Deposit to test drive - refusing to refund *WON IN COURT*

[JonCris]

Now that you have a CCJ hit them with a Statutory Demand. That should get a response

[MARTIN3030]

Personally I would engage an enforcement officer.They are quite competitive now and you can get the job done from around 85 quid (What I was quoted by one firm to collect from Citi Financial)

 

Heres the advantages;

 

They dont just work 9-5 Monday to Friday-many work weekends and evenings.

They will make multiple visits-not just once and then return the warrant

They have the powers to break into commercial premises and remove goods..

But best of all they act quickly...unlike court baliffs-they dont. give advance warnings of collection.

 

The obvious incentives to them is that they add their own costs to the value on the warrant....and you still get your claim in full and the costs for their services after they collect.Theres other advantages too which I will not go into here but can say it was enough to sway me.

 

The important thing is speed-The Respondent can play for time in getting the warrant suspended so make sure you act before he does.

Also make absolutely certain that the details on the warrant are the registered address of the Garage.This is very important in using an EO. Keep us posted.

[legalpickle]

Now that you have a CCJ hit them with a Statutory Demand. That should get a response

 

 

A Stat Demand - to the best of my knowledge - requires a minimum debt of £750, otherwise I would agree. This claim was for £500, even adding interest for a couple of months and the court fees is unlikely to come to £750.

[MARTIN3030]

[Weird Al Yankovic]

A Stat Demand - to the best of my knowledge - requires a minimum debt of £750, otherwise I would agree. This claim was for £500, even adding interest for a couple of months and the court fees is unlikely to come to £750.

 

Not only that but the OP has a default judgment which can easily be set aside.

A Stat Demand should never be used where a debt can be disputed.

[legalpickle]

Not only that but the OP has a default judgment which can easily be set aside.

A Stat Demand should never be used where a debt can be disputed.

 

 

All debts can be disputed, so it must be distinguished between 'can dispute' and 'easy/likely dispute'. The latter is cases like a Judgment in Default. If it was Judgment after a hearing in which the Defendant had shown up, then it would be a 'can dispute' and if it were above £750 a Stat Demand should be used, but even if this case were above £750 - I stand corrected - and a Stat Demand would not be the right move.

 

Considering that a Third Party Debt Order is no-go - unless the OP does have the Debtor's bank details - I think Martin's post is the next best if the Warrant of Execution has not worked.

[Meldrew2]

Now you have a CCJ, why not go after the Credit Card people?

 

And to stop him charging you again - ask for a replacement card (as per lost/stolen) on the grounds that "your card details may have fallen into the wrong hands"... that way, different card number - he can't charge again.

 

Well done so far - keep at it - and nil illegitimi carborundum!

Edited August 20, 2008 by Meldrew2

[JonCris]

The debt collection industry use SD's to scare the hell out of debtors without ever having any intention of taking it forward. I'm suggesting the OP do the same on the basis that it won't cost anything other than time & won't have to apply to the High Court because being a business the dealer will want to settle before it goes that far

 

It's using a none cost strategy In addition disputing the CCJ now will be nay impossible as for one thing CPR 13 has been revoked & having the CCJ certainly establishes the debt is owed

 

Having said all that the debt does have to be over £750 to qualify

[legalpickle]

The debt collection industry use SD's to scare the hell out of debtors without ever having any intention of taking it forward. I'm suggesting the OP do the same on the basis that it won't cost anything other than time & won't have to apply to the High Court because being a business the dealer will want to settle before it goes that far

 

It's using a none cost strategy In addition disputing the CCJ now will be nay impossible as for one thing CPR 13 has been revoked & having the CCJ certainly establishes the debt is owed

 

Having said all that the debt does have to be over £750 to qualify

 

By the way Bankruptcy following a Stat Demand does not have to go through the High Court, in fact below a certain figure - I'm not sure of it exactly - you can't go to the High Court.

 

Having the CCJ only establishes the debt is owed if it was granted after a hearing. A Stat Demand could be disputed on the grounds that notice of the CCJ, the claim form and all other court documents were allegedly "never received". [Enough debtors try that one on without there being any truth in it].

 

JonCris: You are basing your advice on one piece of 'logic' that is not guaranteed. On the other hand that may get the dealer frustrated so that he does something stupid, and doing something that is false and downright fraudulent. Unless one can not be caught out, it is best not to do anything fraudulent. Just because the DCA's do this does not mean it is right - in fact the exact opposite.

 

Yes, in this case a defence was filed, but the dealer may suddenly come up with a new defence or new excuse, for example the Notice of Judgment was not received - which in itself would be sufficient reason for the debt to be paid but it to be considered as within one month, but the debtor would make an application to set aside the Judgment before paying which would most likely be accepted and be given another month to pay.

 

Yes, the debtor could fight and fight and the end result would be that the debtor would have to pay. But, if the OP does obviously wrong and borderline fraudulent stuff in enforcing the Judgment, then it will only work against the OP in the future.

 

Also, if the trader is as he is an obviously experienced conman, it is most likely that he knows the £750 rule behind the Stat Demand's so would ignore it.

 

I would agree with Martin that an external bailiff company would be best. The court bailiff's are excellent for some large companies and people that get scared at the slightest bailiff letter, but for this - obviously experienced - conman, the court bailiff is not necessarily going to work - whilst it was worth a try because the odd court bailiff is good at their job.

 

[This is probably because the court bailiff gets paid whatever the case but the private bailiff's normally only make their money upon success.]

 

Also, a private bailiff would be more inclined to embarrass the trader, which could be more likely to prompt the trader to pay.

 

When was CPR 13 revoked? Certain parts have been certainly, but on the Ministry of Justice website it is still there along with the latest CPR, albeit no PD [go to CPR - Parts and Practice Directions and scroll down to Part 13, then click on it, the direct link is PART 13 - SETTING ASIDE OR VARYING DEFAULT JUDGMENT ]. If I am wrong then I apologize in advance.

[JonCris]

Like I stated earlier CPR13 none delivery/receipt has been revoked therefore & provided the documents & judgment were sent to the last known address it is no longer an argument that can be used to have a judgment set aside

[legalpickle]

Like I stated earlier CPR13 none delivery/receipt has been revoked therefore & provided the documents & judgment were sent to the last known address it is no longer an argument that can be used to have a judgment set aside

 

 

Nope, you stated that CPR 13 has been revoked, without mentioning a specific part of it.

 

That specific defence could not be used in this case as a defence has been filed, but not accepted. The basis of an application however is a reason why the judgment has not and/or should not be paid. If the defendant makes an application saying the judgment notice was not received - even if it was sent to the correct address - it is most likely that the judgment would be set aside.

 

The reason that this part of the CPR has been revoked is - to the best of my knowledge - because of a recent case where the judge's in the Court of Appeal or House of Lords stated that as the documents had been sent to the last known address, that in itself was not sufficient reason to set aside the judgment. However the judge's can still exercise discretion as to the reasons for setting aside a judgment and have been known - so as not to prejudice against a party - to set aside judgment for such a reason.

 

Whilst the debtor would still have to pay the debt within a month to keep it off their record, it would cause the OP more hassle in dealing with the matter for which the OP is unlikely to recover costs. Furthermore, as JonCris is so in touch with the legal press he will be aware that judge's have been known to criticize the parties behaviour - such a criticism could cause troubles, so it is best to act 100% above board, or only below board where you can't get caught out.

[JonCris]

Couldn't agree more & as for behaving ABOVE board one should never ever advocate lying as a means to end in matters of a criminal nature

[legalpickle]

Couldn't agree more & as for behaving ABOVE board one should never ever advocate lying as a means to end in matters of a criminal nature

 

 

JonCris: You have a habit of not reading my posts in their entirety and commenting immaturely and with snide remarks against the part of the posts that you do read. Please stop. If you have anything personal against me, take it up with me by PM - which has been mentioned in another thread, by Janet-M I believe - that you have not done till now. If you do I will be happy to argue as much as necessary, but there is no need to ruin other people's threads with your arguments with me - which I will feel compelled to respond to.

 

The irony here is that you were the one who recommended the Stat Demand, so you are now agreeing with me and recommending against it? Thanks for the compliments.

 

I was saying that where there is a risk of being caught out, don't do it. Only do anything not completely above board if there is no risk as such of it backfiring on you.

 

JonCris: I am sure you're not 100% innocent and have done something on the odd occasion that was not entirely honest. Either that or you're a saint The only difference is I admit it when prompted.

Edited August 21, 2008 by legalpickle
typo

[MARTIN3030]

Yes- Saint JC......

[JonCris]

Me being snide. Irony I don't think you know the meaning of the word

 

Did you or did you not advise a member to lie to an employer in a criminal matter which would have meant attempting to pervert the course of justice??

[JonCris]

I've just read you latest post.

 

No I have never suggested to a client that they lie to further their ends. Nor would I knowingly suborn perjury & take great exception to you implying otherwise.

 

In addition anyone in the legal profession advocating such a course of action would & should struck off.

[legalpickle]

Me being snide. Irony I don't think you know the meaning of the word

 

Did you or did you not advise a member to lie to an employer in a criminal matter which would have meant attempting to pervert the course of justice??

 

 

Lie to an employer? You're confusing posts.

 

Read the posts and if you have criticism don't ruin other posters threads with it.

[legalpickle]

I've just read you latest post.

 

No I have never suggested to a client that they lie to further their ends. Nor would I knowingly suborn perjury & take great exception to you implying otherwise.

 

In addition anyone in the legal profession advocating such a course of action would & should struck off.

 

I am not a Solicitor and have never claimed to be.

 

I never spoke about advising clients, and this is the first you have mentioned of "clients".

 

I highly doubt you have never lied or told a white lie, in fact I would find it impossible to believe if you claimed to have never lied or told a white lie.

 

I would also find it very difficult to believe that you have never ever [in your whole life] told somebody privately to make up an excuse.

 

Now can we please get the thread back on topic? If you have a personal problem with me then please PM me otherwise leave it alone for the sake of the OP.

[freakyleaky]

Can we please stick to the topic of the thread or off topic posts will be moved.

[joegarthy]

Thanks for all your posts.

 

The enforcement worked and I received all monies due (save for £1 - pathetic but I guess he'd been here before...). C

 

Cheque banked. One happy customer.

 

Thanks again.

 

Case closed!

[MrShed]

Well done joe - brilliant result, well done on sticking it out

[Bookworm]

 

Now, if you think you couldn't have done it without this site....

 

PLEASE DONATE

 

[jonni2bad]

Nice one Joe - welcome to the consumer revolution!!!