Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5452 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

Hi All I Recently Had A Letter Delivered By Hand Stating That The Bailiff Attended Today With The Intention Of Removing Goods To Discharge The Outstanding Council Tax (£349) And Any Additional Enforcement Costs Incurred. And That I Need To Pay In Full In 24hrs Or He Will Re-attend And May Remove Goods.

 

Now I Called Birmingham Council Saying That I Am Able To Pay In Full And That I Will Pay At The Post Office, But They Said That I Need To Pay Via Equita????? And That They Will Not Take Payment From Me Directly????

 

Any Ideas Please

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

rubbish the council cannot refuse a payment

the bailiff will charge you £24.50 for this visit

if you can pay the council direct on line do this

do not let the bailiff into your home if you have a car move it if you have a garden leave nothing out a spade will do a bailiff to add a levy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All I Recently Had A Letter Delivered By Hand Stating That The Bailiff Attended Today With The Intention Of Removing Goods To Discharge The Outstanding Council Tax (£349) And Any Additional Enforcement Costs Incurred. And That I Need To Pay In Full In 24hrs Or He Will Re-attend And May Remove Goods.

 

Now I Called Birmingham Council Saying That I Am Able To Pay In Full And That I Will Pay At The Post Office, But They Said That I Need To Pay Via Equita????? And That They Will Not Take Payment From Me Directly????

 

Any Ideas Please

 

Thanks

 

THE COUNCIL has no right to refuse your payment. They are being awkward, as councils often are. If you want to pay them direct instead of paying Equita then do so. It's your decision, nobody else's.

 

You also need to check how much Equita are attempting to charge you for their 'service'. Providing you have not let them into your home and they have not 'levied' (i.e. made a list of your property) and providing they have only delivered one payment demand, they can only charge £24.50.

 

How much are they trying to squeeze out of you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i tried phoning their head office and she said that she cannot discuse my case and that i should contact the bailiff dealing with me directly on his mobile.

 

i have had about four letters before but this was the first delivered by hand.

 

the property that the council tax relates to is another house that i own which is now on rent, the council have my forwarding address which is my parents address and this is where the bailiffs are sending all their letters. i live with my parents and all belongings inside are theirs except my clothes and mobile phone.

 

if i paid the council via their payslip at the post office the council will receive the payment there and then, but then what will equita try and do???

 

 

thanks for your attention

Link to post
Share on other sites

i paid the council tax, £346 but they said they cannot stop the bailiffs as they will want there own costs. spoke to bailiff and said the costs were over £200!

 

what can i do now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

send the bailiff a prove it letter if he has only been to your house once you owe him £24.50

tell him if wants any more you will be happy to fill a in form 4 complaint and

let the county court decide if his fees are legal

and if thats the road he wants to go down then equita will need to send you a screen shot of your account to include with your form4 complaint

Link to post
Share on other sites

he said over the phone that the £200 was what equita had billed and his expenses would be more on top?

 

i read somewhere that the council can request for the warrent to be returned or withdrawn???

 

will the citizens advice bureau be helpful in this matter?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no warrant to be returned you paid the council

the bailiff is talking rubbish equita are going to bill you for what all they have done is send you letters and they CAN NOT charge for letters sent through the post

like i said you have had 1 visit from bailiff you owe £24.50 nothing else

if you want to pay this do not give them your bank details use a cheque or a postal order

Link to post
Share on other sites

he said over the phone that the £200 was what equita had billed and his expenses would be more on top?

 

i read somewhere that the council can request for the warrent to be returned or withdrawn???

 

will the citizens advice bureau be helpful in this matter?

 

thanks

 

1.YOU only owe £24.50 because the bailiffs have only hand-delivered one letter.

 

2. They cannot charge you for letters or bills sent through the post.

 

3. In your shoes, I would let the bailiffs stew in their own juice and have no more to do with them. Remember, as they have not entered your property, they are powerless and toothless paper tigers. If, however, you want to pay them what you legally owe them (£24.50) you can send them a cheque - but as they have attempted to cheat you why should you bother? You have absolutely no moral obligation to pay even a penny to these chancers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for that, i am visiting the council tax office today to speak to them directly to resolve this matter and can i request that you give me a template letter to send to equita in which i will include a postal order for £24.50.

 

id rather give them that then let this go on further as it is affecting my health.

 

thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have paid £xxx directly to xxxxx council on (date)this clears my liability order

i have today spoken to several debt help organisations and have been reliably informed that as i have only had one visit from the bailiff before the liability order was paid that i owe the bailiff £24.50

please find enclosed a postal order for the above amount this is a full and final settlement of my account with equita

 

however if you think i have more charges than this please send me a screen shot of my account held with you and i will file a form 4 complaint and let the court decide if the charges are lawfully correct before i pay them

 

please send recorded delivery

Link to post
Share on other sites

rubbish the council cannot refuse a payment

the bailiff will charge you £24.50 for this visit

if you can pay the council direct on line do this

do not let the bailiff into your home if you have a car move it if you have a garden leave nothing out a spade will do a bailiff to add a levy

 

Slightly off topic.... if a bailiff has levied on a spade in your garden

(or a vehicle in my case for outstanding parking ticket) but has NEVER gained access to my property... does this levy give him right to forcibly enter my premises?

 

I used to be a bailiff a LOOOONG time ago but gladly got out of the "game" and at THAT time you physically had to levy on goods within the premises otherwise you would get bailiffs looking through the letterbox levying on goods they see??

 

C.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ukdeveloper,

 

AIUI they need a signature to have successfully levied and have walking possession. I believe it is a prescribed form form 7 rings a bell.

No doubt someone else will be along shortly to put us right.

 

I would also recommend that you start watching your back as some on this site believe that you (and I as another EX bailiff) are the spawn of Satan despite the assistance we try to give.

 

GK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also recommend that you start watching your back as some on this site believe that you (and I as another EX bailiff) are the spawn of Satan despite the assistance we try to give.

 

i for one most certainly don't think this and look forward to reading your posts in the hope that i can learn something that i can use to help others

 

this is a job that most people couldn't/wouldn't do however when needs must the devil drives and given the choice between doing this job or losing your home and feeding your kids through unemployment how Meny would opt to lose there home

 

in my opinion its how you do the job not the the job itself that is the problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...