Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can easily argue your case with no sign on the nearest parking sign
    • Same issue got a fine yesterday for parking in suspended bay which was ending at 6:30 yesterday, next thing I see a fine 15 minutes before it. The sign was obstructed 
    • Hi all, an update on the case as the deadline for filing the WS is tomorrow i.e., 14 days before the hearing date: 7th June. Evri have emailed their WS today to the court and to myself. Attached pdf of their WS - I have redacted personal information and left any redactions/highlights by Evri. In the main: The WS is signed by George Wood. Evri have stated the claim value that I am seeking to recover is £931.79 including £70 court fees, and am putting me to strict proof as to the value of the claim. Evri's have accepted that the parcel is lost but there is no contract between Evri and myself, and that the contract is with myself and Packlink They have provided a copy of the eBay Powered By Packlink Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) to support their argument the contractual relationship is between myself and Packlink, highlighting clause 3a, e, g of these T&Cs. They further highlight clause 14 of the T&Cs which states that Packlink's liability is limited to £25 unless enhanced compensation has been chosen. They have contacted Packlink who informed them that I had been in contact with Packlink and raised a claim with Packlink and the claim had been paid accordingly i.e., £25 in line with the T&Cs and the compensated postage costs of £4.82. They believe this is clear evidence that my contract is with Packlink and should therefore cease the claim against Evri. Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink, which states:  ‘Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to rely upon or enforce any term of this Agreement provided that this does not affect any right or remedy of the third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.’ This means that the Claimant cannot enforce third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and instead should cease this claim and raise a dispute with the correct party.   Having read Evri's WS and considered the main points above, I have made these observations: Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency   This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri. Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.  As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I am going to respond to Evri's email by stating that I have already sent my WS to them by post/email and attach the email that sent on the weekend to them containing my WS. However, before i do that, If there is anything additional I should further add to the email, please do let me know. Thanks. Evri Witness Statement Redacted v1 compressed.pdf
    • Thank you. I will get on to the SAR request. I am not sure now who the DCA are - I have a feeling it might be the ACI group but will try to pull back the letter they wrote from her to see and update with that once I have it. She queried it initially with 118 118 when she received the default notice I think. Thanks again - your help and support is much appreciated and I will talk to her about stopping her payments at the weekend.
    • you should email contact OCMC immediately and say you want an in person hearing.   stupid to not
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 5569 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

I Had a baliff call out today (after a few visits:() and I Had this Red Letter Off Them

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

RE: Debtors Vs Dewiwayne

 

I called today to inform you a van will be calling to remove your goods. You will incur van charges of £50, this will be added to the balance of the warrant of £xxx.xx if this is not paid to this office within 12 days, ie by 10:00 am on 23/2/2009, I will visit your address again with the court van and a locksmith to remove the leveied goods.

 

A FURTHER VAN FEE WILL BE INCURRED AND LOCKSMITH FEES OF £50.00 PLUS THE COST OF A NEW LOCK WILL BE CHARGED.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

xxx xxxxxxx

Baliffs Section

 

 

Right first things first they have not been in the house and haven't leveied any goods so can they still force any entry into the house and take things they have "leveied against"??

 

at the moment the credit crunch have hit us hard and i cant afford to pay no creditors due to no job and piles of bills and a 3 yr old son what can i do?!?!? :Cry::-|:Cry::-| Please help CAGGERS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell us a bit more about the original debt? Who is it with? How much (roughly)? And how long ago did the CCJ register? Have you made any previous arrangement with the bailiffs? And are they bailiffs from the courts or a private firm?

 

Be as vague as you want - doesn't pay to give too much away ;)

 

Then we can see what can be done to help :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brey Services LTD which is a Water company

£517.74

Sept 08 registered CCJ

No arrangement made phoned to tell him i can pay 10 per month but he just laughed at me and said that he wants £50 per month

This is County Courts Baliffs from County courts themselves

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... my thoughts on this...(and please jump in Ell-enn, Chris etc)

 

Firstly, in my experience, county court bailiffs seem to be a bit more human than private bailiffs, which is a plus here. However, you've already been knocked back by them after your first offer, so we need a re-think.

 

I had a thread in January where Ell-enn posted the following re County Court Judgements..

 

"Hi there, you can download the N245 here Her Majesty's Courts Service - Home. Select Forms and Guidance from the menu on the left hand side and enter N245 in the box. You can then go to the page to download the form. There is a fee of £35.00 when you put the application in at court.

 

If they complete the form tonight or tomorrow morning they can deliver it by hand to the local court where the bailiffs operate from. No further action by the bailiffs can take place while the N245 is at court awaiting consideration. If they intend to repay over two months they should have no trouble getting the judge to agree. There is no hearing to attend, the form will go in front of the judge, probably in the next week or so, and then the decision will be posted to them."

 

(I hope you don't mind me copying/pasting the above, Ell-en :D)

 

If you are on benefits or low income you could well get help with the £35.00. Have a look round the HMCS website - it's quite good at explaining your options.

 

After a good read come back with any questions.. :)

Edited by KJD
oops!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea this is the same thing the order of Execution is the court bailiffs

so when I enter the N245 form it will stop them knocking ok

But as u said i dont believe that i should be paying this as it was part of my rent but have no proof. My Ex-neighbour who is with the same agent didnt pay for hers although her Contract was the same.:-?:evil::? :-o

Link to post
Share on other sites

A County Court employed bailiff threatening to change locks? That's eviction and any bailiff directly employed by a court would know that only happens when a judge signs a order for allowing forced entry on eviction.

 

Bringing the van round? County Court bailiffs don't have vans, nor the capacity or storage to sell off your belongings.

 

It would seem somebody isn't quite what he would like you to believe. This sound like a regular conman and fraudster who became a certificated private bailiff last Tuesday.

 

Check further with the court and not on any phone number this 'county court bailiff' gives you. If it doesn't add up cite section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (false representation) and section 4 (false documentation)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, KJD is correct - you need to enter an N245 at court to stop the bailiff calling. You can either offer a small amount per month (they will see from your income that you cannot afford much), or you can state why you don't think you should be paying it.

 

Does your neighbour pay the same amount of rent as you i.e. is their rent more because the water bill is included?

 

If the bailiffs have not been in the house then they cannot break in. I have seen similar letters from county court bailiffs (on red paper!). They are trying to make you believe they can get a locksmith and a van when they cannot. Someone I was helping had the same letters and we wrote to the court to complain that what the bailiff was stating in the letters was misleading.

 

Can you pm me the name of the court.

 

Ell-enn

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK having read the previous thread....did you apply to have the CCJ setaside? You clearly are NOT liable for this, so I sincerely hope you did.

  • Haha 1

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To respond to your PM.

 

Can anyone advice the OP on the procedure for applying to set aside a CCJ? And whether it is still within time frame?

 

Onto the proof aspect - I assume that the CCJ was given "by default" and you did not attend/were aware of the court hearing, correct? As as far as I can read from your previous thread, you never had any kind of agreement with the company in question to pay them a penny - no contract, no agreement, nothing. As such, even a feeble defence would have won in my opinion. Tied in with the fact that your landlord agreed to pay the charges in question , (although this is actually the least relevant part of the defence), you shouldnt have any liability for these charges - however, we will need to go into the defence aspect in more details once you apply to have the claim set aside.

 

Why was the hearing not attended?

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK!

 

Firstly County Court Bailiffs can, if the court had been indemnified force entry to a property but highly unlikely unless it is a business.

 

We do have vans and capacity to store and sell the goods removed,

 

Bailiffs do not change locks the claimant has to arrange for the lock-smith to change the locks, again if the court has been indemnified.

 

I have no idea what this bogus red paper is, it should just be on normal A4 white sheet, samples available on request.

 

And yes CC bailiffs really easy to deal with.

 

I am happy to assist and answer any questions you like.

** Credentials **

 

10 Years Finance Fraud Investigator

 

5 Year High Court Sheriffs

 

2 Years Tip Staff Royal Courts

 

Currently : HMCS Enforcement Officer

Link to post
Share on other sites

DEWI

 

On second thoughts can you scan that letter in let me have alook, deleting all personal information, I would hate to think that we have a rogue civil servant.

** Credentials **

 

10 Years Finance Fraud Investigator

 

5 Year High Court Sheriffs

 

2 Years Tip Staff Royal Courts

 

Currently : HMCS Enforcement Officer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Boy, I have seen the same letter printed on red paper from a court in a different part of the country (250 miles away to be exact). I would have thought telling people that the bailiff is returning with a van and a locksmith when in fact they have not yet obtained that authority from the court is some kind of breach?

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dewi - Struggling to read the red letters. Is there any chance that they can by expanded to be more readable?

 

From what I can deduce which is very little, I don't see a plaint number which is central to any County Court.

 

I'm sorry to say that I am still suspicious of this and have yet to be convinced that this is not a private bailiff.

 

As a result I would like to investigate further

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, if you click on the image twice and then press ctrl+ a few times it does enlarge the image :)

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now expanded the page and can read more, but my suspicions increase. I can see that there is a place for a case number and that the number has been deleted. However county courts use the term Claim Number on their correspondence. secondly there is no reference to the County Court in the official address section. Third the whole correspondence seems to have been slapped on to the paper in a very haphazardous and lazy manner unbefitting any official court document. Fourthly the idea that any county court employed baliff would 'laugh' at your offer (post 3), rather than suggest that you make an application to the county court does not ring true.

 

Finally whilst the phone number for the bailiff is very similar to that of the court and indeed these bailiffs may well even have an office within the court building itself, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are county court employees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fair Parking, that letter is exactly the same as the one I saw that a colleague received and it was from the local court bailiff. They have an office within the court building and operate from there. We wrote to the court manager advising that the letter contained misleading information together with an N245 to suspend the warrant.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult not to have suspicions here. The whole thought process of vans and changing locks could only have been written by those who are not familiar with county court procedure.

 

No county court would issue a warrant for right of forced entry without it being signed by a judge and court sealed. There's no evidence of that so far. If a judge is moved to issue such an order, then it is used in conjunction with evictions. A judge would know that he must also stipulate the day and time of such entry on the order.

 

Further under the Khazanchi v Faircharm Investments ruling of 1998, NOBODY is allowed entry into your property if you are not there and they never stipulated the day and time of their arrival. It seems that our 'county court' bailiffs are in complete ignorance of this precedent.

 

We too have a red letter on file. Issued by bailiffs representing Wandsworth BC and deliberately made to look like a county court order. It's a fraud of course and like Dewi's the wording has been slapped on to the paper - possibly by the same photcopying machine which is clearly in need of a service! If not, then at least by the same disjointed, predictable and pathetic mindset of an uneducated cheap conman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, is everyone ignoring the fact that the OP does not owe this money anyway? How does the OP apply to have this set aside?

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No the OP is not being ignored. He has two problems, one of which appears to be a bullying and deceitful bailiff who will not listen to him and whose methods may well be illegal and thus of public concern.

 

Ell-enn had provided the answer to problem of having a judgment set aside or varied by suggesting the use of an N245. An honest bailiff working at a county court and thus not on commission would have already advised the OP of that rather than treating him with contempt (post 3)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...