Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
    • i was merely pointing out if the OP did put in an N244 it required a bundle. as for what they need to do now.... it might be an idea to post a link to your thread then the OP can read it and understand where your guidance is coming from and the ongoing process he will have to follow... dx
    • The notes entered into circulation yesterday and are proving popular with collectors, who will be hoping to snap up examples with low serial numbers.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 6026 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

Heres my situation.........

 

I allowed an HMRC officer into my house to discuss the outstanding income tax bills I hadn't paid. He asked if I could paid the monies there and then and I said no. He then listed the car and all items of value in my house on a walking posession order which I signed. I then had five days to pay the debt or those items would be removed by HMRC bailiffs.

 

Two days later, I went to court and made myself bankrupt. The court successfully granted the bankruptcy order. I am now waiting on the court appointed trustee to contact me to discuss my assets, etc.

 

I have not contacted HMRC to let them know that I am now bankrupt. I have been told that as they are listed as a creditor on the bankruptcy order, the trustee will contact them in due course (Is this correct or should I let them know ?)

 

So my question is this.........

 

1. Can the HMRC bailiffs still remove the goods on the walking posession order ?

 

2. Or does the bankruptcy order override the walking posession order and all assets must remain in the house until the trustee arranges for them to be sold off ?

 

If it's the latter, would HMRC basically rip up the walking posession order and leave it up to the trustee to rewrite the asset list ?

 

Many thanks for any help you can give.

 

Cheers

Gav.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i don't know the answer, but I've asked for this to be moved to the baliff subforum where you will be able to get some more help.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GAvman, sorry to hear about your situation, I cant answer all of your questions, but with regard to your creditors, your official receiver/trustee will contact ALL creditors on your behalf. In effect the debts are not yours, they are his (hers!). I would phone your OR and ask specifically about the walking possession order! They will advise you properly!

Good luck Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also worth calling national debt line.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved :)

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankfully this is not a question that is raised very often. I am unsure of the response without reading up on the matter.

 

Hopefully John Mc Kenna will be along soon and he may know the answer otherwise I will look into this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the debt has been included in the bankruptcy, the only sanctions that can be placed on you are by the OR. The walking possesion is effectively void, same as CCJ's etc.

I would contact HMRC to let them know though, to save any problems if they haven't been informed by the OR yet.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the debt has been included in the bankruptcy, the only sanctions that can be placed on you are by the OR. The walking possesion is effectively void, same as CCJ's etc.

I would contact HMRC to let them know though, to save any problems if they haven't been informed by the OR yet.

 

I thought some HMRC debts are not included in the bankruptcy estate?

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would tend to go with gizmo, she does know more than me, but it is worth talking to national debt line.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone confirm if the bankruptcy order basically null and voids the walking posession order that HMRC have yet to collect on ?

 

AFAIK it does, but to be sure ring the HMRC and ask them, it will stop any confusion anyway if they know you are BR.

 

I would tend to go with gizmo, she does know more than me, but it is worth talking to national debt line.

 

Sorry Tom, can't agree with that statement.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have any knowledge in this area but find myself asking what would happen to the goods if they had been taken there and then by the HMRC man.

 

Would they be returned or would they say, tough, you were not bust when we took them and that would be it. I ask as a walking possession agreement is basically the same and the original owner of the goods is merely a custodian until such time as money is paid to release them.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, Belaflat, that you are entering into deep and murkey law. Technically, the OR has the legal right to dispose of the debtors assets as he/she sees fit, and to go back over previous disposal arrangements and revoke them; i.e. assets taken by a baliff might give a particular creditor unfair priority.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying and have read the OR has very wide ranging powers to revoke deals and sales etc if he deems them to have given others unfair priority.

 

Wonder what would have been the case if instead of a walking possession order, they had gone for a charging order on a home.

Would the OR have the power to revoke that or is that a different kettle of fish altogether.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

No the rules are that bankruptcy is for the benefit of ALL creditors.

 

Therefore if the "execution" as the bailiff action is called is COMPLETE by the time of the bankruptcy, then the person seizing the goods is entitled to retain the benefit. Otherwise they have to release the benefit of the execution to the Official Reciever (who in all likelihood won't pursue the matter because the costs usually outweigh the benefits).

 

Execution by bailiffs is only complete when:-

 

1) The goods have been seized AND sold, or

2) Payment has been received

 

AND ALSO

 

3) At least 14 days have passed before the bankruptcy order.

 

For the above reason, bailiffs will hold on to any money they receive for at least 14 days before passing it on to the relevant creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...