Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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 2167 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

HELP!!!!!! Please .......

My 16yr old son went through a bus lane back in November 2017 on his motorcycle, the first we knew about it was when we received an notice of enforcement totalling £175 through the post from Marston’s on 29th March 2018 but the letter was giving us until 25th March to get in touch for a payment arrangement.

 

We rang them and explained that this had been received after the date to come to an arrangement and this is the first time we had known about the fine. They were most unhelpful saying that the full amount needed to be paid to stop further action. I asked for evidence of the offence and they did not have this and suggested I speak to SWindon Bpurough Council.

 

This we did and also they were inhelpful saying this was now passed to marstons who were dealing with it now. We explained that had we received the PCN’s we would have paid the priginal fee of £30. They had no photographic evidence as there files were now closed on this and everything was with marstons. We filed an out of time order with the TEC had no response and now we have a removal notice today for £408.

 

My son is on full time education does not work as he helps me at weekends as I e just been diagnosed with cancer. He has no way of paying this and marstons will not accept an arrangement they only want full payment. I’m happy to pay weekly to stop this action if only they’d listen. My son no longer has the motorcycle as he sold it to use for tools for his college.

 

Can someone please help or advise. I know the usual keep doors and windows locked but I need a solution to the problem.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved to the bailiff forum

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 there, This was sent on 3rd April and the reply said it takes 10 working days to process, I rang on 17th and was told it was still being processed not to call as when a decision is made we will be informed. We received nothing until the bailiff put the removal notice thru.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, This was sent on 3rd April and the reply said it takes 10 working days to process, I rang on 17th and was told it was still being processed not to call as when a decision is made we will be informed. We received nothing until the bailiff put the removal notice thru.

 

You mention that you had a reply advising that it would take 10 days to process the Out of Time application. Can you tell me who the reply was from as this information isn't correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just need to know how I go about a payment plan with the bailiff who is not prepared to discuss such a thing only full payment. And marstons themselves keep saying they do not do payment plans I have to speak to the bailiff I’m getting nowhere. Surely there’s someone on here that can help me

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are in the driving seat here.

The Bailiff may only take control of goods belonging to the debtor

- I assume your son has not elevated himself to works of art or rolex watches yet.

 

The next plan will be for them to try and force you to pay

- quite a common ploy as a lot of parents will do this.

 

Do not be misled by them saying they can force entry to remove goods

- they cannot in this case

- unless they have been allowed in previously and would strongly suggest you do not allow this.

 

They can however remove goods from outside

- car, quality garden furniture etc but doubt your son has any of this.

 

Get to the stage and the Bailiff is stuffed

- if he wants paying then he must accept what he is offered whether he likes it or not.

 

The alternative is the Warrant is returned to the Client (Council) and all the fees will be wiped meaning he gets zilch.

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

Thankyou, so am I right in saying they cannot legally make me ( the parent) pay as the debt is not in my name, however due to the situation I am offering to pay a regular amount to them so they get there money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was an automated reply

 

You mention that you had a reply advising that it would take 10 days to process the Out of Time application. Can you tell me who the reply was from as this information isn't correct.

 

The automated reply is merely to advise you that it can take 10 working days to process responses from the Local Authority.

 

A little known fact is that when an Out of time witness statement is submitted to TEC, a copy is then sent to the Local authority and they have a period of 19 business days (a month) to decide whether or not to give permission for the witness statement to be submitted late (out of time). They will respond to TEC with their decision. It can take 10 working days for TEC to process their response.

 

if the local authority are not willing to give their permission, the application will be passed to a member of staff at TEC. That person will review the reason given on the Out of Time witness statement against the councils reason for refusing the application. A decision will then be made. You will be sent a letter by the Traffic Enforcement Centre advising of that decision.

 

Using the above example, you will hopefully understand when an Out of Time witness statement is submitted that the case is placed on hold for approx 6 weeks (much shorter with Dart Charge).

 

As I understand it from your above posts, you have NOT as yet received a response from the Traffic Enforcement Centre and in fact, TEC have confirmed to you in a telephone call that they have not finished processing the local authorities response. Therefore, the case should still be on hold and if so, it is somewhat premature for you to be approaching Marston with a payment proposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thankyou, so am I right in saying they cannot legally make me ( the parent) pay as the debt is not in my name, however due to the situation I am offering to pay a regular amount to them so they get there money.

 

 

 

 

Technically they shouldn't be talking to you anyway as you are not the debtor. As for your son then there is no law that states he has to talk to a Bailiff. If he knocks on the door you are within your rights to just close it in his face - providing of course you can then ignore the repeated knocking/hammering that will ensue. Put quite simply if you are prepared to pay then tell them you will pay £xxx every week/month take it or leave it. I'll guarantee they won't be happy but that's their problem - if it were me if they refuse then I would lower my proposal each time until eventually they have to take it or leave it.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

if so, it is somewhat premature for you to be approaching Marston with a payment proposal.

 

 

 

 

from Post 1 - We filed an out of time order with the TEC had no response and now we have a removal notice today for £408.

 

 

It appears Marstons have now made a visit suggesting the matter is now "off hold".

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

from Post 1 - We filed an out of time order with the TEC had no response and now we have a removal notice today for £408.

 

It appears Marstons have now made a visit suggesting the matter is now "off hold".

I quite agree that it is an odd situation and more so given the telephone conversation that the OP had with the Traffic Enforcement Centre where they confirmed that they have not as yet processed the local authorities response. Maybe another call to TEC is necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably already with sharkstons before TEC contacted originally. Can a bailiff actually enforce against a minor?

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

OOPs I have a missing post. Just before post 19 I showed a statement taken form the House of commons library which stated quite clearly that debts of those under 18 are unenforceable.

I do not know who you asked about that on your post 7 but if it was the bailiff company they would say anything to avoid losing their money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry tthat was my bad

I tried to sort the linkfor you and iit looks like it didn't attach again.

 

here the link you posted

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07032/SN07032.pdf

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

I rang marstons again yesterday in a last ditch attempt to come to an arrangement and was told it needs to be paid in full and I need to speak to tgd bailiff direct.

I emphasised the fact my son has no assets, lives at home no job but in full time education and the lady told me they would still pursue.

 

Am I right in saying I can go back to marstons then and say that because my son is 17 they cannot enforce the debt and I can quote that this?

 

Is there such a letter I can send to marstons and SBC quoting that this is illegal and they cannot enforce the debt!

I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall at the moment all of the info given is fantastic but they will not agree to anything.

I need something to slap them with!

Thanks all

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine how many unpaid debts there would be from motoring offences etc if enforcement could not take place. No 17 year old in his right mind would pay parking tickets, go up and down one way streets - in other words put two fingers up to the world.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...