Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Lolerz Thanks for replying to me, yes I've been ignoring her & will continue to do so. All she keeps saying is they want to come up with an amicable settlement. Keeps saying this to our receptionist she shouldn't be saying this to a receptionist or even me in the first place as they have given no proof of anything no IP addresses noting just keeps saying about an amicable settlement.
    • If a DCA supplies a reconstituted copy of the CCA what would be the next step? It seems that a reconstituted copy must be a " true copy " of the executed agreement, it must contain the Prescribed Terms. But given that there is no copy of the applicants signature surely it could be an agreement form with the details filled in. How can it be assumed that this " copy " represents a true copy that the claimant has supposed to have signed. Cabot have demonstrated a bit of sabre rattling when they say "Until we're able to provide this information , your account is unenforceable. This means we're not permitted to obtain a County Court judgement against you . Whilst we cannot pursue legal action, your balance remains outstanding ". I looked up a case... Cabot UK Ltd  v  Bachellier (2010) which might help, but it's tough reading, I'd prefer to plough through War and Peace. This particular case with Cabot is not huge , approx' £140, but the only other worry that I have is also with Cabot...£2100. They may try to make a point with lesser case.
    • you'll never find a court open on a w/end MB. all courts are closed Good Friday and Bank Holiday Monday. However as Andy points out, that does NOT mean you get 2 extra days to file, you get one, same as xmas/new Year. UKPC have not filed their, so no rush on yours as dave says.  
    • Top US magazine slams Britain after 14 years of Tory ‘psychodrama’ The New Yorker’s excoriating report on the state of the UK lays bare how Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU) “catalysed some of the worst tendencies in British politics”. “The only way to think about it is as a psychodrama enacted, for the most part, by a small group of middle-aged men who went to élite private schools, studied at the University of Oxford, and have been climbing and chucking one another off the ladder of British public life" Top US magazine slams Britain after 14 years of Tory ‘psychodrama’ WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK The New Yorker’s excoriating report on the state of the UK lays bare how Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU) “catalysed...  
  • 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

Plane owner loses £3.3 million claim against bailiffs....and ordered to pay £36,000 in costs.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2309 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

This is a useful High Court judgment and one that should serve as a reminder to anyone considering litigation, that an error by an enforcement agent is not automatically trespass and most importantly, that any claims for loss/damages etc must be proved to arise directly from the agents misconduct -which very often will be difficult to prove.

 

There is also the matter of the need to provide evidence to support any claims (something that was seriously lacking in this case).

 

 

Background to claim:

 

 

On 12th March 2015, a writ of control was issued against Mr Miller for £408,00. This related to a judgment from March 2010 for £330,000. I am assuming that the difference between both figures relates to interest on the debt.

 

The Creditor passed the writ of control to a High Court enforcement company to enforce.

 

Of significance, was that the address on the writ was ‘Sunnyview’. In 2014, Mr Miller had moved from that address to a rented property (called Yew Tree).

 

On 26th March 2015, the enforcement agent visited an airfield*where Mr Miller had a business.The purpose of the visit had been to locate two small aircrafts (a Pitts and a De Havilland Chipmunk owned by Miller).

 

The enforcement agent met with Mr Miller and took control of the vehicle that he had been driving (a Jeep), and one of the aircraft (the Pitt). The claimant made payment of £1,600 towards the judgment.Goods were not removed that day.

 

Following the meeting, Mr Miller claimed that the enforcement agent went around the airfield ‘questioning everyone’before gaining peaceful entry into an airfield building where he looked for documents. He left, taking documents and keys to the aircrafts.

 

The Enforcement Agent then went to an alternative address (xxxxx Mills) to make enquiries. Mr Miller had told the enforcement agent that this location was connected to his business. There he was allowed access to the property to search for the second plane; (the De Havilland Chipmunk). The plane was there, together with other aeronautical parts belonging to Mr Miller. A short while later, Mr Miller removed the plane to a friend’s barn in Cirencester.

 

The following day, (27th March 2015) Mr Miller visited the High Court and made an application for a temporary 'stay’ of the writ. The stay was lifted 2 months later (on 27th May 2015) and re-imposed on 5th June 2015 (it was finally lifted on 24th July 2015 after he failed in an application to ‘set aside’ the judgment).

 

 

Mr Miller's arrest and charge of ‘interfering with controlled goods.

 

 

Despite a ‘stay’ being imposed, and despite his Jeep and one of the aircrafts being ‘taken into control’, Mr Miller removed the aircraft and aeronautical parts to various locations including his rented property (‘Yew Tree’). *He parked the PITTS on his driveway under a tarpaulin. The enforcement agent became aware that the seized items had been moved and accordingly, on 20th June 2015, he attended ‘Yew Tree’ . Nothing was removed on that day. Instead, the police were called and Mr Miller was arrested and charged with ‘inferring with controlled goods’.

 

The court stay was finally lifted on 24th July 2015 and the following day, the enforcement agent removed goods. Further items were removed a couple of days later.

 

According to Mr Miller, he had a number of hearings for the criminal charge, the final one being in January 2016 at Swindon Magistrates Court where he claimed that he had been acquitted. No details appeared to have been provided for the acquittal (more on this shortly).

 

He claimed that the Magistrates Court had supposedly been satisfied that he had moved from ‘Sunnyview’ to ‘Yew Tree’ in April 2014. It would appear that he had been assisted in court by an internet sourced ‘Mc Kenzie Friend’.

 

 

Removal of goods and sale.

 

 

The goods were eventually removed by the enforcement agent at the end of July 2015 and sold at public auction for £34,000. The auction was advertised.

 

(Continued in following post):

Edited by honeybee13
Edit requested by OP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Miller's claim for £3.3 million.

 

 

A year after the goods had been removed (18thJuly 2016) Mr Miller issued a claim. The Particulars of claim were for £3.3 million and included:

 

 

1...A Breach of Statutory duty (specifically the duty to give a Notice of Enforcement (Para 7(1) of Schedule 12

 

2...£3,000 for trespass to ‘Yew Tree’ whilst a ‘an injunction’ had supposedly been in place (it transpired at trial that there had not been any such ‘injunction.’)

 

4...Defamation (£500,000 for personal and business defamation). This was on the basis that the enforcement agent had supposedly ‘made untrue and defamatory statements’ to business colleagues.

 

4...£100,000 Damages for distress, anxiety, depression, fear, stress, and suicidal ideation brought on due to the ‘shock element of enforcement, the allegations, rumours, lies and feelings of ‘invasion to home, to loss of goods, loss of work and work related opportunities, false allegations of criminal behaviour and subsequent prosecution and preparations for criminal trial.

 

5...£401,000 for replacement of PITTS Model 12 together with shipping costs etc (the claim had originally been for £200,000).

 

6...£186,000 for replacement De Havilland Chipmunk and replacement cost of additional aeronautical parts.

 

7...£150,000 for replacement engine

 

8...£1,800,000 for loss of future profits

 

9...£480,000 Interest under Section 35a of the Supreme Courts Act 1981

 

 

Note: The value of £186,000 was surprising given that Miller had confirmed that a similar model with fewer hours had sold for just £6,000 in January 2015 !!

 

 

Basis of the claim:

 

Mr Miller claimed that:

 

 

(1) Enforcement began without him receiving a Notice of Enforcement

 

(2) That the enforcement agent entered premises without a warrant. He claimed that he had not received a Notice of Enforcement as he had moved from the address on the writ of control (Sunnyview) in April 2014 and that the enforcement agent had traced him to a different address (Yew Tree).

 

He relied upon the following regulations:

 

Regulation 8(1) which provides that a Notice of Enforcement must be given ‘by post or by hand’ to :

 

The place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade of business’.

 

Para 9 of Schedule 12 which prevents an enforcement agent from taking control of goods unless that are on a ‘highway’ or ‘on premises that he has power to enter’ under the Schedule.

 

Para 14 of Schedule 12 which provides that:

 

An enforcement agent may enter premises: “if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, our one of the places, where the debtor (a) usually lives, or (b) carries on a trade or business’.

 

 

Particulars of Claim.

 

The Particulars were filed on almost the very last day allowed under the Civil Procedure Rules (4 months from the date of issue of the claim).

 

Throughout the proceedings, it was maintained by Mr Miller that the problems arising under the claim had arisen due to the ‘enforcement procedures’ not being complied with and that accordingly, the enforcement itself had been invalid and that the breach allowed him to claim compensation under Para 66 of Schedule 12.

 

At trial, the defendants claimed that:

 

The Particulars of Claim were ’so defective that they would obstruct the just disposal of a claim’ and further, that the pleadings had been ‘wholly speculative…without any explanation for them’ and ought to be ‘struck out’.

 

Mr Miller failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support his claims to the value of both planes.

 

Of serious concern was that with respect to the PITTS aircraft, (to which he was claiming £401,0000 ),he claimed that he had given the plane away to somebody in lieu of a debt of £200,000 that he owed to that person.

 

(Continued)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearing of 28th June 2017

 

During the hearing on 28th June 2017, it became apparent that the Particulars of Claim contained a number of allegation which appeared to be ‘inadequately pleaded’ and which the Judge considered; ‘had little prospect of success’. These included:

 

The claim for distress, anxiety, fear, stress and depression

 

The claim for personal injury

 

The claim for defamation.

 

In recognition of the hopelessness of his claim, Mr Miller instructed the court, that with the exception of the claim for trespass (see below) he did not intend pursuing these matters any further. The judge commented that this was a‘sensible acceptance of the fact’ given that :

 

Mr Miller had provided no medical evidence at all to support a claim for personal injury, distress or anxiety.

 

His claim for defamation was ‘not sufficiently particularised’ and were ‘hopelessly vague’.

 

 

Claim for trespass;

 

The Judge commented that Mr Miller had recognised the fact that he had no real prospect of success on this point given that he was not the owner of the properties in respect of which trespass had been alleged and furthermore, that Regulation 66(2) of Schedule 12 made clear that if an agent is in breach of the regulations, it does not make him a trespasser !!

 

Claim for damages arising from breaches of Schedule 12.

 

Under this heading, Mr Miller relied upon the supposed non service of the Notice of Enforcement.

 

The Judge commented that the Defendants had such a strong case that he had no doubt that Mr Miller did not have a real prospect of success and accordingly, that there was no other compelling reason for a trial to proceed.

 

It is important to note that in relation to Mr Miller’s claim on non service of the Notice of Enforcement, the defendants stated that they had every reason to believe that ‘Sunnyview’ was the place, or one of the places, where the Claimant usually lived for the following reasons:

 

1 Sunnyview was the address given by the creditor’s solicitors in their instructions to the First Defendant

2 According to the up-to-date CAA information provided by the creditor’s solicitor; Sunnyview was the registered address for three aircrafts belonging to the Claimant.

3 The Writ gave Sunnyview as the Claimant’s address

4 The Claimant confirmed on the telephone on 26th March 2015 that his debt card was registered to Sunnyview

5 The enforcement agent photographed item of posts addressed to the Claimant at Sunnyview*

6 The Jeep that had been taken into control was registered to Sunnyview

 

 

In relation to damages claimed, the Judge made some interesting comments:

 

He disagreed with the assertion of Mr Miller’s solicitor that if there had been a breach of the enforcement provision, that it must follow that the Claimant was entitled to succeed in the figures outlined in his claim.

 

In rejecting her argument, the Judge referred to para 66(5)(b) of Schedule 12 where the award of damages would be limited ‘in respect of loss suffered by the debtor as a result of the breach”. In other words; only if there is a loss suffered as a result of the breach would the court have discretion to award damages. He stated that Mr Miller would have needed to prove a link between the breach and the loss (and that he had not done so).

 

He also did not accept Mr Miller’s solicitors submission on the basis of damages and referred to the legal case of Chubb Cash v John Crilley which provides that the usual measure of damages applicable by common law applies and accordingly, where a sale has taken place in the open market (in this case by auction), the value of damages would be limited to the amount realised at auction. In other words, even if Mr Miller had won his claim for damages, such a claim would be limited to the amount that the goods has sold for (£34,000).

 

The claimant had duplicated part of his damages claim and the Judge observed that it was his view that Miller had sought to put his claim for damages ‘as high as he could’.

 

Turning again to the Statement of Claim, the Judge referred to the submission of one of the defendants where they considered that the pleadings had been ‘wholly speculative’ and in some cases exaggerated. He stated that Miller’s claim that the engine parts would attract some historic value was not only ‘extremely speculative’ but was ‘imbued with a sense of unreality’.

 

He concluded that another aspect which indicated exaggeration (in this case of £500,000) was in relation to the claim of defamation which Mr Miller had abandoned at an earlier stage in the proceedings. The Judge stated that his claim on this point had not been properly pleaded.

 

The claimant claim had no prospect of success. He was ordered to pay costs of approx £36,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the charge of 'Interference of controlled goods' brought before the Magistrates result in a

fine?

 

An interesting question and one that the Judgement was silent on.

 

I am reliably informed that the Magistrate Court hearings (to consider the charge of Mr Miller inferring with controlled goods) was extended as he claimed to be a Freeman on the Land supporter.

 

He refused to acknowledge questions from the Magistrates claiming that he wanted the court to address him by his FMoTL name of xxxxxxx of the Miller Family. He was asked on numerous occasions whether his real name was xxxxxxx Miller. He refused to confirm that this was his real name and as a consequence, he was removed from the court.

 

His behaviour led to the court entering a plea on his behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had quite a few messages from people who are not forum members to ask additional questions. They include the following (some of which I think I have already answered):

 

1. Was the hearing a County Court one?

 

2. Was Mr Miller legally represented?

 

3. Did he challenge the value that the goods had sold for?

 

4. Has the Claimant appealed?

 

In addition to the above, I have also been asked questions about the legal case of Chubb v Crilley.

 

Answers:

 

1. The hearing was in the High Court and was heard before Master Kay QC

 

2. Mr Miller was represented in court by a solicitor (Miss S H).

 

3. It was noted in the Judgment that the claimant had not pleaded (or at any time asserted) that the sale had been at an undervalue.

 

4. No, the claimant did not appeal and neither could he given that with the exception of the claim for trespass, he had abandoned his claims at the earlier hearing.

 

The judgment refers in detail to the legal case of Chubb v Crilley and Master Kay made clear that the 'usual measure of damages applicable by common law applies and that where there has been a sale in the open market that will be the best evidence of the value of the goods in question'

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...