Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • 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 
        • 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

Drakes/Marston group balliffs broken my lock and pushed over my baby daughter-PLEASE HELP!!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5701 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

 

Is the foot in the door peaceful entry? NO.

 

Is the foot in the door legal? YES but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure so that communication can continue.

 

Can the bailiff force the door open even if his foot is firmly wedged? NO, this would be FORCED entry and highly illegal.

 

Ok so now i'm confused. I dont know enough to get involved in this discussion but I am watching with interest due to issues of my own

 

But

 

Devon & Cornwall police doc as per other thread Drakes/Marstons

 

"They cannot force their way past someone at a door or wedge their foot in a doorway to prevent the door being closed"

 

Direct Gov website

 

"Forced entry includes pushing past you once you have opened the door or leaving their foot in the door to prevent you closing it. Such action would make the whole process illegal"

 

Either it is legal for a bailiff to leave his/her foot wedged in your door/gap or it isnt???

 

Police and government seem to think it isnt :confused:

 

Sheraton

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

JonCris,

 

I thought I made myself quite clear. I even used bold type to highlight my understanding.

 

I'll try again so please read the following carefully.

 

Is the foot in the door peaceful entry? NO.

 

Is the foot in the door legal? YES but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure so that communication can continue.

 

Can the bailiff force the door open even if his foot is firmly wedged? NO, this would be FORCED entry and highly illegal.

 

Can the bailiff use a locksmith where entry is denied if the Police are present? YES. The Police ensure there's no breach of the peace by arresting anyone obstructing the bailiff executing the distress warrant.

 

Are we clear now?

 

I m also confused. Points one and two seem to contradict one another. The foot in the door constitutes entry according to some bailiffs. Yet it is legal you say-but if it constitutes 'unpeaceful entry' it is then illegal-well of course it s not 'peaceful'-if all was 'peaceful' then the bailiff wouldn t have wanted or needed to put their foot there in the first place. Whether it s legal or not it s wrong-I don t care how anyone tries to dress it up or justify it. Its bullying, it s intimidation done by legal thugs who hide behind the law. I d have more respect for the bailiff 'profession' if they could even be bothered to sing from the same song sheet, and not hide behind their mininterpretation of the law like a bunch of gutless cowards.

 

When this happened, I hoped the 'woman' who assaulted my daughter, bullied and intimidated me on my own doorstep and damaged my door (at my expense) was a bad apple amongst what is generally a bunch of decent people 'just trying to do their job'. Reading through other threads on here and elsewhere has changed my mind.

 

In MHO, such power over others is something that should only be gained through merit-not by giving them an over inflated job title (with little or no training needed), over inflated comission and so called legal bits of paper to wave about and abuse the power they ve so wrongly been given.

 

I m not really sure I care any more whether what this 'woman' did was legal. Being a Nazi was legal in Germany in the 1940 s. Didn t make it RIGHT did it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only confusion in the minds of some bailiffs ....& police officers ............ apparently........It's not legal no matter how many times they say it, locksmith or not

 

If a bailiff is told by the occupant to remove their foot then they must otherwise they commit an offence. It is NOT peaceful entry entitling them to return with a locksmith or force entry

 

"Allowed to keep the door open so communication can continue". What utter drivel If the occupant doesn't want to communicate, as is their right, & demands the bailiff leave then they must

 

Where do they get their legal training?? if any

Edited by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only confusion in the minds of some bailiffs ....& police officers ............ apparently........It's not legal no matter how many times they say it

 

 

Aahh-that old chestnut (note to self-will repeat to myself daily I am young, rich, thin and beautiful-this will then become the whole, unquestionable truth)

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris,

 

I thought I made myself quite clear. I even used bold type to highlight my understanding.

 

 

 

 

Just re -reading through. LOVE the way you assume it s everybody else's fault for not understanding you; and not yours for not explaining yourself well enough for them to understand you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an employee of this company I must say that I find this bailiff's actions abhorrent considering you'd already paid the majority of the outstanding amount on your card. She's quite clearly a nasty piece of work, the likes of which the industry can well do without. :-x

 

Let this go before as I mistakenly thought you were offering support ..if I hadn t been able to 'pay the majority of the amount on my card' would assaulting a 15 month old baby and causing criminal damage been less 'abhorrent'-if she had happened to call the day before when I didn t have any money to pay her, would her actions then have been justified?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps quote the law that permits this action.

 

Thank you.

 

John Mckenna.

 

I thought i made myself quite clear.

 

I will even use bold type so that you can understand.

 

Can you quote me the law that allows such action. ?

 

Here it is in red.

 

Can you quote me the law that allows such action ?

 

Is the foot in the door legal? YES but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure so that communication can continue.

 

 

 

[edited]

 

Are we clear now ?

 

There's only confusion in the minds of some bailiffs ....& police officers ............ apparently........It's not legal no matter how many times they say it, locksmith or not

 

If a bailiff is told by the occupant to remove their foot then they must otherwise they commit an offence. It is NOT peaceful entry entitling them to return with a locksmith or force entry

 

"Allowed to keep the door open so communication can continue". What utter drivel If the occupant doesn't want to communicate, as is their right, & demands the bailiff leave then they must

 

Where do they get their legal training?? if any

 

We are gathering information here.

IMO its quite clear that no matter what the law says, the bailiffs, after years of abusing the system, clearly think the law does not apply to them.

And once again, despite being asked a reasonable question, i doubt very much if we will get a reasonable answer.

Edited by jonni2bad

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention.

 

We asked another bailiff to quote the law/legislation that permits him to take your work tools, but leave you with £150 worth.

 

Haven't seen him for about 4 weeks.

 

Be strong people.

 

We can beat the muppets.

 

Muppet, yes that was his name.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Mckenna.

 

I thought i made myself quite clear.

 

I will even use bold type so that you can understand.

 

Can you quote me the law that allows such action. ?

 

Here it is in red.

 

Can you quote me the law that allows such action ?

 

 

 

 

So stop spouting off the usual one sided crap, and back up your mouth off.

 

Are we clear now ?

 

 

 

We are gathering information here.

IMO its quite clear that no matter what the law says, the bailiffs, after years of abusing the system, clearly think the law does not apply to them.

And once again, despite being asked a reasonable question, i doubt very much if we will get a reasonable answer.

 

 

Very well said! It really is amazing how some people can start believing their own publicity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention.

 

We asked another bailiff to quote the law/legislation that permits him to take your work tools, but leave you with £150 worth.

 

Haven't seen him for about 4 weeks.

 

Be strong people.

 

We can beat the muppets.

 

Muppet, yes that was his name.

 

 

see to me, there s another ridiculous situation ie, you owe me money, therefore I will take away the tools of your trade that will enable you to earn the money that you owe me

 

A bit like the situation I was in ie, I want the money I am owed but will not allow you to physically go and get the money I want you to give me.

 

Very logical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

see to me, there s another ridiculous situation ie, you owe me money, therefore I will take away the tools of your trade that will enable you to earn the money that you owe me

 

A bit like the situation I was in ie, I want the money I am owed but will not allow you to physically go and get the money I want you to give me.

 

Very logical.

 

Oh sweetheart, i think i will go to bed.

 

You see, logical and bailiffs will NEVER go in the same sentence.

 

And god help us when they get their new " powers " to force entry.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a bailiff is told by the occupant to remove their foot then they must otherwise they commit an offence. It is NOT peaceful entry entitling them to return with a locksmith or force entry

 

"Allowed to keep the door open so communication can continue". What utter drivel If the occupant doesn't want to communicate, as is their right, & demands the bailiff leave then they must

 

Where do they get their legal training?? if any

 

There is no legislation I can quote you nor direct you to which states that putting one's foot in the door to continue communication is legal. Likewise though I'm sure you'll find it difficult to quote me such legislation which specifically says otherwise.

 

However, I'm sure if you ask tomtubby nicely she'll have a word with HMCS to clarify that they consider this action "reasonable" as a means of continuing communication and avert the need for further enforcement.

Certificated Bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris,

 

I thought I made myself quite clear. I even used bold type to highlight my understanding.

 

I'll try again so please read the following carefully.

 

Is the foot in the door peaceful entry? NO.

 

Is the foot in the door legal? YES but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure so that communication can continue.

 

Can the bailiff force the door open even if his foot is firmly wedged? NO, this would be FORCED entry and highly illegal.

 

Can the bailiff use a locksmith where entry is denied if the Police are present? YES. The Police ensure there's no breach of the peace by arresting anyone obstructing the bailiff executing the distress warrant.

 

Are we clear now?

 

 

Ok so a bailifff comes to my door (God help them if they do) and I have the door on a chain, and they put their foot in the door to stop me closing it so that they can continue communication. What if I go away from the door and refuse to speak to them. They are not going to stand there all day are they with their foot in my door? And are they then going to say that having their foot in my door while the chain was on and I was ignoring them, hoovering with Metallica on my stereo for example, is a peaceful entry to my house? Heavens above!

Beating the DCA's day by day

 

My fight:

NDR - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Bank of Scotland - CCA'd 12+2 passed

CFS - Win by Technical Knock-out!:lol:

HFC Bank - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Chantry Collections - CCA sent

 

Time flies like an arrow

Fruit flies like a banana :D

 

<---------- Have I given you top advice, have I made you laugh, click on the scales, it won't hurt you! :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so now i'm confused. I dont know enough to get involved in this discussion but I am watching with interest due to issues of my own

 

But

 

Devon & Cornwall police doc as per other thread Drakes/Marstons

 

"They cannot force their way past someone at a door or wedge their foot in a doorway to prevent the door being closed"

 

Direct Gov website

 

"Forced entry includes pushing past you once you have opened the door or leaving their foot in the door to prevent you closing it. Such action would make the whole process illegal"

 

Either it is legal for a bailiff to leave his/her foot wedged in your door/gap or it isnt???

 

Police and government seem to think it isnt :confused:

 

Sheraton

 

Mr Mckenna, the above post clearly illustrates official sources that state such behaviour is NOT legal or acceptable.

 

As it states, police and government sources say it is illegal-what makes you think you know better?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Mckenna, the above post clearly illustrates official sources that state such behaviour is NOT legal or acceptable.

 

As it states, police and government sources say it is illegal-what makes you think you know better?

 

 

Aaahhh but bailiffs are a law unto themselves!

Beating the DCA's day by day

 

My fight:

NDR - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Bank of Scotland - CCA'd 12+2 passed

CFS - Win by Technical Knock-out!:lol:

HFC Bank - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Chantry Collections - CCA sent

 

Time flies like an arrow

Fruit flies like a banana :D

 

<---------- Have I given you top advice, have I made you laugh, click on the scales, it won't hurt you! :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so a bailifff comes to my door (God help them if they do) and I have the door on a chain, and they put their foot in the door to stop me closing it so that they can continue communication. What if I go away from the door and refuse to speak to them. They are not going to stand there all day are they with their foot in my door? And are they then going to say that having their foot in my door while the chain was on and I was ignoring them, hoovering with Metallica on my stereo for example, is a peaceful entry to my house? Heavens above!

 

 

EXACTLY!!!

 

The sad truth is, what would probably happen is that the bailiff would get frustrated and do what they did to me ie, try to force it with no regards as to what damage they cause or who they hurt. BECAUSE BAILIFFS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT AREN T THEY MR MCKENNA even though they haven t the evidence to substantiate the over inflated rights they seem to think they have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no legislation I can quote you nor direct you to which states that putting one's foot in the door to continue communication is legal. Likewise though I'm sure you'll find it difficult to quote me such legislation which specifically says otherwise.

 

However, I'm sure if you ask tomtubby nicely she'll have a word with HMCS to clarify that they consider this action "reasonable" as a means of continuing communication and avert the need for further enforcement.

 

 

What do you mean speak to HMCS????? Speak to who at HMCS-someone who makes it up as they go along to suit themselves (like you appear to)

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris,

 

I thought I made myself quite clear. I even used bold type to highlight my understanding.

 

I'll try again so please read the following carefully.

 

Is the foot in the door peaceful entry? NO.

 

Is the foot in the door legal? YES but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure so that communication can continue.

 

Can the bailiff force the door open even if his foot is firmly wedged? NO, this would be FORCED entry and highly illegal.

 

Can the bailiff use a locksmith where entry is denied if the Police are present? YES. The Police ensure there's no breach of the peace by arresting anyone obstructing the bailiff executing the distress warrant.

 

Are we clear now?

 

NO IM NOT, YESTERDAY THERE WAS NO FOOT IN THE DOOR FOR ME BUT A LARGE DARK SKINNED MALE WHO GRABBED ME AND FORCED ME INTO THE HOUSE KICKING ME IN THE LEG AND LEAVING A MARK, WHICH IS QUITE SORE AND THEN PUTTING HIS SMELLY BREATH INTO MY FACE AND SAYING "YOU KNOW WHO WE ARE AND IM NOT LEAVING TODAY WITHOUT ANY MONEY OR YOUR VAN, DO YOU WANT ME TO TAKE YOUR VAN" ******.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets make it clear to both bailiffs who may read this thread & consumers in general Although they may believe it bailiffs cannot at anytime put their foot in the door & keep it there if asked to remove it by the lawful occupant.

 

Keeping a foot in the door when asked to remove it does NOT constitute a lawful means of communication

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no legislation I can quote you nor direct you to which states that putting one's foot in the door to continue communication is legal.

 

But why cant you ?

 

You clearly stated in link 71 that it is perfectly legal to do so, therefore you should be able to back this up.

 

In case you have forgotten let me remind you.

 

the "foot in the door" action is perfectly legal but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure.

 

So i can only conclude that once again, here is another story made up by the bailiff, solely for the benefit of, yes youve guessed it, the bailiffs themselves.

 

I am so loving watch you and the other bailiffs continually make a complete fool of yourselves.

 

Thank You.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO IM NOT, YESTERDAY THERE WAS NO FOOT IN THE DOOR FOR ME BUT A LARGE DARK SKINNED MALE WHO GRABBED ME AND FORCED ME INTO THE HOUSE KICKING ME IN THE LEG AND LEAVING A MARK, WHICH IS QUITE SORE AND THEN PUTTING HIS SMELLY BREATH INTO MY FACE AND SAYING "YOU KNOW WHO WE ARE AND IM NOT LEAVING TODAY WITHOUT ANY MONEY OR YOUR VAN, DO YOU WANT ME TO TAKE YOUR VAN" ******.

 

 

Sorry to hear that-the lengths they ll go to is really unbelievable in what is supposed to be a civilized country. How DARE people like this think it s OK to treat people worse than criminals because they re unfortunate enough to be in debt. Mind you, most bailiffs probably wouldn t understand how it feels to be in debt due to the extortionate commission they receive from acting like legal thugs, bullying and intimidating people to line their pockets-they re the lowest of the low IMO.

 

I hope you ll complain about this-it s time consuming and you ll come across lots of barriers, but it s worth it in the end. Like many others say, if people don t make a stand against such behaviour, it ll continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to say, I received a standard letter from Marstons saying that my complaint had been logged and they ll look into it (yeah, right)

 

They got my marital status and my name wrong and didn t even bother to sign it. Maybe they re office staff are as er, 'cerebrally challenged' as their bully boys masquerading as enforcers or whatever jumped up silly title they give themselves

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...