Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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 5244 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...