Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm not sure we were on standard tariffs - I've uploaded as many proofs as I can for the ombudsman - ovo called last night uping the compensation to 100 from 50 pounds for the slip in customer service however they won't acknowledge the the problem them not acknowledging a fault has caused nor are they willing to remedy anything as they won't accept the meter or formula was wrong.   I'd appreciate more details on the economy 7 approach and I'll update the ombudsman with any information you can share. 
    • To re-iterate and highlight my urgent question on this one: The N24 from the court did not include any instructions to submit paperwork 28 days before the date, unlike the N157 received for other smaller claims. Do I have to submit a WS for this court date? Link has!...
    • No, reading the guidance online it says to wait for a letter from the court. Should I wait or submit the directions? BTW, I assume that the directions are a longer version of the particular of claim accompanied by evidence, correct?
    • Thanks for opening, it's been another rough year for my family and I've procastinated a little.. Due to the age of my defaults on this and other accounts (circa 2021), I really need to avoid a CCJ as that will be another 6 years of credit issues. Mediation failed as I played the 'not enough info to make a decision' however during the call for some reason they did offer settlement at 80%, I refused. this has been allocated to small claims track, court date is June 3 and I've received their WS. I'm starting on my WS. They do appear to have provided everything required of them (even if docs could be reconstructions). Not really sure what my argument is anymore but I do want to attend court and see this through. Should a judgement be made against me then I will clear the balance within 30 days and have the CCJ removed - this is still possible isn't it? I'm going to be reading up today and tomorrow and hope you can provide me some guidance in the meantime. Wonder what your advice would be given the documents they have provided? I am now in a position to clear the debt either by lump sum or a few large installments - Is this something i should look into at this late stage? Thanks as always in advance
    • I have now received my SAR. It includes a great deal of information! Is there a time limit on how long account information is kept and/or can be provided to debtors? I have received many account statements which were not previously sent to me. I remember that the creditor should provide explanations of any acronyms and abbreviations that maybe used in the documents. Is this still the case? Also what, if any, are the regulations in regard to adding fees to a debt? Can fees be added to a debt after the court has approved a charge on a property. Perhaps due to the numerous owners of the debt, many payments I made were not properly recorded on the account, some were entered over a year after the payment was made! Following the Legal Charge, I paid every month until my payments were refused. I am trying to compute the over payments, but the addition of fees etc. is confusing me. Any comments and/or help would be appreciated.
  • 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 5172 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

No seanamarts,

 

it was a FIVE million pound plane, not 3, (its in the regs that they can't touch a 3 million pound plane for 500 quid debt), it HAS to be 5 million.

 

off to work now - oh dear gotta go thorugh North London again today.

ohhh my mistake, damn I could of cost some one a lot of money there :D:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Wrong advice. Whatda loada cobblers.... This could be challenged in the court as an 'excessive levy'. Challenged one myself this way and won. 5 million pound plane for 500 quid. Dream on son.

 

Whilst i'm on it HCE you also say that the bailiff is there for goods not money. Again, knowing a few bailiffs they would all disagree, taking goods is the last option, taking cash is far easier, quicker, and cost effective. You're telling me you would rather load and unload vans all day or take a wad of notes. Bit of a no brainer really isn't it.

 

Lastly, you may want to remove yourself from 192.com, as your home address is listed on there, if you search through occupation, 'certificated bailiffs', strangely enough, all the bailiffs are listed.

 

Listen carefully Danboy, I shall say this slowly for you...

 

1) If the ONLY ASSET AVAILABLE available is a £5M plane then this IS NOT considered as excessive levy.

 

2) Bailiffs ARE SENT FOR GOODS not money. However, commonsense dictates that this is a last resort and every bailiff would rather get paid than remove anything.

 

3) Pop in for a cup of tea when you're passing.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about a parking tickets

bailiffs collecting parking tickets are there to collect payment or to levy goods the levy gives the debtor 5 days to make payment or an arrangement to pay if the payment agreement is broken or no payment are made then goods previously levied can be removed and sold at auction

just as a bailiff cant under levy in this situation neither can he excessively levy

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about a parking tickets

bailiffs collecting parking tickets are there to collect payment or to levy goods the levy gives the debtor 5 days to make payment or an arrangement to pay if the payment agreement is broken or no payment are made then goods previously levied can be removed and sold at auction

just as a bailiff cant under levy in this situation neither can he excessively levy

 

Thats always been my understanding too, I remain very suspicious of the bailiff involved in this one as he appears to misrepresent as previously visited to enable an immediate levy of the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously Dont follow what is set out by the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. It clearly states;

 

"Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods impounded in satisfaction of the judgement is proportional to the value of the debt and charges owed. "

 

I doubt the OP had an old banger for a company car, but I am sure he will clear this up when he returns to post.

And as for a bailiff taken a 3 million pound plane, thats just verging on the insanity, I could make a joke about that but I will hold back...

 

 

 

levying two planes would be excessive:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn.. High school, with the sort of cash you are raking in I would have thought you would have a bigger house by now.

 

anyway, you quote utter made-up-on-the-day-tosh, but then that's how you get by isn't - on a wing and a prayer

 

You really think levying on a plane valued at 5 mill for a 500 quid debt would be backed by a court?

 

No, don't answer that one, ignore it like the rest of the posts you choose to ignore when you have no reasonable answer.

 

You are paper thin, as is your advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn.. High school, with the sort of cash you are raking in I would have thought you would have a bigger house by now.

 

You really think I live in North London.... :rolleyes: How's CM6?

 

anyway, you quote utter made-up-on-the-day-tosh, but then that's how you get by isn't - on a wing and a prayer

 

Of course Danboy :rolleyes:

 

You really think levying on a plane valued at 5 mill for a 500 quid debt would be backed by a court?

 

Yes, if it's the ONLY ASSET available! :smile:

 

No, don't answer that one, ignore it like the rest of the posts you choose to ignore when you have no reasonable answer.

 

Yawn

 

You are paper thin, as is your advice.

 

Yes, Danboy... :rolleyes:

 

 

Caggers, please ignore the ramblings of this edit and concentrate on the facts of the matter in this case.

Edited by IdaInFife
removed personal insult
Link to post
Share on other sites

So by Danboys take on things, you can drive a ferrari around, get parking tickets and get away with it because your car is to expensive.

He was trying to make a point that taking something that is of far more value than the debt is classed as an excessive levy, nothing was mentioned to the fact that if you drive an expensive car that you get away with parking illegal.

And as far as the 5m plane being taken if there are no other assets I highly doubt that this would happen because if you have this sort of money in the first place you would have no trouble in paying the debt.

I think we need to stick to the reality here and not live in a world of dragons and witches.. no offence hallowitch;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was trying to make a point that taking something that is of far more value than the debt is classed as an excessive levy, nothing was mentioned to the fact that if you drive an expensive car that you get away with parking illegal.

And as far as the 5m plane being taken if there are no other assets I highly doubt that this would happen because if you have this sort of money in the first place you would have no trouble in paying the debt.

I think we need to stick to the reality here and not live in a world of dragons and witches.. no offence hallowitch;-)

 

 

The fact is, if someone cannot pay or are unwilling to pay for a fine ect, if a warrant is to be enforced and the only goods of value so happen to be a ferrari for arguements sake, then it is not an excessive levy as the ferrari is the only goods that could be levied, the outcome being the car would go to aution and the difference after debt has been paid would be passed to the debtor/ customer.

 

My point earlier being is,if you cannot seize something because it is out of proportion to the debt, then driving a ferrari would make you immune to parking fines, as the cars value far exceeds the parking fine.

 

If you where to seize a plasma tv and a car and an expensive piece of artwork, then this would be excessive as the plasma tv alone may have covered the debt

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, if the only asset available is an aeroplane worth £5M then the bailiff could seize that for a £500 .

 

 

I found this difference of opinions very interesting and decided to see if i could find a definitive answer,i wish i never started:(

I found out very quickly there was a case Field v Mitchell[1806].Then the fun started,it has taken me ages to find the case,and i have had to copy it from archive records.

On reading it it seems to back up what HCE is saying,that if it is the only asset,then it can be seized.I think the first two lines say it all,but i have shown the whole case out of interest.

Here is the case.I'm putting the kettle on for a cup of tea,anyone fancy a cuppa:D

 

 

 

fielvmitchellk.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Welsh1.

no one was disputing a levy is excessive if there are no other goods that can be seized, it was your exaggerated example, and as Hallowitch has already stated "This thread is about a parking ticket,

bailiffs collecting parking tickets are there to collect payment or to levy goods the levy gives the debtor 5 days to make payment or an arrangement to pay if the payment agreement is broken or no payment are made then goods previously levied can be removed and sold at auction

just as a bailiff cant under levy in this situation neither can he excessively levy"

Link to post
Share on other sites

no one was disputing a levy is excessive if there are no other goods that can be seized, it was your exaggerated example, and as Hallowitch has already stated "This thread is about a parking ticket,

bailiffs collecting parking tickets are there to collect payment or to levy goods the levy gives the debtor 5 days to make payment or an arrangement to pay if the payment agreement is broken or no payment are made then goods previously levied can be removed and sold at auction

just as a bailiff cant under levy in this situation neither can he excessively levy"

 

 

but you are confused with the term excessive levy, since when does a levy give someone 5 days to pay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol... whatever vehicle you drive you should NEVER pay a ticket, there are too many ways NOT to pay and all entirely LEGAL.

 

Hce, you may want to use: www.torproject.org

 

This handy gizmo will secure anonominity online, it will prevent someone using a command prompt on you, the whois nick_name, or indeed the netstat command or similar. There are several ways to do it. I have detailed files.

Edited by danboy381

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTICE OF SEIZURE OF GOODS & INVENTORY

 

 

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT unless the said sum is paid together with expenses of this Distress within FIVE DAYS from the date hereof they will be sold according to law

 

 

I stand corrected you are quite right,

 

I was looking at it from more a laymans point of view,

 

Your car has been levied you have five days to pay then auction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if much of this is helping the OP :confused:

 

Think we should return to the issue of charges levied and whether they would be in any way considered proportionate.

 

Is it conceivably correct to levy a vehicle on first visit?

 

Is it correct that a levy can be altered/amended at first visit to enable a possible disposal of vehicle?

 

Has the Bailiff acted correctly are the charges open to challenge?

 

There is I presume recourse for the OP if the HCEO actions are flawed and this is the route we should be assisting with

 

I know a lot of people find HCE's views unpalatable (me included with some posts) but I think as a community spirited forum we should remember that life experiences imbed our views of others (both sides of the fence) and can stop us looking at practical advice or pointers which could be included within his and others posts.

 

 

If HCE doesnt mind taking another look perhaps he can offer some guidance on taking the Bailiff to task with regard to the fees.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if much of this is helping the OP :confused:

 

Think we should return to the issue of charges levied and whether they would be in any way considered proportionate.

 

Is it conceivably correct to levy a vehicle on first visit?

 

Is it correct that a levy can be altered/amended at first visit to enable a possible disposal of vehicle?

 

Has the Bailiff acted correctly are the charges open to challenge?

 

There is I presume recourse for the OP if the HCEO actions are flawed and this is the route we should be assisting with

 

I know a lot of people find HCE's views unpalatable (me included with some posts) but I think as a community spirited forum we should remember that life experiences imbed our views of others (both sides of the fence) and can stop us looking at practical advice or pointers which could be included within his and others posts.

 

 

If HCE doesnt mind taking another look perhaps he can offer some guidance on taking the Bailiff to task with regard to the fees.

 

Gez

some times we have to flatten a few trees to see the woods, if you get my drift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

some times we have to flatten a few trees to see the woods, if you get my drift.

 

Hehe....... don't worry, I've chopped a few down on here before - and been summarily Cagbooooooooted for a few transgressions in piling the firewood :D

 

I'm open to any pointers offered, I know some are downright ludicrous and clearly come from a position of the belief that they are correct but........ sometimes within a post you find a point where law appears to be on your side and by digging a little deeper will work it to your favour.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

If HCE doesnt mind taking another look perhaps he can offer some guidance on taking the Bailiff to task with regard to the fees. Gez

 

My knowledge of fees in parking is from many years ago and it would appear others are more uptodate than me on this. I can give guidance (which I already have on earlier posts in this thread) but you'd be better asking someone else on this one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...