Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • 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.   
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2086 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

Step daughter has received enforcement from Jacobs they have told her she must pay £230 per month she cant afford that, she paid £200 which is the amount they said they needed to stop enforcement.

 

Jacobs will not negotiate a lesser amount so she might as well not go to work.

 

Ive read guidance to la but is it likely that a council who issues a liability order after 3 months are liable to care that the level of payment by their contractors is punitive.

any advice on how to proceed would be gratefully accepted.

Edited by Andyorch
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved to Bailiffs - Help with Dealing with Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents including HCEO

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, best idea will take you 5 minutes, nobody ever thinks it will work because they think that all local councillors just sit around and do nothing. Reality, is your local elected councillor / head of council have absolute power to overide, Jacobs Bailiffs, the council collections department, the jobsworths in customer service who all frankly don't give a rats a**e that your step daughter will need to skip meals in order to pay their debt.

 

Even better, it's a quick google to find their phone numbers and emails. Phone / email your local councillor plus elected head of council. In my situation, the head of my city council had the whole thing sorted in 15 minutes !

 

My email would go something along these lines.

 

Dear XYX,

 

I have fallen behind in my council tax payments, I am in a very precarious financial situation right now but I am being harassed by bailiffs to pay £250 per month which would mean me either not being able to eat or make my rent. I've tried to make an affordable offer to the council but it has fallen on deaf ears, they have even charged me £XYZ for the bailiffs.

 

I really know that councils are strapped for funds, and therefore how important council tax is. I would love to be able to get back on track and could afford to pay £50 PM for the next 6 months, and review at that point. I would be very greatful if you could arrange this for me and remove Jacobs Bailiffs and their fees from this case,

 

I look forward to your response '

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

Your stepdaughter will only have a small window in time to come to an agreement with Jacobs. Of course it is not in the interest of Jacobs to reach an agreement because they can then come

round to the property , allegedly to take possession of goods, but is actually designed to add a further £235 to her bill. The other option they have is to arrange a repayment scheme that your daughter cannot keep to thus losing out on the £235 . So even if one payment is only one day late that triggers a visit from Jacobs thus allowing them to charge the £235. It is a disgraceful system.

The first thing to do which may prevent that happening is to speak to the Council. They will probably fob you off since the Council may have outsourced their work to Capita who own Jacobs.

It is worth persevering with them as they are responsible for the actions of the bailiffs and the Council ideally want the outstanding amount to be repaid before the start of the new tax year in April. If your daughter can afford that the Council may agree to her figure rather than what Jacobs are demanding.

If that figure is still too much and the Council won't agree to paying back over a longer period [understandable in a way since she will be repaying back tax and the current 2018/2019 council tax at the same time]. If you cannot get an agreement with them then talk to her local councillor. Point out the stupidity of the Council attitude as your daughter will end up paying an extra £235 which will go to the bailiffs, the Council will get none of it and it will push back the time that the Council will receive their money from your daughter.

 

If they cannot help, write to the CEO of the Council who will not be on Capita's books and use the same argument as you did with the Councillor. It cannot be sensible to add more debt to some one who is already in debt and prolongs the full repayment time.

 

.Please bear in mind that even though the Council agree to a repayment scheme it will have to be done through Jacobs and you won't be able to avoid the £235 fee if payments are missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...