Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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 4628 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

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Kelkou, i'm not really sure what you are asking or saying??? :confused:

 

welsh1 when you say my word against his - in regards to what? I understand that is the case with the assault charge but can the judge say the same about the forced entry?

 

I am still very confused here and I don't seem to be getting any responses to my questions :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to confuse you munchkette.

I don't know whether you are a single parent, working or not, health problems etc which would have a bearing on my advice. I tend to gravitate towards those who may fall into the vulnerable category of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

As there is a little bit of side tracking on your thread, you may wish to repeat any particular point you wish raise. That saves people having to plough back through all the posts.

Best wishes.

Rae.

Edited by RaeUK
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

welsh1 when you say my word against his - in regards to what? I understand that is the case with the assault charge but can the judge say the same about the forced entry?

 

I am still very confused here and I don't seem to be getting any responses to my questions :(

 

 

Hi Munchkette,

I was talking about the complaint you made to the courts,(form4)you will have written in your complaint stating what happened and why you are complaining,then a judge will contact the bailiff and ask him for a statement,once the judge has both of your statements he may,dismiss the complaint,or ask the bailiff to come to the court to explain his actions,and if he is still unsatisfied with the bailiffs response he could take his licence away.

 

What i was trying to say was that the judge can only make a decission on the facts put in front of him,so your word against his,it sounds callous but that is what it will boil down to.

Hope that clarifies things a bit:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically if the bailiff tries to claim that I let him in and he didn't assault me it will be his word against mine? Great!

 

I have no doubt he will try to make up some story to put himself in the clear. I can only hope the judge will find in my favour 'cos it is totally out of order that he could come to my house assault me, abuse his powers to get money out of me, insult me in my own home and then possibly walk off scot free.

 

 

The questions I would like help with are:

 

1. - Am I correct in thinking that the bailiff entered my property illegally by putting his foot in the door and forcing it open?

 

2. - Am I 100% certain on claiming he has defrauded me by misrepresenting his authority in order to obtain money and goods from me?

 

3. - The police have refused to progress the fraud allegation saying it doesn't fit their criteria for criminal prosecution, even though I explained it several times. If I am to complain to the IPCC what should I say? PlodderTom says to file a complaint of misfeasance - is that by the police or the bailiff (misfeasance).

 

I looked on the IPCC's website (after finding the correct one - originally got details on the climate report :-)) and I couldn't really see on there how I could complain about the fraud not being investigated. If anyone can help on this it would be most appreciated.

4. - With regards to the debit card chargeback am I likely to still be able to reclaim my money if the police won't investigate the fraud? I am taking the assault case forward so will have a crime no. for that.

Will they accept that the money was paid under duress following undue pressure from the bailiff who had misrepresented his authority?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically if the bailiff tries to claim that I let him in and he didn't assault me it will be his word against mine? Great!

 

I have no doubt he will try to make up some story to put himself in the clear. I can only hope the judge will find in my favour 'cos it is totally out of order that he could come to my house assault me, abuse his powers to get money out of me, insult me in my own home and then possibly walk off scot free.

 

 

The questions I would like help with are:

 

1. - Am I correct in thinking that the bailiff entered my property illegally by putting his foot in the door and forcing it open?

 

Yes - but he will claim otherwise

 

2. - Am I 100% certain on claiming he has defrauded me by misrepresenting his authority in order to obtain money and goods from me?

 

In your own mind yes - but he will claim otherwise

 

3. - The police have refused to progress the fraud allegation saying it doesn't fit their criteria for criminal prosecution, even though I explained it several times. If I am to complain to the IPCC what should I say? PlodderTom says to file a complaint of misfeasance - is that by the police or the bailiff (misfeasance).

 

Can't remember having said that at all - unless it was in the stuff I copied.

 

I looked on the IPCC's website (after finding the correct one - originally got details on the climate report :-)) and I couldn't really see on there how I could complain about the fraud not being investigated. If anyone can help on this it would be most appreciated.

4. - With regards to the debit card chargeback am I likely to still be able to reclaim my money if the police won't investigate the fraud?

 

I think to prove the fraud you would have to prove the "illegal" entry and if that was successful the payment that you made could well have been seen to have been under duress. As there are no witnesses I think you may be on dodgy ground.

 

I am taking the assault case forward so will have a crime no. for that.

Will they accept that the money was paid under duress following undue pressure from the bailiff who had misrepresented his authority?

 

You can only try

 

 

You said a while back he charged you a levy fee of £45 and charges of £189 - do you know what goods he levied on - apologies if you have said already but can't see it.

 

It may be that you have jumped the gun submitting the Form 4 as I believe Judges like to see if you have been through the Bailiff Company's complaints procedure first so don't be surprised if it is not acted upon. Only if he has "previous" for this type of action may it go any further.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He levied on pretty much anything he could see which to me was in excess of the money owed (approx £650 according to the council although the bailiff has this at £719 + fees coming to £955)

 

xbox 360, hi-fi stereo, blu-ray player, 46" lcd tv, PC speakers, digital camera, printer, 23" lcd monitor, mountain bike

 

The levy & attendance fees are listed against the total sum owed so I am not sure how much of that I can claim to be part of the £400 I paid.

 

In hindsight I should have asked the police who attended to eject him from my house. But I wasn't sure where I stood, although I did tell them he had forced his way in. They could have done more to find out about the situation instead of basically assisting this fraudster in going about his business!

 

Have I really jumped the gun with the form 4? I mean I really can't see what the bailiff co. could have done that would make me not want to still complain about this man. His behaviour was appalling - assaulting me, abusing me, illegally forcing his way in and misrepresenting his powers are all things that need to be reported to the court that certificated him and sooner rather than later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things to bear in mind though. Firstly, at auction, items will only realise a fraction of their value. Auctioneers fees as well as the bailiffs fees would need to be deducted before anything went towards the debt. From what you've listed so far probably not too unreasonable. Perhaps you could post the levy just on the off chance excluded items have been levied against?

I'll draw the conclusion - from the list of levied items - you have a reasonable income and may not fall within the remit of vulnerable.

As mentioned, and as I understand things, it is always best to follow the normal complaints procedure to allow the company an opportunity to rectify their wrongs. However, how were you to know that?

Whilst it may well be a 'your word against his word' scenario due to lack of other witnesses, I'd suggest it is always worth pursuing a complaint. It may not do you any good per se, but if he's acted this way to you he will more than likely act this way against someone else.

Probably nothing else I can do for you and leave you in the capable hands of others better placed than I to assist.

Best wishes and good luck with everything.

Rae.

Edited by RaeUK
type o
Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you mean by post the levy? I have listed all the items listed on it there isn't anything else. I saw them looking at my virgin set top box and thought maybe they might have listed that which would have been wrong as it remains the property of virgin media but they did not.

 

Currently I don't have any income as I am unemployed so I could ill afford to pay the £400 I did pay - that was actually meant to go towards my rent for this month. But it was either pay or have my things taken away.

 

I have allowed the company to 'rectify their wrongs' I have sent complaint letters to them, the council and lodged the form 4 complaint. All 3 were sent at the same time. In light of the actual complaint - assault etc. I don't see how this could possibly be resolved by the bailiff company alone - this is something that the certificate issuing court needs to know about. I'd understand if I was just disputing fees but it is more than that. If the bailiff co. offered me compensation would that mean I should not report the conduct of their officer to the certificating court? Surely that way bailiffs could just buy their way out of trouble. How are the courts ever to know if ppl don't report them?

 

There is nothing that the bailiff co. could offer me that would atone for being assaulted and insulted in my own home by their officer there are standards the officer is supposed to follow and he did not adhere to them.

Edited by munchkette
Link to post
Share on other sites

Munchkette, I appreciate you're upset and have gone through an unpleasant experience. Two points hunni.

Firstly try to relax a little as we meander through the maze to help you.

Secondly, remember a forum is a text based communications tool. It doesn't express emotion well and it's all too easy for me or you or tom cobley to get the wrong picture.

Thankyou for telling me you are on benefits. It was, ahem, one of the questions I asked earlier...

It does have a bearing and gives you some aid in your complaints.

The National Standards for Enforcement Agents are not law. But they are the standard bailiffs, councils and courts should be adhering to. :

 

Department for Constitutional Affairs - Enforcement - National Standards for Enforcement Agents

 

Those who might be considered vulnerable include the following:

the elderly;

people with a disability;

the seriously ill;

the recently bereaved;

single parent families;

pregnant women;

unemployed people; and,

those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.

 

The above list is not exclusive but a guide. Are there any other boxes you tick?

I italicise 'might' because unemployed people may well have a cache of hidden redundancy treasure. I suspect not in your case given your comments.

The unemployed could be classed as vulnerable because of the extra stress placed on already seriously restricted income. It is an argument for the debt to be returned by the bailiff. You need to include this information in any letters of complaint you make.

Rae.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you mean by post the levy? I have listed all the items listed on it there isn't anything else...

 

Just what was on the WPO. If what you posted was what they levied on then thats fine. As long as it all belongs to you and doesn't include items belonging to a child...

 

Sometimes they've been known to accidently levy beds and fridges and cookers and washing machines etc... :rolleyes:

 

Rae.

Edited by RaeUK
type o
Link to post
Share on other sites

He levied on pretty much anything he could see which to me was in excess of the money owed (approx £650 according to the council although the bailiff has this at £719 + fees coming to £955)

 

You need to contact the Council ASAP to find out exactly how much the Liability Order was for and how much is till outstanding.

 

xbox 360, hi-fi stereo, blu-ray player, 46" lcd tv, PC speakers, digital camera, printer, 23" lcd monitor, mountain bike

 

Do you have any children and if so do the 2 items highlighted belong to them? Or do they belong to a relatives children who visit you on a regular basis?

 

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@PT no both the bike and the xbox are mine

 

To be fair do I really need to bother with the walking possession agreement seeing as it is invalid anyway?

 

I know the bailiff will try to claim he entered my house peacefully but it will certainly be interesting to hear his version of events on how he happened to enter my home.

 

Oh and that info on the complaint to the IPCC was from the info you posted about filing a chargeback.

Edited by munchkette
Link to post
Share on other sites

@PT no both the bike and the xbox are mine

 

Shame but it was worth an ask

 

To be fair do I really need to bother with the walking possession agreement seeing as it is invalid anyway?

 

I know the bailiff will try to claim he entered my house peacefully but it will certainly be interesting to hear his version of events on how he happened to enter my home.

This is where the arguments begin as it all boils down to one word against another.

 

Oh and that info on the complaint to the IPCC was from the info you posted about filing a chargeback.

 

Ah - see where that was now, it relates to the Police Officer.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.....

 

Earth to High Court Enforcer.....

 

When can we expect an answer to my question in post 21? Page 2 post 1

 

I seem to have spent a lot of time trying to show people the facts of bailiffs entering a property,but it seems showing a government web site is not enough,here is a bit more that i dug up while i was trying to find all the information.

 

The bailiff may enter an open door or open an unlocked door(Budd v Pyle [1846] 10 JP 203),having the authority by law to open the door in the ordinary way in which other persons may (Ryan v Shilcock [1851] 7 Exch 72).

 

Can we please put this to bed,THEY WILL WALK IN WITHOUT BEING INVITED,saying anything else is miss informing all the caggers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welsh 1. I KNOW the law on this, however we are all waiting for the HCE to tell us his side of the story. If there is a simple answer then he really shouldn't have any problem telling us what it is.

 

Don't blame Fair Parking for the lack of resolution on this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone help me on an updated wording for my chargeback please?

 

The info PT provided is out of date and also the police will not investigate this as a fraud.

 

PT wrote:

The merchant applied undue pressure on me to obtain this money transfer for himself or another and defrauded me the consumer in fees that are not prescribed in law and committed an offence under Section 15A(1) of the Theft Act 196, Section 2(1)(b)(i) and Section 4(1)©(i) of the Fraud Act 2006 and the police have given a crime number of XXXXXXX and the merchant declined several opportunities to reach an amicable resolve in this matter.

 

I spoke to the police they said Section 15A(1) of the Theft Act 196, Section 2(1)(b)(i) has been withdrawn and is no longer valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear - police having trouble with the law again? What do they think they are employed to uphold? Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 has not so much been 'withdrawn' as incorporated into the Fraud Act 2006. They should have known that.

 

As for Section 2 (1)(b)(i) of the Fraud Act 2006 being 'withdrawn' -when did that happen? Are your local police saying that it this alleged withdrawal of Section 2 now means it's legal to defraud somebody by the fraudster making a gain for himself?

 

Or is it more likely that the police are a) ignorant of the law? b) too apathetic to look it up? and c) to lazy to implement an investigation?

 

Back to the card game boys....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...