Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • honeybee13
      Cabot/Mortimer - old Lloyds Credit Card debt

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      Tangliss, if you can't upload the letter, could you tell us what the heading is please? My understanding is it should say 'Letter before claim' or similar. HB
    • Tangliss
      Cabot/Mortimer - old Lloyds Credit Card debt

      By Tangliss · Posted

      Do you think I should send the CCA request now then instead of waiting? I really can do without the stress. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you for responding.
    • aesmith
      my Leasehold/Freehold property and it's issues.

      By aesmith · Posted

      How was the "receiver" appointed and what is their role? Appointed by the lender under the terms of their security on the loan (sometimes referred to as "LPA Receiver")? Or are they acting for you in insolveny? What's the current role of the agent?
    • whitelist
      Cabot/Mortimer - old Lloyds Credit Card debt

      By whitelist · Posted

      Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • HP Mum
      my Leasehold/Freehold property and it's issues.

      By HP Mum · Posted

      I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Freeman of the Land

robert_harper_2000
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5030 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

robert_harper_2000

robert_harper_2000

Posted
Posted

I've been reading about lawful rebellion where you can basically reject the Gov. and make a stand about how they are ripping off Taxes - plenty to argue there.

 

But I just wanted a second opinion from a site I know and trust, has anyone read about this? I can post link to where I've been reading but it is all on You-Tube.

 

Cheers

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bookworm

Bookworm

Posted
Posted

Link? Sorry, not about to trawl through the whole thing, it makes me itch and I'll have to go and have another shower. :razz:

 

In all seriousness: It is normal human behaviour to try and make sense out of chaos. It is normal to try and explain everything so our lives will not feel so random. But "facts" can be bent and twisted and ignored or re-arranged in such a manner that I could probably write a convincing argument to show you that the moon IS made of cheese after all, that you should worship me as a goddess (well, many already do :-D) and that sending me large amounts of money will ensure you are blessed. If you want to believe, you will.

 

But in the end, you have to exercise your own common sense, and one of the overwhelming facts is this one: If you have a logical explanation and a far-fetched one, most of the time, it's the logical one which is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
coocoocadgoo

coocoocadgoo

Posted
Posted

Hey there,

I came to this site because of a dodgy landlord, and have been reading threads for about a month. I came across this thread today, and spotted "freeman"!

Anyway, my partner is very heavily involved with this "Freeman-on-land" movement and I would suggest that you look at www.tpuc.org which explains things in more detail and has external links.

 

Yes, David Icke is part of this sub-culture but he is not the main part of it. David Icke comes out with a lot of rubbish and nutsy stuff but his heart is in the right place and about 10% of what he says is really interesting. But I certainly would not use the fact that someone told you he's involved to put you off researching this for yourself.

 

Personally, I do not understand it all! It was a lot to do with common law and the number of "Acts" and "statutes" are not actually "law".

It also has to do with the fact that you are a "human being" and that your person is your "legal entity" like a business. If your name is all in capitals (or just your surname or if they call you Mr/s) then they are addressing your fictional person JOHN SMITH. However, you can call your self John of the Smith family, which is a way of addressing the human being.

 

Anyway, as I say, I don't know a lot about it but check out that website for lots of articles on it all.

And it's not just about not paying taxes - it's more about disagreeing to fund a corrupt, bankrupt government that starts illegal wars :-|

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Redstar7

Redstar7

Posted
Posted

The freeman movement has nothing to do with David icke.

 

Actually one of the main people in this awakening is Robert Arthur Meynard

and Mary Elizabeth Croft (her free ebook is amazing)

www.freedom-school.com/mary_elizabeth_croft.pdf

google search these people and it may change you. It did with me, i also discovered my rights when dealing with the police.

Ignorance is slavery.

peace.

Fight for your Rights!

:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikaPNP

ErikaPNP

Posted
Posted

Nope. Ignorance, as the saying goes, is bliss. :-)

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
samsmoot

samsmoot

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sorry, Robert, but like yourself I've only really watched the YouTube (and Google) vids.

 

It's a fascinating subject, and becoming a Freeman-on-the-Land is something that's being done by Brits, Americans, Australians and especially Canadians.

 

I can't really add much that I'm sure of, but I'm at least certain that some people obviously take this very seriously, and do deal with authority in a different way to most of us and sometimes achieve unlikely sounding results.

 

The thing is, it appears that many different individuals have independently arrived at the same conclusion i.e. that we are all the property of the state (from registration of birth) and subject to 'Admiralty' law, but can declare ourselves free from state interference (or assistance) and be subject only to 'Common' law.

 

I'd hope there might be more genuine interest in this subject instead of (or as well as) the David Icke bashing, so there's a link below where you can find the main proponents giving us their thoughts and experiences. Robert Menard's 'Bursting Bubbles...' is both interesting and entertaining, and Mark McMurtrie's videos are well worth watching:

 

Common Law - Videos & Seminars : CommonLaw

 

Please have a watch of some of the material if you've got the time - and get back to the forum with your opinions, please. There's no recognised authority on this subject, just a bunch people doing their own thing, and it's hard to pin down as an exact science. Are we all subject to 'Admiralty' law? Is this country bankrupt? Is a birth certificate proof of the state's ownership of us? Can we really opt out? Not be subject to any law other than common law? These are the questions raised, and I wouldn't mind some firm answers. Over to you, Caggers.

Edited by samsmoot

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SEND YOUR CHILD TO SCHOOL TOMORROW!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bookworm

Bookworm

Posted
Posted
Are we all subject to 'Admiralty' law? Is this country bankrupt? Is a birth certificate proof of the state's ownership of us? Can we really opt out? Not be subject to any law other than common law? These are the questions raised, and I wouldn't mind some firm answers. Over to you, Caggers.

I could give you firm answers, but would you listen, or keep on thinking that wishes = reality?

 

Long and short is: Can we really opt out? Answer: NO. No. No. ad infintinum and ad nauseam.*

 

*caveat: If you're rich enough, then you can buy yourself an island and exile yourself there and obey only your own law. Be prepared however for the fact that if you ever want to get out of it, then the prevalent laws will still apply and woe if your passport has ran out for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
noomill060

noomill060

Posted
Posted
Is it Welshmen? I thought it was Scots? Oooops. :shock:

careful book raciscm against us scots

might have a case methinks lol

 

 

Scottishness doesnt count as a "race", although the haggis is of course, the chieftain of the Pudding race.

 

How do you start a pudding race?

 

Sago.

 

(Say go- oh, no missus, nay,nay and thrice, nay!)

 

Oh, please yerselves... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Montoonie1

Montoonie1

Posted
Posted

No... it's definitely Welshmen, but only those found within the city walls after midnight on a Saturday night. They can party on down and get bladdered right up to and including midnight... after that it's the gibbet!:p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bookworm

Bookworm

Posted
Posted

Ah, my mistake, it's in York you can kill Scots (but only if they're carrying a bow and arrow).

 

Whilst googling this, I did find a compelling argument for the Freeman of the land though:

 

In London, Freemen are allowed to take a flock of sheep across London Bridge without being charged a toll; they are also allowed to drive geese down Cheapside.
That's got to make it all worth it. :-D
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mossycat

Mossycat

Posted
Posted
Is it Welshmen? I thought it was Scots? Oooops. :shock:

 

It is York where that is still legal, but I seem to recall that the victim must be wearing a kilt, and you are correct about the bow and arrow

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...