Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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 1793 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

Hello All

 

A few years ago I took my builder to court for shoddy workmanship and a CCJ was served against the builder to pay just over £5000. He pleaded poverty and, feeling a little pity on him, I accepted a monthly payment of £40, which by my calculations would take him over 10 years to pay back. Anyway, in the first few years he missed the odd payment which I ignored but for the past 6 months he has stopped paying all together.

 

I am considering taking action to recover the rest of the amount he owes which is still over £4000.

But I am unsure what method i use, as there is so much conflicting information out there.

 

As I see it I have 2 choices

1. take out a Writ of Control, which I understand will result in a bailiff turning up at his home and demanding the full debt paid or

2. take out am Order to Obtain Information which I believe will bring him back to court to explain his current financial situation.

 

I like the first option, as he has messed me about and I'd like to be rid of him really but I feel he will plead poverty again, (even though he is has recently bought a flashy new builders van and a new executive home). and so Bailiffs may not be able to recover much.

 

Using the 2nd option he will most likely offer a nominal monthly repayment and later down the line start missing payments again.

 

Can anyone advice whats the best approach and how do I go about this to stand any chance of recovering the rest of the debt?

 

Any help much appreciated.

 

M2

Link to post
Share on other sites

neither

go ring one of the HCEO firms like 'the sheriffs officers' - its over £600 they'll do everything for you fee is

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

Make sure that they are doing is on a no collection - no fee basis. They all do - but get it in writing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BankFodder and dx100uk for your very quick responses.

 

- "neither - go ring one of the HCEO firms like 'the sheriffs officers" Really?? I thought I would have to issue a Warrant of Control in order to pass it on the a HCEO???

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a judgement. That is all you need. The only slight complication is that the judgement is partially satisfied. Telephone HCEO and talk to them about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the builder trade - sole trader, partnership, ltd company? If a sole trader are you sure he has assets - he may have a nice sparkly van but the chances are it is not his? When was your original Judgment obtained?

  • Haha 1

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ploddertom -

 

The CCJ was issued 4 years ago.

I believe he is a sole trader. Other than his new home, which he bought only last year according to Land Registry, I have no idea if he has any other assets.

 

As for his van, I believe that even if that was his own, since he needs it for his work, just like his tools, it cannot be taken by the HCEOs.

 

Which is why I thought perhaps bringing him to court to declare his financial situation under oath in front of a judge might be better. At least I would know what he is capable of paying. But it is not clear from reading some of the threads what is the best way to go about this either. there seems 2 ways

with an EX324 Order to Obtain Information

or by completing Form N316 (Application for an order that the judgment debtor attends court for questioning).

Either way, in the end he can continue to play cat and mouse by agreeing to pay a new amount and then defaulting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is a sole trader and he has just bought a new home – and if that home is in his own name – then you should immediately start having the judgement transferred up for enforcement by HCEO.

 

Speak to them about any difficulties enforcing a judgement which is part satisfied.

 

You say that he now has a new home – have you checked with the land registry that he is actually the owner? You can do a land registry search on the Internet.

 

I think that if you went for enforcement by HCEO against his own home then there would be very little he could do and I expect that he would want to deal with it quickly to avoid further trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Hi Avatar - I have done the Land Registry search. He is down as the Registered Owner(s) on the Title deeds, but reading further in the deeds the house is leasehold with 999 years lease. not sure if that makes any difference for my purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ploddertom -

 

The CCJ was issued 4 years ago.

I believe he is a sole trader. Other than his new home, which he bought only last year according to Land Registry, I have no idea if he has any other assets.

 

As for his van, I believe that even if that was his own, since he needs it for his work, just like his tools, it cannot be taken by the HCEOs. As its value will probably be over £1350 hen it will not be exempt from seizure unless of course it is on finance which is what I would expect it to be.

 

 

My reasons for asking how old this was is because it comes across strongly the payment you both agreed to was done mutually and if it had got to over 6 years then it may have been awkward. Someone earlier gave you an idea of the type of HCEO you need to contact and it would certainly pay you to speak to them on Monday morning

- cost of applying is approx £66 - find the time to go to https://thesheriffsoffice.com/ and have a good read of the various articles on there

- in particular the FAQ's.

 

Whatever you do steer clear of the company that appears on Ch 5.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like you are onto a winner here.

 

I've done this twice for people, both times they got their money

 

but if it fails then that doesn't rule out court action.

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

Hi All

I have spoken to the Sheriffs Office this morning, who say if they are successful then they will charge the Debtor for their work, not me.

But if they are unsuccessful at recovering the whole debt they will charge me a "compliance fee" of £75+vat!

 

Something that really puzzles me is that if they are not successful or only part successful, ie they only collect assets for part of the whole debt then, then although I am still charged the £75 they will continue to chase the debtor. Their email says - "This does not cover our costs, therefore it is in our interest to successfully execute the Writ in order to obtain our fees. Please see our terms of business for full conditions.".

 

I have checked their T&Cs on their website and these are, as I expected quite complicated but it suggests they take 35% of whatever they recover!

This does not sit well with me if it is correct.

 

Am I reading this right?

Can they do that?

I would much rather placed some sort of order on his house and recover the whole of the remaining debt that way.

It doesn't make sense going through with SO anymore.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not how I am reading it.

It says in the T&Cs -10.4 "All money is split after £200 is received from the defendant and that from the first £200, the £90 Compliance Fee is retained, and the remaining of £110 is split on a 65%/35% basis between the judgment debt, costs and interest, against our fees incurred under the Writ. All future money thereafter is split on a 65%/35% basis."

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are reading too much into the context.

 

If the debtor pays in full then you will get every last penny back and the Enforcement Co gets to keep their fees (charged on top of the debt).

 

If an agreement is reached to pay by instalments then the payments are apportioned so that both yourself & the Enforcement Co get a continuing income stream which is what the % split is all about.

 

When eventually it is all paid you will have received what you claimed for originally in full and they will only have recovered their fees.

 

They will NOT be taking a proportion of the debt for themselves unlike Claims Management Cos who do take a %age as their commission.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha! Thanks ploddertom - you've explained it perfectly to a layman.

 

I have also been recommended the use of DCB Ltd, but their split is 50/50, Is this the company you warned me of in your earlier post ?

 

Does anyone have any experience of using either The Sheriffs Office or DCBL?

Link to post
Share on other sites

DCBL are the company featured in Ch5 Can't Pay, We'll Take it Away.

 

They have form for not sending the correct paperwork out and adding all fees on their first visit.

 

They do not have their own Authorised HCEO but instead pay to use the services of one from another company who actually lives in Florida.

 

There is a question mark against both DCBL and the HCEO they use which hopefully may get resolved before too long. I'm not sure if you have been warned of this.

 

There is nothing stopping your debtor applying for Set Aside but would think it very unlikely given the time span and payments he has been making previously.

 

He could also apply for a Stay of Execution against the Writ if he has grounds to do so - again I think unlikely given past history.

 

He could also apply to the Court to set payments he must make to you, if this does happen and you decide to go the HCEO route then let them deal with all payments as if he defaults at any time they can step in to continue enforcement.

 

Do not be tempted to deal with your debtor yourself as if you engage the services of the HCEO and you do this then you can be held responsible for their charges.

 

If the Defendant decides to pay you direct then notify the HCEO ASAP as you may have to forward any payment to them.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommend SO as I said

Neighbour has sussesfully used them 3 times over recent years. Every time all it cost was

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

The HCEO is bound by the Fees regulation 2014.

 

When the Sheriff is engaged:

The only thing the creditor will be liable for is the compliance fee £75plus VAT (£90) Plus his fee if any

 

If a controlled goods agreement is made, the proceeds, (income from the debtor) will be split in proportion to the enforcement stage reached, and the debt remaining to the debtor at that point.

 

The HCEO is not permitted to just make a payment plan without taking goods under control . (this is to secure the bargain and the terms of the CGA are subject to permission of the creditor)

So if the controlled goods agreement is breached, the entire sum is due, and goods are taken and sold.

 

The above over-rides anything you may see in T and Cs.

 

Just a thought but have you considered an attachment?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The HCEO is bound by the Fees regulation 2014.

 

When the Sheriff is engaged:

The only thing the creditor will be liable for is the compliance fee £75plus VAT (£90) Plus his fee if any

 

If a controlled goods agreement is made, the proceeds, (income from the debtor) will be split in proportion to the enforcement stage reached, and the debt remaining to the debtor at that point.

 

The HCEO is not permitted to just make a payment plan without taking goods under control . (this is to secure the bargain and the terms of the CGA are subject to permission of the creditor)

So if the controlled goods agreement is breached, the entire sum is due, and goods are taken and sold.

 

The above over-rides anything you may see in T and Cs.

 

Just a thought but have you considered an attachment?

 

 

Hi Dodgeball

 

Many thanks, I think I follow what you are saying...

Can you explain what you mean when you ask if I have "considered by an attachment"? What do you mean by an attachment?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it seems he has means, what about requesting some other kind of enforcement. CAB would be better to advise , but a charge on his property perhaps. I thought AOE but he is self employed I believe. There are also other methods, Leasehold or freehold makes no difference by the way. Is there any equity on the property?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...