Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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 5263 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 guys

 

Just a quick one from me....

 

Walking posession fees listed on a seizure of goods and inventory form.......are these allowed if weve not actually signed a walking posession form??

 

P.S. Am finding the site so useful in my current predicament, and just getting my head around all the ludicrous fees the balliff has added on...

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Walking possession fees listed on a seizure of goods and inventory form.......are these allowed if weave not actually signed a walking possession form??

 

yes its legit (unfortunately)

what goods have they listed on it (if a car is it on HP finance)

some goods are exempt from levy

 

if you tell how much the liability order is for i will work out the levy fee for you

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they've just shoved a note through the door but haven't actually entered the premises, I'd say 'no, the WP fee isn't allowed'

 

Looking through the window and making an inventory, then posting a WPA through the door is where the bailiff came to grief in the case of Evans v South Ribble

 

If they have gained entry but you just wouldn't sign the WPA, then they could argue their case. If you never met them and just came home to find a WPA, don't sign it and don't pay anything to do with WP. They are, in my opinion, chancing their arm

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have seized goods outside the premises (eg a car) then those could be subject to a WPA. The main thing is, they have had to have been able to touch the goods they seized. If they just looked through a window, say, they can't seize them. If the car was outside, they can

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one point. Whilst replying to another poster it reminded me about cars. The DVLA only record the keeper not the owner of a car. Often this is the same. In my case it isn't. I'm the keeper but my sister is the owner, she paid for it and lets me use it in exchange for the odd trip here and there.

All the documents, eg insurance etc, being in your name does not prove ownership by any means. The Bailiff will just assume.

So are you really the owner of the car? Or did a friend or relative buy it and you have free use? Makes the world of difference...

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one point. Whilst replying to another poster it reminded me about cars. The DVLA only record the keeper not the owner of a car. Often this is the same. In my case it isn't. I'm the keeper but my sister is the owner, she paid for it and lets me use it in exchange for the odd trip here and there.

All the documents, eg insurance etc, being in your name does not prove ownership by any means. The Bailiff will just assume.

So are you really the owner of the car? Or did a friend or relative buy it and you have free use? Makes the world of difference...

 

Interesting point, my Dad actually bought the car, as a means to get me to and from hospital, but obviously its all registered in my partners name

Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth looking at Clairesey. Your Dad may have a Bill of Sale for the car or a receipt for the money paid. Alternatively, Hollowitch made a very good point on a similar thread [i'll see if I can find it], along the lines that the person who bought the car can go to a solicitor and make a legal declaration for £5 / £10 regarding ownership. Worth it, perhaps, to get your car back...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats absolutely brilliant, thank you so much for your guidance.

 

The more I learn about the ins and outs of the system, the more peeved I am about it all.........so unethical, bullying people down, knowing they dont know whats right and whats not, who on earth would do a job like that?? The mind boggles

 

Thanks again, now gotta break the news to my Dad, ugh :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the complaints we propose are :

 

I think there are two counts we can approach the council and bailiff with;

 

1. Illegal Distress

 

My OH being the registered keeper does not meanHe is the owner. As my dad paid for it I am technically the owner. Therefore it should not have been removed as you are classed as a vulnerable adult.

 

Also as you are registered disabled and in ill health the council should not have allowed the bailiffs to attempt to take the vehicle in the first place and should have taken the debt back to be dealt with in house.

 

Part payment and proof of disability were offered to the bailiff on the day but ignored. By law proof of vehicle registration is not proof of ownership.

 

2. Irregular Distress

 

We have been given no formal notice of intention to sell the vehicle or further details on how to have it returned.

 

Therefore this levy is void and should be cancelled with immediate effect and the vehicle returned. Failure to do this would result in a claim being filed through the courts, not only for the full cost of the vehicle but for damages as well.

 

Am proposing we put this in writing to Ross & Roberts and East Devon council?? Any pointers?

 

Actually, am gonna post this on my original thread about it all....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...