Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'â£3'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 7 results

  1. 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):
  2. In May 2015, I started a thread on this forum regarding a debtor (Mr OR) who had followed advice from the internet and had issued an injunction against a local authority after his vehicle had been clamped by a bailiff. The debtor considered that his vehicle should have been exempt as it was subject to finance. Unfortunately, his injunction failed as the Judge ruled that there could be a ‘beneficial’ interest in the vehicle. Mr OR was ordered to pay the local authorities costs of £3,200. This was in addition to his own costs (the fee for the injunction alone was £395). A link to this popular thread is below. So far, it has received almost 13,000 views. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?445251-Goods-on-HP-a-Judge-says-they-can-be-sold(1-Viewing)-nbsp In Sept 2015, I started a similar thread on here to warn members of the public that if they have a vehicle that is subject to finance, they need to ensure that they provide evidence that there is no ‘beneficial interest' in the vehicle. Even that thread has received almost 6,500 views !! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451273-Vehicles-on-HP-can-be-sold-by-a-bailiff.-Evidence-must-be-provided-that-there-is-no-beneficial-interest. Unfortunately, a couple of months ago, another debtor (Mr MH) also issued an injunction to prevent an enforcement company selling his vehicle (a mini cab). This vehicle was also subject to ‘hire purchase’. The difference with this case, was that the ‘value’ of the vehicle was approx £14,500, and the amount required to settle the obligation under the hire purchase contract was just £6,300 (leaving an ‘equitable interest’ of approx £8,200). The debtor lost his case in court on 16th August. He was also ordered to pay the local authorities legal costs of £3,400. He was refused permission to appeal. Neither the debtor or his legal representative have made an application to appeal and accordingly, given the importance of this subject, the enforcement company have given me permission to provide an outline of the case in the hope that it may help other debtors to avoid making the same mistake. PS: I will not be giving the name of the debtor, the local authority or the enforcement company. The facts of the case are all that is important.
  3. Hi guys, sorry, the first half of this post has disappeared. My second question is basically, is it worth sending Vanquis an SAR because they are likely to have made punitive charges and penalties when my card went into default. This is with a view to claiming them back. Thanks, Mikey_L
  4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12017438/City-worker-charged-3700-for-parking-in-central-London-for-six-hours.html I would hope he received more than just a refund.
  5. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/heavy-drinkers-to-be-offered-lifesaving-pill-that-helps-reduce-alcohol-consumption-9771600.html
  6. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/firms-fined-over-misleading-product-144035347.html#vddHLqP Yorkshire Building Society and Credit Suisse have been fined a total of £3.8 million for misleading inexperienced customers over investments that had almost zero chance of achieving maximum returns. The fines centred on a product called Cliquet designed by Credit Suisse International (CSI) and sold to nearly 84,000 customers who ploughed in £797 million. It was aimed at "unsophisticated investors with limited investment experience" through distributors such as Yorkshire Building Society (YBS). YBS was responsible for three-quarters of the total invested, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said. The product offered a guaranteed minimum return plus the apparent potential for significantly more if the FTSE 100 performed well. Regulators said the probability of achieving only the minimum return was 40-50% but there was almost no chance of the maximum return being achieved. The FCA said the maximum return figure was given "undue prominence" in both CSI's product brochures, which YBS approved and provided to clients, and in YBS's own financial promotions. YBS was fined £1.4 million and CSI £2.4 million. The building society saw 56,000 customers invest nearly £546 million. Almost 90% were aged 45 and over, with nearly a third of investors over 65. Tracey McDermott, the FCA's director of enforcement and financial crime, said: "Financial promotions are often the primary source of information for consumers and in this case CSI and YBS let their customers down badly. "These promotions were a serious breach of the requirement to be clear, fair and not misleading. "CSI and YBS knew that the chances of receiving the maximum return were close to zero but they nevertheless highlighted this as a key promotional feature of the product. This was unacceptable." The FCA said that in September 2010, following concerns raised by third parties including Which?, YBS had changed its promotions so that undue prominence was no longer given to the maximum return. But it said that the lender continued to cite the potential for the return, giving an unfair impression of the likelihood of achieving it, the regulator said. CSI also reviewed its promotions but decided not to make significant changes to its product brochure. The FCA said both firms would have faced higher fines but agreed to settle at an early stage of the FCA's investigation. They have each agreed to contact customers who bought the Cliquet product available between November 1 2009 and June 17 2012. YBS revenues from the product during the period totalled £18.6 million. For CSI the figure was £19 million.
  7. If you think that you may be overpaying for your broadband, digital TV or home phone there has never been a better time to switch and save. Providers are slashing their prices with some of the deepest discounting ever. However, many households overpay without thinking about switching providers, despite the increased cost of living. Research by Simplifydigital, an Ofcom accredited comparison service for TV, broadband and phone deals and the provider of the Telegraph Digital Savings Service, shows that 80pc of customers could save money by bundling together their services from a single provider. The research also showed that the top 20pc of these customers save an average of £395 per year simply by switching to better value bundle deals. This month the potential savings are likely to be even higher as a result of the discounts on offer with suppliers such as TalkTalk and Sky offering discounted introductory periods. Despite the savings, many people are put off moving to a better deal because of the perceived hassle of switching. The packages vary widely between the providers and finding the right deal can be tricky. To help Telegraph readers to find the best deal for their household, we have set up the Telegraph Digital Savings Service. Our experts will review more than 6,000 deals from the leading UK providers to match your needs to the best deal available. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/financialservices/utilities/compare-TV-phone-broadband/9490340/Get-broadband-from-3.25-per-month.html
×
×
  • Create New...