Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • An update! I emailed both Andrzej.Tuleja and James_Goldsmith at Whirlpool dot com.  I got a phone call from their executive team a couple of days later, and a replacement part dropped on the mat a week after. She was quite apologetic, however, also reiterated the "90 day warranty" period on customer fitted parts, and did not comment when I mentioned that the CRA also applies as I was a consumer buying from them directly. I now have a spare door switch if the machine decides to eat another in the future! Cheers all! Note dx100 that the "Hotpoint CEO" you linked to is not related to the hotpoint appliances, but some kind of marketing app.
    • yep, throw that morality card out the window....9/10 you never owe a DCA ANYTHING!! they are NOT BAILIFFS!!
    • (See the link to DVLA’s INF188/6 document I posted above, page 4 as cited) “I have a new medical condition that I have told the DVLA about on my recent application. Can I drive? As soon as the DVLA receives your correct and complete application for a new licence and as long as you meet all the Section 88 criteria, you may drive. It is important that you are satisfied that the medical condition you have declared on your application does not stop you from driving. If you are unsure, check with your doctor or healthcare professional before you make a decision. You can also look up your condition in the ‘Assessing fitness to drive’ guide, which you can find at www.gov.uk/dvla/fitnesstodrive to see whether you meet the medical standards for driving. As this guide is intended for healthcare professionals, it can be complicated. Your doctor or healthcare professional should be able to help you if necessary." It seems that DVLA think that S.88 does apply for applications disclosing a new medical condition after all. Why might this be so, and what of “qualifying application" and "relevant disability"? S. 92(1) imposes on the driver a requirement to disclose a relevant disability. S.92(3) requires the Secretary of State to refuse such an application disclosing a relevant disability ….. EXCEPT S.92(4) requires the Secretary of State to grant such an application if the relevant disability is “adequately controlled”. Hence my belief S.88 can apply for medical conditions (if the driver meets the medical standard of fitness to drive) as the application remains a qualifying application IF the driver meets the medical standard of fitness to drive, until DVLA (on behalf of the Secretary of State) say it doesn’t, provided the driver believes they meet the (medical) standard. Additionally, at (or before) June 2013 (as noted in my previous post) the medical standard for fitness to drive for conditions involving excessive daytime sleepiness was changed from “completely controlled” to "adequately controlled".  
    • CFO Bill Guan allegedly led a team at the news outlet that was behind a global money laundering scheme.View the full article
  • 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

Signed Walking Possession.. Help!!!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5400 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

National Standards for Enforcement Agent May 2002

 

 

2) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress if they are at the time of the distress in a dwellinghouse and are reasonably required for the use in the dwellinghouse of the person residing there or a member of the household-

a) beds or bedding;

b) household linen;

c) chairs or settees;

d) tables;

e) food;

f) lights or light fittings;

g) heating appliances;

h) curtains;

i) floor coverings;

j) furniture, equipment or utensils used for cooking storing or eating food;

k) refrigerators;

l) articles used for cleaning, mending, or pressing clothes;

m) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse;

n) furniture used for storing-

(i) clothing, bedding or household linen;

(ii) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; or

(iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food;

o) articles used for safety in the dwellinghouse or of household articles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

your welcome

it might be an idea to get in touch with your M P

did you find out if the baillif is certificated

are you clased as vunrable

 

National Standards for Enforcement Agent May 2002

 

Those who might be potentially vulnerable include:

  • the elderly;
  • people with a disability;
  • the seriously ill;
  • the recently bereaved;
  • single parent families;
  • pregnant women;
  • unemployed people; and,
  • those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statutory or Financial Requirements for Enforcement Agencies;

 

"Enforcement agencies must keep a complete record of all financial transactions in whatever capacity undertaken."

 

i dont know if it's because im a bit novicey, but what if they dont? it just seems like the deck is stacked The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, PARTVI 45[5] debated earlier in the thread, and then they throw in 45[7]!!, what's that all about! it's confusing.

 

thanks again hallowitch, that was a really useful document.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NSE; Information and confidentiality

 

"Enforcement agents will on each and every occasion when a visit is made to a debtor's property which incurs a fee for the debtor, leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary. If a written request is made an itemised account of fees will be provided.", and this sort of thing, it's saying something then it's not!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news Bawler?

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only just seen this question and have also looked at the documents.

 

The Form of Walking Possession is Ok and you cannot use the argument that the document is not in CAPITAL LETTERS.

 

However, the following points needs to be made:

 

If the bailiff is not certificated then the Walking Possession would be invalid. It is therefore necessary to check the register and details of how to do this can be found in the Sticky section.

 

The Bailiff should not have listed "exempt" items as this could lead to him being accused of carrying out an "illegal distress" From first glance these items would be the oven and washing machine. In addition if the computer games are owned by children these these should also be exempt. The bailiff can levy upon a sofa etc bu he MUST leave behind adequate seating for ALL MEMBERS of the family. This has been made very clear in the legal case of Mrs Ambrose v Nottingham City Council.

 

My other main concern is that the bailiff HAS NOT specified the charges that have been applied to the account and he has simply stated a total amount that INCLUDES his charges. He will know that this is WRONG because without knowing an amount...you will not know whether the bailiff has committed an offence of "overcharging" !!!

 

Finally, I have seen hundreds of Forms of Walking Possession (Form 8) but never before have I seen one that allowed "less than 5 days" before removing documents.

 

Debtors are unaware of the huge problems with signing these forms.

 

The common pitfall being that in the small print is is usual to find that you have signed to agree that unless payment is made in full that goods will be removed after 5 days. I am certain that if debtors actually read this document before allow a bailiff into their home nobody would willingly sign it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he can and this is what should happen.

 

HOWEVER....a bailiff enforcing MORE than one Laibility order at the same time can ONLY charge the following:

 

A MAXIMUM of TWO visit fees to "levy upon goods" £24.50 and possibly an extra £18.00 IF a 2nd visit was required.

 

ONE levy fee according ot the scale of fees and calculated on the amount of the Liability Orders.

 

ONE Walking Possession fee of £12.00

 

What is important in this case is that because the bailiff has failed to list the amount of his charges we do not know whether he has correcly charged fees as above OR he may have applied "multiple charges" which is not allowed !!

 

PS: The matter of charges for enforcing MORE than one Liability order at the SAME TIME was the subject of the Form 4 Complaint in the thread posted by Mrs Westerham !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he can and this is what should happen.

 

HOWEVER....a bailiff enforcing MORE than one Liability order at the same time can ONLY charge the following:

 

A MAXIMUM of TWO visit fees to "levy upon goods" £24.50 and possibly an extra £18.00 IF a 2nd visit was required.

 

ONE levy fee according ot the scale of fees and calculated on the amount of the Liability Orders.

 

ONE Walking Possession fee of £12.00

 

What is important in this case is that because the bailiff has failed to list the amount of his charges we do not know whether he has correcly charged fees as above OR he may have applied "multiple charges" which is not allowed !!

 

PS: The matter of charges for enforcing MORE than one Liability order at the SAME TIME was the subject of the Form 4 Complaint in the thread posted by Mrs Westerham !!

 

thanks for the reply it is good to know the correct way the bailiff should do it when collecting more than 1 liability order

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...