Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Bailiff threat to initiate further legal proceedings


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5261 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

A bailiff just called at my property to serve a Removal of Goods Notice on my daughter for unpaid council tax. This debt was incurred at her previous address and they are now pursuing her at my address. He explained that if they were unsuccessful in recovering the debt they would move on to further legal proceedings, such as an Attachment order against her income or Confinement proceedings. I expressed surprise that the bailiff (rather than the council) would be involved in initiating any further legal proceedings. He explained that as the debt had been passed to them, they would do this jointly with the council. Is he just trying to frighten me into paying up for my daughter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell them to take a walk...your daughter does not live at that address end of story..

If they can't find her they will have to return the file to the council and she will then be able to make arrangements with them to pay direct to them..but must stick with this or they will be back.. DO NOT LET HIM IN EVEN IF HE HAS A HEART ATTACK ON YOUR DOORSTEP KEEP ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS FIRMLY LOCKED and IF YOUR DAUGHTER HAS A CAR THEN TELL HER TO HIDE IT ..NOT IN THE NEXT STREET BUT WELL AWAY FROM THE HOUSE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are they pursuing her at your address, does she live with you again?

I agree with WD, tell them to take a walk in the park they have no powers over you and if they get stroppy tell them you will call the Police.

If I have been helpful please tickle my scales or better still contribute to CAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bailiff just called at my property to serve a Removal of Goods Notice on my daughter for unpaid council tax. This debt was incurred at her previous address and they are now pursuing her at my address. He explained that if they were unsuccessful in recovering the debt they would move on to further legal proceedings, such as an Attachment order against her income or Confinement proceedings. I expressed surprise that the bailiff (rather than the council) would be involved in initiating any further legal proceedings. He explained that as the debt had been passed to them, they would do this jointly with the council. Is he just trying to frighten me into paying up for my daughter?

 

I didn't realise Enid Blyton had moved into Bailiffing. As has already been said they can't do much as it is not your debt. If your daughter now lives with you as a precaution I would do a Statutory Declaration on your own goods including car as the Bailiff may just try to chance his arm by seizing your goods.

 

If your daughter does not live with you then you are not obliged to tell the Bailiff where she lives. He's the one that's come up with the stories now let him play Miss Marple if he's that good.

 

It may pay for your daughter to start making regular payments to the Council either online or automated phone. If this then goes any further it can be seen that she is willing to pay rather than not paying at all. It may then stand her in good stead if the case goes back to the Council or back to Court.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all who have replied. There were several useful suggestions. However, it appears that I did not make myself clear. My question was specifically about whether the bailiff would initiate further legal proceedings, as opposed to the council. My previous understanding was that it is the creditor that makes legal proceedings not the bailiff. I thought the bailiff's role was to impose a warrant, not to take out further warrants. I thought that if they were unsuccessful in imposing a warrant, they would pass the case back to the council who would then decide whether they themselves wish to pursue attachment of income, or confinement proceedings. Was the bailiff misleading me when he said that he would do this in conjunction with the council?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the bailiff misleading me when he said that he would do this in conjunction with the council

 

 

 

yes he was if the bailiff cant get payment or goods (levy to secure the debt against) then the bailiff company send back the debt to the council Nulla Bona the council then decide how to proceed to recover the debt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all who have replied. There were several useful suggestions. However, it appears that I did not make myself clear. My question was specifically about whether the bailiff would initiate further legal proceedings, as opposed to the council. My previous understanding was that it is the creditor that makes legal proceedings not the bailiff. I thought the bailiff's role was to impose a warrant, not to take out further warrants. I thought that if they were unsuccessful in imposing a warrant, they would pass the case back to the council who would then decide whether they themselves wish to pursue attachment of income, or confinement proceedings. Was the bailiff misleading me when he said that he would do this in conjunction with the council?

 

Any further action is instigated by the Council, whether they take any notice of what may be suggested to them by a third party is open to opinion but would think it's a case of thanks but no thanks as most Council's have their methods cast in stone.

 

The Bailiff would hope that you haven't a clue about his powers and these stories he makes up willmake you quiver in your boots so much that you will pay up on the spot.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks to hallowitch and PT for confirming my understanding. So all I need to do now is make sure that they are not able to recover anything and it will then be passed back to the Council. I will then encourage my daughter to deal with them responsibly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So all I need to do now is make sure that they are not able to recover anything and it will then be passed back to the Council. yes it will go back to the council

I will then encourage my daughter to deal with them responsibly

I would advice you to try and get your daughter to pay something direct to the council even if its only £5 wk this means they cant accuse her of being a wont pay

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it should be on the records of the company that the address is a "care of" address, so they will know that they cant do anything apart from trying to look the part and like someone has already said, hope you dont know the ins and outs of civil law and pay.

when the bailiffs send a file back to the council, they will recommend that commital proceedings are started, most popular are attachment of earnings/benefits. they can instigate bankruptcy proceedings or impose a prison sentance but the amount it costs the council to to this has shot up, and so is extremely rare nowadays. you would literally have to have not paid anything in 4-5 years for them to consider this i think

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...