single visit DCBL appear to have charged all enforcement charges at the same time.

 

Do you know how much the original Court Claim will have been?

 

I do have all the details but have kept it fairly vague.

 

From the original claim (plus interest) there appears to be over £2500 in charges.

 

you SOLD your business yet you then say liquidators are involved. If you sold it then who to?. What assignments did you make and what exactrly did you sign over?

You say the visit was out of the blue, well to get to where bailiffs visit it has to go through a lot of other stages so where would have all the other letters have gone to if you didnt get them?

you can as the local court who issued the writ for details of the judgement and then you will know who it was who sued you (or the company) and if that was procedurally flawed set about undoing the judgement.

As part of the payemnt there will be set fees for each stage of enforcement, Ask for a copy of the breakdown of this and then check it against the MoJ list as it may be that you have paid for stages that werent reached and have grounds for reimbursement of those fees and a complaint to the company and the MoJ about the visitors as a minimum

 

Thank for your questions.

 

I have done some enquiries and it appears that no documentation or letters regarding the court dates or from DCBL were sent to my home address.

 

Which is why this was out of the blue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to advise the forum that I was contacted by this poster earlier today and he is making enquiries behind the scenes.

 

To his disadvantage his realises that he had made some stunning errors, the first being to allow the enforcement agent into his property ( he was not aware of who they were) and secondly, being intimidated into making payment for a debt that he personally was not responsible for paying.

 

Not surpringly, DCBL charged ALL enforcement stage fees at the one visit (1st Enforcement fee, 2nd Enforcement fee and Sale Stage fee).

Link to post
Share on other sites

bet they didn't have the film crew or their body cameras running...

or will it be like that other one on that other forum...

as soon as they saw the debt card they stopped recording and took added everything they could as the could see they were dealing with a mug that knew nothing....

 

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

Nail and head DX, I hope there is a way for Op to reclaim the money from Sandbrook's Sharks.

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

court docs wouldnt have to be sent to your home address, your trading address or any address you have given in the past for either a place of business or the service of documents would suffice.

 

answering my other questions would give a good indication of any liabilty you would have but you are in good hands now so go with that..

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, thanks the advice I got away from the forum has been very good. I'm in the process of writing a letter of complaint to them which it seems has to be done regardless, to escalate this further.

 

If we could keep all advice and developments on the thread otherwise it makes this thread pointless to other members.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic 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...