Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • 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

A guide to Charging Orders & Orders for Sale


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2879 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

Thanks Ganymede, so you're saying that the information in that link is incorrect? As I say, I've had yes and no answers from different people so I'm no better off lol.....

Have you heard of this happening to anyone?

 

BF

 

 

Yeah I know of many occasions where it has happened. If I remember rightly the joint owner is brought into proceedings at the OFS stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - just had a read through of the charging order article and I notice that you say that if an "instalment order" is in place a "charging order" cannot be applied for - I've got a ccj with an "instalment order" which has not been defaulted on at all and have just been told they are now going for a "charging order" plus charging me interest which is more than the instalment! Have you any advice for me??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've asked this question quite a few times before, but never received a definite answer.

If you're a joint house owner with all debts in one person's name, and then CO is applied to that person's beneficial interest only, can an order for sale be made?

 

Most people say yes, but today I found this document on the internet, and if you look under the heading ''Will the creditor take possession of a borrower’s home?'' it states: The sale of a property cannot be forced if the joint

owner is not also subject to the Order.

 

http://www.fla.org.uk/filegrab/FLAFactsheet-ChargingOrders.pdf?ref=32

 

 

Is this the definitive answer?

 

BF

any one part owner of property can force its sale (usually the other co owners may then buy out the share if they dont want the property sold)

 

a creditor who takes a charge on the interest of a co owner of property therefore assumes ownership of that part of that persons interest in the property as stated in the charging order

 

he therefore effectively becomes a part owner- insomuch as he can force a sale of the propery in order to realise his "asset"

 

however in reality forced sale orders are VERY RARE- children dependents valuations etc all play a part and a court will be very reluctant to order a forced sale and when they do - it is often because the debtor is being deliberatley obstructive in making payments to the creditor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - just had a read through of the charging order article and I notice that you say that if an "instalment order" is in place a "charging order" cannot be applied for - I've got a ccj with an "instalment order" which has not been defaulted on at all and have just been told they are now going for a "charging order" plus charging me interest which is more than the instalment! Have you any advice for me??

 

what is the value of the debt- what are you repaying and how long have you been paying it for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

9,900 - intalment order was agreed by CCJ in Sept 2010 and am paying £50 per month - no payments missed - standing order in place monthly

 

Hi there, please can you start your own thread - you'll get a lot of help there.

 

If an application is made then you'll be able to argue that a final charging order should not be made.

When was the original CCJ entered against you? What was the original debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

9,900 - intalment order was agreed by CCJ in Sept 2010 and am paying £50 per month - no payments missed - standing order in place monthly

 

then i would imagine that the reason the creditor wants a charging order is because at the rate you are paying it will take 16 years to repay

 

it is accepted fact that on average - Brits move home every 7 years (ok it may go up a bit due to the recession)

 

 

personally i would forestall any court action by agreeing with the creditor to registering a charge- with a provision that provide you maintain payments he will take no further enforcement action- thus saving the court costs being added

the creditors fear and argument is that at any time you could sell your house- pocket the change and leave him high and dry

 

IMO the court will be only too willing to grant the security of a charging order

because of the size of the debt and the amount of the repayments

 

this is usually all the creditor wants- not to force a sale

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the court will be only too willing to grant the security of a charging order

because of the size of the debt and the amount of the repayments

 

They won't be able to due to the Mercantile Credit rules UNLESS they make an application to vary the original judgment. This itself can be challenged if there has been no changes in the personal circumstances of the judgment debtor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't be able to due to the Mercantile Credit rules UNLESS they make an application to vary the original judgment. This itself can be challenged if there has been no changes in the personal circumstances of the judgment debtor.

 

i have personal experience of this very thing- however i dont know when the ruling you are referring to was established.

 

i would have thought that what the creditor will do is apply for a redetermination of the payments and if the debtor still can only afford £50 then they will apply for a charging order as security in view of the amount of time repayment will take

 

that is what happened to me ( albeit many years ago)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would have thought that what the creditor will do is apply for a redetermination of the payments

 

This is the variation I mentioned. If a creditor has been accepting instalments for a while and then make such an application it can be challenged if the debtor has not had a change to their circumstances. Of course we all know that judges often flout the cpr. Not good really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the variation I mentioned. If a creditor has been accepting instalments for a while and then make such an application it can be challenged if the debtor has not had a change to their circumstances. Of course we all know that judges often flout the cpr. Not good really.

 

 

tell me about it!!

 

however on the bright side i have to say that apart from the argument that the creditors should not allowed to get away with "converting" unsecured loans into secured ones.........and hoping that the recomendations as to a lower limit of £25,000 are adopted

 

i have to say that folk should not otherwise be too fearful of charging orders

(in support of judgements made against them)

 

they are much more preferable that AEO's baliffs and the possibility of garnishee orders ( which can have much more far reaching consequences than the initial attempt to grab the debtors bank funds)

Link to post
Share on other sites

100% with you. If CO's were not possible we would see lots more bankruptcies being made against debtors instead.

 

exactly, and if the UK adopts the 3 year european SB rules then we will also see lots more court actions there's a price to pay for everything

Link to post
Share on other sites

does the court and tribunal enforcement Act 2007 allow a judgment creditor to obtain a CO even though there's been no default on the installment order?

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

does the court and tribunal enforcement Act 2007 allow a judgment creditor to obtain a CO even though there's been no default on the installment order?

 

 

No but if the claimant applies to vary the judgment to forthwith it is then possible to apply for a CO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

does the court and tribunal enforcement Act 2007 allow a judgment creditor to obtain a CO even though there's been no default on the installment order?

 

 

No but if the claimant applies to vary the judgment to forthwith it is then possible to apply for a CO.

 

If the judgment creditor accepts an installment order at a certain level it's my understanding that he cannot then attempt to vary to forthwith if there's been no default. However, he may apply for an increase in the installment payment if there's a change in the debtor's circumstances.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the judgment creditor accepts an installment order at a certain level it's my understanding that he cannot then attempt to vary to forthwith if there's been no default. However, he may apply for an increase in the installment payment if there's a change in the debtor's circumstances.

 

 

But if they don't accept the installments...

Link to post
Share on other sites

But what 'should' happen if the creditor accepts installments but states in the same letter that they will go for further enforcement. (The court subsequently makes an order for these installments)

 

Any further action should be argued against as per the fact that the debtor is up-to-date with the court order. For sure a creditor might apply for further enforcement, it *has* to be challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi sequenci

I'm just preparing my defence, can you please clarify this:

'Section 86(1) The County Courts Act 1984:

 

Where the court has made an order for payment of any sum of money by instalments, execution on the order shall not be issued until after default in payment of some instalment according to the order.

 

"This was further considered in the case of Mercantile Credit V Ellis in The Court of Appeal 1987. It was found that the wording of the Charging Orders Act states quite clearly that no further action could be taken without a default in payment. It should be noted, however, that in the case of Ropaigealach V Allied Irish Bank CA Nov 2001 where an instalment order is made AFTER an interim charging order has been made, a court has the jurisdiction to make a Charging Order final.'

 

My instalment order was made before the interim CO was made. Their application was going through at the same time but was not granted until several days afterwards."

 

As the 2 orders overlapped, but mine was made first should the Mercantile v Ellis argument be watertight; I assume that they will counter with Ropaigealach!

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the 2 orders overlapped, but mine was made first should the Mercantile v Ellis argument be watertight; I assume that they will counter with Ropaigealach!

 

Thank you

 

You've got it. You just need to prove that your instalments were in place prior to the interim application.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2879 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...