Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi there.   This sounds like an absolute trainwreck in slow motion.  As far as I know there's no such thing as an automatic right in law for the mother to be able to live where her children currently reside.  Plus I'm not sure why the police would force you to let her back in as surely this would be a civil matter rather than a criminal one, unless they were just "keeping the peace".  It'd be interesting to see that letter she produced if you still have it.    What's your current living situation?  If you're renting and if it's just your name on the rental agreement then she's got no right to be there, however if she's lived there since 2017 she may now have some resident's rights.   If you own your current house and you bought it while you were still married she may have a claim to a share of it as a marital asset, even if it's just your own name on the mortgage.    I'd say you really need to speak to a divorce solicitor ASAP.
    • Hi all, I'm a member of the public defending a case by CCPlus T/a GroupNexus  for 4 PCNs from back in 2014 and 2015. The main part of my defence is that I was working on site, and Roadchef didnt enter my VRN either correctly or at all. I had repeatedly called them and was told that they would be voided. I heard nothing for years and therefore thought it was all settled. Another part of my defence will be to question the possible deliberate ploy or policy to wait until 5 years has passed to pursue these claims, therefore claiming an extra 8% per annum in  interest on each ticket. I went to mediation today and we didnt agree  on a settlement, so this will continue on to court. I asked for an SAR (Subject Access Request) for all 4 PCNS and they only sent me details for one of them so i offered to pay for one of them minus the fees/charges etc which was rejected. For the record, 4 PCNs now stand at £950 plus court and solicitor fees.   What also irked me is that I had an email  response from a director at Roadchef saying that they could have helped if i had gone to them earlier. I had gone to them earlier, and presumed it was settled. then years later CP Plus pop up with a letter of claim and summons. This left me in a catch22 situation  and is why I think that this is a deliberate ploy. They leave it 5 years to pursue the claim, then the landowner cant help you because it's 5 years down the line   That aside, I would like to hear from other people who have been targeting 4 or 5 years down the line and would ask if I can use their cases in my defence. If we can prove that this is deliberate, we can do something about it. I would also like to hear from a solicitor who'd like to take this up on my behalf.  Thanks
    • This post is regarding PPE listings on all the major buying platforms. and is affecting many thousands of people trying to buy PPE items.
    • I shall send that now  thank you once again. I shall keep you updated. 
    • We would appreciate you posting up your letters in scanned PDF format in future please – as asked – not JPEG images. Thank you. This is not a letter of claim. It's dressed up to look as if it is a letter of claim – probably to put the frighteners on you. You may as well respond to it.      
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 12 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
lookinforinfo

Is this Theft or Fraud? Drakes; ****WON****

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4732 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Its also worth sending a copy of the case history to BBC Whistleblower they may be doing a follow up or handing over documents to Courts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To keep you updated I have just seen on the MCOL that Drakes have filed a defence and so my claim cannot continue on line. The Court will write to me

telling me which Court I will have to attend, and I will expect to get Drakes defence

in a few days time. Should be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ian cognito

Yes, I think there's a few people waiting here to see what happens next, don't forget to keep us informed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (please do correct me if i am wrong) they are now on extremely dodgy ground, if they are judged to have taken this money from you via the court case, they could feasably stand to loose their license?

That being the case they will nto be allowed to continue trading.

Implications of which would be of course very expensive for them....


I love the smell of banks coughing up refunds early in the morning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much more likely that Drakes turn around and blame it all on rosenfeld-"we believed him". So that he takes the rap-losing his licence, jail sentence , whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kent police took 6 weeks to turn up when someone threatened my life this year, so its no suprise that when it comes to white collar crime, they dont give a toss. by the way once i reported said police to IPCC, they jumped through hoops and an investigation took place very quickly.:cool:


hsbc

Claim served on 13-08-2006

 

full refund .19-08-2006,

23-08-06 cheque arrived £580-deal.:D

 

capital one .

Filed claim against 16-08-2006 for £340.

Capital one 02-09-06 offer £383 refund to account.deal:D

 

Abbey Data Protection Act 4-07-06

 

issued court claim for £189 16-10-06

waitng for allocation nov21-11-06:cool:

 

 

Pleae make a donation to site, when you win-- I DID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received their defence today, along with a notice from the Court that the case is

being transferred to Willesden.

 

Bound to say that their defence is pretty weak and they keep insisting that I

provide the evidence that they acted unlawfully. They can't show that they did act

lawfully. Interestingly, they do admit that I rang them on the Saturday to

complain that I had not authorised payment.

 

Incidentally, does anyone know if these bailiffs are classified as salaried staff, or

self employed and paid on results-ie getting a proportion of the fees that the company receives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bailiffs get salaried with OTE so the more money they can bring in the more they get paid. did you see dispatches on bailiffs the other day it was shocking!

 

they have no right to enter your home ( unless its by an open window :confused: which apparently is legal)

the police int he film didnt know the rights the bailiffs had and stood by as they broke the law as the police were unaware and one bailiff even blagged a LAWYER about the "new laws" and talked a woman into paying debts for someone else in her distant family who had once used that address. they cant take things in your house unless they belong to the person who owes the money and if the person who owes the money isnt there and has no valuables there they cant take a thing.:) shocking what they do to get the cash tho


me against the abbey Paid in full (donation made)

me against the woolwich Paid in full(donation made)

me against HSBC Paid in full(donation made)

 

 

beware the scrapbooker, for she has a long memory and sharp knives :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the defence- I welcome your comments.

 

DEFENCE

 

 

1. The defendant a limited company, has been authorised as an Approved

Enforcement Agency in accordance with the procedures set out in the

Approval of Enforcement Agencies 2000 [ as amended] and as such is

authorised to enforce Distress Watrrants issued under S76 0f the Magistrates Court

ct 1982 and the Magistrates Court Rules 1981.

 

2. It is understood by the defendant that following default in payment of a sum adjudged to be paid on conviction for an offence, a distress warrant was issued against ..................., the claimant in these proceedings.

 

3. The distress warrant was issued to the defendant by her majestys Court Service Enfield Magistrates on .............

 

4.The address provided was.............

 

5.The warrant authorises immediate seizure and sale of the named defendants goods, unless the fine and costs are settled.

 

6.Proior to taking action to endorse the above warrants [sic]the defendant wrote to the clailmant in respect of the warrant, asking bor payment of the sum due..

 

 

7. There was no response to the aforesaid letter and neither was it returned.

 

 

8. It is admitted that on the 7th Aug, an enforcemenyt officer engaged by the defendantattended the address to seixze goods or collect paynment as authorised by the warrant.

 

9. the officer Mr...................... having made no contact with the claimant left a notice at the address.

 

10 THe claimant contacted Mr................ on the 8th August 2006, provided his debit card details and authorised an immediate paymenyt of £50 on account, with the balance authorised for the following day, once fiunds had been transferred.

 

11. It is admitthed that the claimants authorisation at paragraph 10 the following payments were processed.

 

a. a payment of £51 on the 8th August 2006

b. a payment of £273.50 0n the 10th Aufgust. 2006

 

12. It is admitted thaty on the 14th august the claimant contacted the defendant and stated that he had not authorised the further payment.

 

13. it is denied that the transaction processed on the 10th August was unauthorised. THe claimant is put to proof.

 

14. It is denied that the claimant is entitled to the sums claimed in respect of bank charges or loss of wages. The claimant is put to strict proof.

 

15. It is denied that defendant has breached the Data protection Act as claimed. The defendant is put to strict proof.

 

16. Th e defendants at all times were acting in accoradance with the authority provided by those warrants [sic].

 

17. The defendants paid over to the relevant Magistrates Courts. the relevant sum in settlement of the outstanding balanceof the fine imposed on the claimant.

 

18. The defendants submit that their actions were authorised by the relevant warrant and were in all respects lawful.

 

19. The defendant denies that they breached any duty of care owed to the claimant, if any such duty indeed exists.

 

20. In the circumstances it is denied that the claimant has suffered loss as alleged.

 

21 The defendant submits that the claimants claim form fails to disclose a cause of action claimable in the County Court.

 

22. Accordingly the defendant invites th e court to use its powers under the Civil Procedure rules, rule 3, 4 , to strike out this claim.

 

23, save as expressly admitted, the defendantdenies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim and reserve the right to respond furhter to the allegations once they have been properly and fully particularised.

 

Signed by director of ther company

 

Notice they haven't bothered to call in their lawyers.

 

Any observations would be welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you did give permission to take the money, surley they would have to contact you again to get the card details, I thought that once a payment was made they was'nt allowed to keep your card details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defence given that it has come so quickly strikes me as being an indicator that this isnt the first time they have been challenged and is a run of the mill exercise for them.

I wouLd guees that your case isnt unique and these lovely professional people do this type of thing all the time.

 

If they had your permission as they state why wait to make the transactio? surely they will be able to prove that they spoke to you when you gave them permission to take the payment second time around?

I would be tempted to speak to the bank too, i'm sure you prevent furhter payments being claimed by these lovely people.


I love the smell of banks coughing up refunds early in the morning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drakes are claiming that I gave them permission to take both amounts, though

spread over a couple of days, at the same time. This gets round the claim that

they infringed Data Protection, and also having to show another phone call from me

when I would have had to authorise the second payment.

 

Laughable that I was going to "transfer money into my account". I wish they

could tell me where I had this money-I might even have gone halves with them.lol.

 

Yes Joe, I was surprised that they replied so quickly too. Not sure that I agree

with your reasoning. Certainly they didn't need much time as the only evidence

they could produce was that their bailiff said he didn't do it. And this is the same

bailiff who gets paid on results.

 

Incidentally, does anyone know if bailiffs are classed as being self employed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Terminator

What a p*ss poor defence!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have another bank account that you would have transfered the money from? If you only have one account why would you say you were going to transfer it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Terminator
Here is the defence- I welcome your comments.

 

DEFENCE

 

 

1. The defendant a limited company, has been authorised as an Approved

Enforcement Agency in accordance with the procedures set out in the

Approval of Enforcement Agencies 2000 [ as amended] and as such is

authorised to enforce Distress Watrrants issued under S76 0f the Magistrates Court

ct 1982 and the Magistrates Court Rules 1981.

 

No explaination of the procedures and what Section of the Mag Court Rules 1981

 

 

2. It is understood by the defendant that following default in payment of a sum adjudged to be paid on conviction for an offence, a distress warrant was issued against ..................., the claimant in these proceedings.

 

Conviction for what and offence doesn't say what the offence is.

3. The distress warrant was issued to the defendant by her majestys Court Service Enfield Magistrates on .............

 

4.The address provided was.............

 

5.The warrant authorises immediate seizure and sale of the named defendants goods, unless the fine and costs are settled.

 

6.Proior to taking action to endorse the above warrants [sic]the defendant wrote to the clailmant in respect of the warrant, asking bor payment of the sum due..

 

If it was for immediate seziure why ask for payment something not right there

7. There was no response to the aforesaid letter and neither was it returned.

 

 

8. It is admitted that on the 7th Aug, an enforcemenyt officer engaged by the defendantattended the address to seixze goods or collect paynment as authorised by the warrant.

 

9. the officer Mr...................... having made no contact with the claimant left a notice at the address.

 

Up to them to produce copy of the notice

 

10 THe claimant contacted Mr................ on the 8th August 2006, provided his debit card details and authorised an immediate paymenyt of £50 on account, with the balance authorised for the following day, once fiunds had been transferred.

 

11. It is admitthed that the claimants authorisation at paragraph 10 the following payments were processed.

 

a. a payment of £51 on the 8th August 2006

b. a payment of £273.50 0n the 10th Aufgust. 2006

 

12. It is admitted thaty on the 14th august the claimant contacted the defendant and stated that he had not authorised the further payment.

 

13. it is denied that the transaction processed on the 10th August was unauthorised. THe claimant is put to proof.

 

Up to the defendent to prove that is was authorized

14. It is denied that the claimant is entitled to the sums claimed in respect of bank charges or loss of wages. The claimant is put to strict proof.

 

That shouldn't be too hard

15. It is denied that defendant has breached the Data protection Act as claimed. The defendant is put to strict proof.

 

By using a debit card without authorization is a breach of the DPA

16. Th e defendants at all times were acting in accoradance with the authority provided by those warrants [sic].

 

17. The defendants paid over to the relevant Magistrates Courts. the relevant sum in settlement of the outstanding balanceof the fine imposed on the claimant.

 

18. The defendants submit that their actions were authorised by the relevant warrant and were in all respects lawful.

 

Theft is not lawful

 

19. The defendant denies that they breached any duty of care owed to the claimant, if any such duty indeed exists.

 

It was a waste of time putting that in.

20. In the circumstances it is denied that the claimant has suffered loss as alleged.

 

They just decided to empty your bank account

 

21 The defendant submits that the claimants claim form fails to disclose a cause of action claimable in the County Court.

 

Proof

 

22. Accordingly the defendant invites th e court to use its powers under the Civil Procedure rules, rule 3, 4 , to strike out this claim.

 

3.4 Alternatively the judge may make an order under rule 18.1 requiring the defendant within a stated time to clarify his defence or to give additional information about it. The order may provide that the defence will be struck out if the defendant does not comply

 

 

23, save as expressly admitted, the defendantdenies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim and reserve the right to respond furhter to the allegations once they have been properly and fully particularised.

 

That doesn't make sense

 

Signed by director of ther company

 

Notice they haven't bothered to call in their lawyers.

 

Any observations would be welcome.

 

Best I can do for you there mate!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Terminator.

 

[12] What do you make of them admitting that I called to state that I had not authorised payment?

 

[16] Defendants did NOT act in accordance.....

First, when he arrived at my door, he put the notice hanging out side my letterbox

in contravention of the Data Protection Act which is designed to protect sensitive personal information which includes notices of offences etc.

In addition, £100 was added to the notice, which was an unlawful levy.

Whilst Rosenfeld reduced it on my query, it means that the notice was delivered by

an illegal action [viz An enforcement action will be illegal if it was wrongful from the outset. This will occur if the enforcement agent did not have the right to distrain, or if he or she committed a wrongful act at the beginning of the levy which invalidated the subsequent proceedings. ] taken from this government url

Department for Constitutional Affairs Website

Of course, they could argue that he reduced the claim by £100 to get immediate

payment. But hey, this is a guy who ranks alongside a dog turd in the hierarchy of

life. And he would reduce a legal claim under any circumstance? Yeah right.

 

 

On the Allocation questionaire, under Other information, I can ask for any other

info that I consider should be supplied by the other party. Apart from asking to supply me with ALL their telephone call records from me [they didn't mention the one on Monday, or the Friday] including transcripts of conversations, is there any

thing alse I should have?

 

PS I only have one other account with under £20 in it and the transfer would take more than 2 days.

And I made no mention of any transfer, though I did arrange to speak with him on the following Tuesday, to see how my finances were then to see if or when I could pay any more. I would not

have done that if I had alreadt agreed to pay the whole amount.

 

PPS I have arranged an appointment with my bank on Monday as they said they should be able to

supply me with transcripts of my conversation with them when I first discovered what Drakes had

done. Not sure if the Court will allow the voice tape, but they should allow the written one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Terminator

Phone records definitly. I think the judge will strike the defence out because of them putting CPR 3.4 in their defence which if you read it is in your favour. Also I would mention the DPA these parasites must be absolutly thick or totally stupid.I deal in housing litagation and i've seen tenants put in better defences than that.Hit em where it hurts we all with yer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be worth finding out who Drake's merchant service provider is. (The merchant services provider is the bank who actually processes the debit card transaction and pays it into their account - it need not be their normal bankers) Your bank should be able to provide this information from the transaction records I would have thought.

 

The reason for this is that merchant service providers have very strict rules on card acceptance. This includes that authorisation MUST be obtained for EACH transaction on a customers card. There are special provisions for what are known as 'recurring transactions' - for example a magazine subscription or charity donation that you make payments to regularly but only authorise once. Most definately Drakes are in breach of their merchant providers terms of service.

 

This is perhaps a minor thing against the major charge of theft, but as they say every little helps! - and if you can get this additional info to the judge before the hearing, it proves beyond any doubt that Drakes did NOT have your authority to take the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on does the defence statement contain a declaration of truth?

This could be important


You may think that but . . ......

____________________________________

Total repaid to date £1947.58

 

Lloyds Currrent a/c £745.27

Moneyclaim filed 17th June

Defence and AQ 25th July. Case struck out 11 Aug

reinstated and hearing 15th Jan 2007

 

Lloyds loan a/c D A request expired 19th June

Proceedings under S7 Data Protection Act issued 29th June defence and counterclaim 27 July

Hearing Jan 3 2007

Listed final hearing April 2007-

Judge declared an interest and disqualified himself

new date to be set

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Terminator
Hold on does the defence statement contain a declaration of truth?

This could be important

 

Your absolutly correct there.All statements must have a declaration of truth and be signed and dated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the website that I found illegal action, I have just found another-viz

Irregular action: An enforcement action will be irregular if the levy was carried out correctly but the distrainor subsequently does something unlawful.

 

 

Not sure what the outcome is with either situation, but worth a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I made a first payment of £50 to Drakes bailiffs by debit card. now without my

permission, they have put through another payment for the rest of the outstanding debt. It has not yet gone through yet but it is in the pipeline.

If I can't get my bank to stop the payment before it goes through, can I report them to the police for theft-oris it fraud?

 

I work for a collections company and i can confirm it is illegal to process payments without authorisation and it is against the csa code of conduct and the fsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The director signed the statement of truth. That is why I asked if bailiffs are self

employed as it is my understanding that if an agent [as opposed to an employee]

is involved, then it is the bailiff who has to sign the statement of truth. Thus

leaving him open to a charge of contempt of Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coo-don't you lot sleep?

Thanks very annoyed, I will make more enquiries as to how these payments work when I go to the bank on Monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...