Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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 4709 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 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Appreciate you have had a lot of replies in the last few hours. Best bet is a good nights rest and read all through again a couple of times tomorrow and formulate your plan of attack.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another quick question...they put a levy on my old BMW which was sold for scrap last year...can they just add another car instead. Also, the car I told rossendales about (renault) was paid for by my MIL, to whom I am paying 75.00 pm still, I have proof as it comes out of my bank direct to her...can he still put a levy on it as although I am the registered keeper, until the car is paid for in full I do not yet own it???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, a bailiff can only levy on goods belonging to the debtor. The DVLA do not keep a record of vehicle owners only registered keepers - not always the same thing!

You need to have proof that you don't own the vehicle. The simplest way is for your MIL (I think I know what that means) to complete a statutory declaration affirming ownership.

Theoretically, you shouldn't have sold the BMW for scrap as it was legally seized. That said, if it was only fit for scrap, the bailiff should not have levied it.

Best wishes

Rae.

Edited by RaeUK
typoo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rae,

TBH, when he levied it it was in really good condition. But as happens in life, the gearbox blew and it cost more than the car was worth to fix it...and I wasn 't expecting to see the bailiffs again because I was consistant in paying off my debt...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou everyone for your time and advice.

Problem has been resolved. I went to the Council office and told them what had been going on, they immediately phoned Rossendales, got quite cross with them and told them to continue to allow me to pay as agreed (by end of month)

 

Result!!!:):):)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done ...it really is great to hear caggers are at last breaking ground with these morons eventually the may learn to pay attention and follow the rules...I won't hold my breathe though..Well done again and thanks for popping in to tell everyone of your victory it gives encouragement to others to fight back.

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi mand p are you both named on the liability order that would of been first sent ?? is this justr fro one liability order??

I have just had a similar problem to this with rossendales and had to fight all the way make sure you send all copies of letters to your council and to there chief exec (the copies you send to the council ask to be kept on your account also ask for a copy of there complaints procedure)

write to rossendales and ask for the name of the baliff dealing with your case and the court they were certified at

and everytime you speak to rossendales or the baliffs explaint that you have sent a copy of all letters to the council and there chief exec.

i did this and after one phone call had a letter explaining the charges that they had unlawfully put on had been fully removed. so stand ur ground and you will win

 

DONT LET THEM IN KEEP ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS LOCKED AS THEY CAN PEACEFUL ACCESS IF WINDOW OPEN DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING!!!

 

IF ONLY ONE OF YOU NAMED ON THE DEBT LOOK IN TO A STAT DEC STOPS THEM TAKING ANYTHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
I have had similar problem locally - Norfolk.

I think you will find that Rossendales are under strict instruction from the council and therefore you need to deal direct with the council.

A financial statement from somewhere like Citizens Advice would support your position.

They are being ruthless, in many areas, under council instruction.

 

Rossendales represent Breckland Council in Norfolk. The Council have been informed of the actions taken by Rossendales:RudenessThreateningNon negotiatingCharging £1.20 per standing order/direct debit we now believe - a new trick.The Council imply they are only doing this - under pressure from above - in cases where the debt is long outstanding and no effort has been made to sort out a payment.To others reading this - get help from somewhere like CAB before the bailiffs call as the Council then says - after a bailiff visit - the debt is difficult to take back (in house) as the bailiff has already incurred charges which should be paid. Get help earlier!!!Some Rossendale bailiffs are realistic - others appear to be ruthless. I wonder - are they on commisssion and some have hearts, otherws do not?Get help early on. Reply to Council letters. Keep to payment plan - due date means due date i.e. Weekly means weekly - sort it monthly if that is what you want. Paying two weeks when you arranged weekly is a breach of the agreement. Due date, means - due on or before that date.Creditors do not use late payment as words! Late payment is missed payment.Hope this helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...