Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for posting up the back of the NTK. The good news s that as it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act, it means that you are not liable for the charge as the keeper as I explained in a previous post.  The PC fails for two reasons. The first is that it does not specify the period of parking. All it does is list the arrival and departure times of your car. Obviously that does not include the time taken to drive to the car parking space, manoeuvre the car into the space and later drive from the space to the exit. Nor does their times include things like getting kids disabled people out of and into the car as well as things like returning the trolley whilst still being parked. All of which can add a fair bit of time to the parking period which can then be subtracted from their ANPR times and makes your actual parking time a lot shorter than 118 minutes they seem to think it is. The second reason is that they failed to ask the keeper to pay Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][e]  (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges You as keeper are now in the clear which is a good reason for you to contact Sainsbury  stating that you are being pursued as the keeper when you are not liable under the Act as well as the oher things I suggested in my previous post. If you don't get it cancelled with Sainsbury this could drag on for months with endless letters unlawfully pushing the price up to scare you into paying.  
    • Brilliant! That's great to hear and honestly pleased I'm wrong, my advice was out of concern. I checked some of your previous posts last night and you've been giving great advice to others at times. Bringing a claim can be serious (counter-claims etc) and it didn't appear you were knowledgeable based on posts so far. Far from an expert myself, just interested and will try to help. I'll sit on the sidelines, best of luck with the claim!
    • Thank you so much for the advice  I will try and up my savings to £500 for the next 6 months. Although I do still have an uphill battle, I feel more able to deal with it.  I hope my experience with the cifas marker helps someone else who finds themselves in that quite horrible situation. It is a huge weight off my shoulders getting it removed.
    • Believe it or not, fully familiar with the County Court process. My posts were seeking confirmation by asking questions, nothing more as an aid to people who look at this thread in the future. People should not jump to conclusions.
  • 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

Are domain names company assets? Tribunal award not paid, now bailiffs going in


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5883 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

In 2005, whilst pregnant, I had an employment issue with my former employer - they stopped paying my wages & didn't pay me any of my Maternity Pay. I took the company to an Employment Tribunal and I won. They were ordered to pay me £8500 in unlawfully deducted wages, Maternity Pay & compensation. It is now 2008 and I still haven't received the money from them as they say they can not afford to pay.

 

I am now going through the county courts to get a CCJ against the company which means I can send in the bailiffs to recoup the debt.

 

However, the company is a web design company and leases most of the computer equipment. This means there will not be much for the bailiffs to take. But one thing they do own are domain names. They own numerous town names for the area in which we live and are currently running them as town portals and charging for advertising on them. I know they make an income from this.

 

So my question is...

 

can these domain names be considered company assets?

 

And if so can they be taken away from the company as part payment for the debt owed to me?

 

As I am a web designer I know I can use these names to generate an income, and would be more than happy to continue running them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you need a CCJ to send the bailiffs in to enforce a Tribunal Award, I think you can send the bailiffs in on the basis of the award itself.

 

The right to use a domain name is of value, and therefore an asset, but I don't think you can get the bailiff to seize one - and in fact it may not even be a transferable asset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inclined to agree, on paper the value of a domain is nothing - it isn't tangible, the value would only exist if there were someone else willing to take it on (and create a'market' for it). It's rather the same in the MD has a personal plate on his car, say 'MD 1' - the plate itself is worth nothing, only the transfer to a recipient that it willing to pay for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt a bailiff could seize a domain name. Nominet and ICANN would need a court order to effect a transfer. The domains are a business asset, but they're not really worth anything until they're sold. Have you considered sending the company into liquidation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this instance the domain name is worth something as it appears the OP is willing to take it on in return for a reduction of the debt owed. The OP is therefore the market for what is essentially an asset.

 

However, I'd guess it would be a bit of hassle getting the domain released to the OP in these circumstances.

 

Does this company rent or own their premises?

 

Also, the debt hasn't been challenged and obviously exists so you may wish to consider serving a Statutory Demand although these should be followed through and will cost quite a bit of money in doing so.

 

Finally, it takes some simple paper work to complete in order to enforce a tribunal award through the county court and I would personally do this in order to gain an 'Order To Obtain Information' against a director of the company so you can evaluate the financial situation and what action to take.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...