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

Im in debt £7000


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5379 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 am in debt of just over £7000

 

i have 1st credit,dlc Plus another 3 or 4 on my back on my back about paying these back...

 

have just received a court letter from dlc hand delivered very kindly from the courts saying i will be imprisoned for 14 days if i do not get in touch with hartlepool crown court..this court letter is printed but it states in pen i will be imprisoned..can they lock me up over a loan??? the loan was with welcome finance.

this has really scared me...

 

now does anyone know of any debt solution companies who can just take one payment a month for all these debts? is this the right way out or do i pay them £5 a month for the rest of my life(i work part time....

 

PLEASE PLEASE ANY INFO WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED ;)

 

PS SORRY IF I HAVE POSTED THIS IN THE WRONG PART OF THE FORUM!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Please can you provide a little more information about your problem.

Money claims are not made through a Crown and/or Magistrates Court.

 

Have you already been to Court over your problem?

 

We can help with advice but only if you provide it.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DCA's would love debtors to be locked up...but unless there are any criminal elements to this case, then you will not be imprisoned for being in debt.

The only thing i can think of is if there has been a CCJ & maybe contempt of court?

Otherwise it will be the DCA playing silly buggers as per usual of which they can reported to the authorities & prosecuted themselves for impersonating a court...which they usually do :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

From memory the reference to 14 days imprisionment relates to not turning up at the court, when on has been ordered to do so.

Clearly, if anyone receives such an Order, they will attend.

 

What I cannot understand, is why anyone would be going to a Crown Court re: Money Matters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

by cleanphrophet:

 

have just received a court letter from dlc hand delivered very kindly from the courts saying i will be imprisoned for 14 days if i do not get in touch with hartlepool crown court..this court letter is printed but it states in pen i will be imprisoned..can they lock me up over a loan??? the loan was with welcome finance.

this has really scared me..."

 

I am not surprised that you are scared and you cannot be locked up over a Loan.

 

If you are too scared to post further, please contact your local CAB and/or phone National debtline.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you took out a loan with Welcome finance and now Hartlepool Crown Court are threatening to send you to prison for 14 days????

 

Do you have a scanner, if you could scan this letter (removing personal details) and upload it I'm sure every man, woman and their dogs on this site would like to see it and will offer you advice.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have about 4 to 5 debts all relating to a few years back

 

now today i received a letter hand delivered from hartlepool crown court saying unfortunately i was not at home to be given some court documents or papers(i rang dlc and they said it could be some papers to do with attatchment of earnings).Now in pen he has written if i dont get in touch it will result in 14 days in prison..now this debt alone goes back to 2004..now it was a loan for £1000 £400 interest and it was from welcome finance..now i have been disputing this for years only because they have added £700 charges the day it got passed over to the debt company!!! now i know its 5 or so years ago but this letter has scared me!! i am looking into going bankrupt for the these debts..i may have ccj's on this loan and others as its been a few years now!! just to repeat the letter is hand delivered and states hartlepool crown court,claim number,hillesden services aka dlc and says in photocopied pen if not contacted urgently further action taken which may result in your arrest and 14 days in prison

 

as for the other debts on is with 1st credit and no one has been in touch as yet about the other debts!!!!

Edited by cleanprophet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Scan whatever you have post it up here after removing your personal details, (Name address account numbers and such) just so we can see what this says.

 

It sounds like total (Edit) to me.

 

If you havent got a scanner you can get it scanned for free at your local library.

 

Until I see it, I cant believe they would be so foolish to mention prison!

 

(But wouldnt put it passed them!)

 

 

I notice that the dear old Cagbot has edited an adjective in the second sentence of this post, deeming the word used as "inappropriate"

 

I draw the Cagbot's attention to the case of Nottingham City Council -v- Virgin Records 1977 where the Council similary deemed the use of the word as obsene and inappropriate.

 

The manager of the Nottingham branch of the Virgin Record Store and Mr Richard Branson were proscuted under s.28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 for having displayed the word in a shop front advertisement for the newly released Sex Pistols album "Never Mind the Badgers" ;-)

 

In his defence, Richard Branson employed the counsel of Sir John Mortimer QC, who produce expert witnesses who were able to demonstrate that the word "badgers" ;-) was actually a legitimate Old English term originally used to refer to a priest, and which, in the context of the title, meant "nonsense".

 

The chairman of the Nottingham magistrates benchwas forced to conclude:

 

"Much as my colleagues and I wholeheartedly deplore the vulgar exploitation of the worst instincts of human nature for the purchases of commercial profits by both you and your company, we must reluctantly find you not guilty of each of the four charges."

 

I use this word in precisely the same context in the above post.

 

 

 

 

roof-attack015.jpg

Edited by noomill060
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have about 4 to 5 debts all relating to a few years back

 

now today i received a letter hand delivered from hartlepool crown court saying unfortunately i was not at home to be given some court documents or papers This really doesn't sound right... court papers normally come from Northampton anyway and would have nothing to do with whether you were in or out at the time of delivery, since they're sent through the post. (i rang dlc and they said it could be some papers to do with attatchment of earnings). As far as I'm aware, attachment of earnings papers would only be relevant if there was a CCJ in place already.... Now in pen he has written if i dont get in touch it will result in 14 days in prison..it just doesn't work like that!! now this debt alone goes back to 2004..now it was a loan for £1000 £400 interest and it was from welcome finance..now i have been disputing this for years only because they have added £700 charges the day it got passed over to the debt company!!! They had no right to do that... and it means that the amount on any associated CCJ would be incorrect (if there is one) now i know its 5 or so years ago but this letter has scared me!! I'm not surprised!! i am looking into going bankrupt for the these debts..i may have ccj's on this loan and others as its been a few years now!! just to repeat the letter is hand delivered and states hartlepool crown court,claim number,hillesden services aka dlc and says in photocopied pen if not contacted urgently further action taken which may result in your arrest and 14 days in prison I'd be inclined to photocopy this and forward it to your local Trading Standards and the OFT for starters. On the face of it, it sounds like intimidation at its very worst... and someone needs a slap down. Have you 'phoned Hartlepool Crown Court ? If not, give them a ring and just run it by them with any ref. no. that's on there.

 

as for the other debts on is with 1st credit and no one has been in touch as yet about the other debts!!!!

 

:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut instinct is saying that they're desperate for you to make contact before the account becomes staute-barred.... but until we can see the letter, there is still room for doubt.

 

Whatever you do though, DO NOT contact DLC. Check it out by 'phoning the court where it's alleged to have come from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

by PriorityOne:

 

" Have you 'phoned Hartlepool Crown Court ? If not, give them a ring and just run it by them with any ref. no. that's on there"

 

Agreed!

 

Take that step in the morning and then post up what they have to say on the matter.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...