Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 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

Phillips Bailiffs urgent help required.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5115 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

Help.

I got a ticket because my MOT was out by 2 days (anpr cameras dont you love them)

To cut a long story short id lost my job and struggled to pay the fine as i was in arrears on my mortgage at the time. i was on to the last payment on the agreement with the court and i had a head on car crash and was unable to pay on time.

A distress warrant was issued to phillips bailiffs who gave me a barcode on the letter with which to pay. i tried to use this and the barcode wasnt working so i rang the automated line and a new barcode was requested.

(none was sent) the day after my request a hand delivered letter came through my letterbox and an extra 200 pounds added to my bill.

I rang the company and explained that it was unfair to send a bailiff within 24 hours of sending me a new barcode to pay them with(the telephonist confirmed that the new barcode was sent on the 9th and the hand delivered letter is dated the 10th.

the key thing is though the distress warrant and subsequent letters sent by the bailiffs have my surname spelt wrong (one letter wrong at the end of the surname)

i have paid the 125 pounds requested originally where do i stand ?

should i pay the extra 200 and try to claim it back through the small calims court or refuse to pay ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

they cannot charge £200 for one visit!

 

fleecers.

 

send them this:

 

Send the Bailiff the following - adapt to your own needs and send by email & letter:

 

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account. Can you please provide me with a Statement of my account including Computer Screenshot. This is not a Subject access requestlink3.giflink3.giflink3.giflink3.giflink3.gif under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. I also require the name of the attending Bailiff and the name of the Court he was Certificated at. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they cannot charge £200 for one visit!

 

fleecers.

 

send them this:

 

Send the Bailiff the following - adapt to your own needs and send by email & letter:

 

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account. Can you please provide me with a Statement of my account including Computer Screenshot. This is not a Subject access requestlink3.giflink3.giflink3.giflink3.giflink3.gif under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. I also require the name of the attending Bailiff and the name of the Court he was Certificated at. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

 

 

dx

 

 

 

Just to confirm..the fees are CORRECT.

 

Philips Ltd ( and Marston Group) have contracts with HMCS and the courts have agreed the fees which you have stated.

 

In your case, because a new pin number had been requested, then it is almost certainly the case that a bailiff SHOULD NOT have visited you the following day.

 

I would threaten that you will be looking at making a Formal Complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

twice in one w/end

i ain't doing good this week:D

 

thanks tt

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello thanks for the advice.

Philips have been sent a dpa request and formal notification of the dispute. They are sending me repeated sms messages even though I've withdrawn my consent to use my num(the first time I called them they wouldn't talk unless I provided a phone number)

They are still threatening a bailif visit even though I thought the 200 pound charge was for a bailiff attending ? Should I make a statutory declaration stating that no goods belonging to the (incorrect named ) person on the original distress warrant ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello thanks for the advice.

Philips have been sent a dpa request and formal notification of the dispute. They are sending me repeated sms messages even though I've withdrawn my consent to use my num(the first time I called them they wouldn't talk unless I provided a phone number)

They are still threatening a bailif visit even though I thought the 200 pound charge was for a bailiff attending ? Should I make a statutory declaration stating that no goods belonging to the (incorrect named ) person on the original distress warrant ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello thanks for the advice.

Philips have been sent a dpa request and formal notification of the dispute. They are sending me repeated sms messages even though I've withdrawn my consent to use my num(the first time I called them they wouldn't talk unless I provided a phone number)

They are still threatening a bailif visit even though I thought the 200 pound charge was for a bailiff attending ? Should I make a statutory declaration stating that no goods belonging to the (incorrect named ) person on the original distress warrant ?

 

On the basis of probabilities the slight mis-spelling of your name will be overlooked however if you were called White and the docs were addressed to Black then that is a different matter whereas White and Whyte would be accepted to be the same.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right I've decided to pay them the charges and then reclaim them through the small claims court. How should I word it that I am paying only to prevent further charges not as acceptance of those charges. ? I'm going to fill in a county court claim for the charges the dpa request cost and the cost of all my phone calls , anything else I could hit them for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know others disagree on this, but I still maintain that once the original amount on the warrant is paid the right to levy distress for the fees alone is lost. They do not exist as a debt: JBW v Westminster:

 

The warrant is then supplied to a certificated bailiff for enforcement. The bailiff begins the process by writing a letter as provided for in the first item in the charges schedule. He may then take possession of goods. If the debtor continues not to pay, his goods are sold and the fine and the charges which have accrued are collected in that way. The only way in which the charges can be recovered is through voluntary payment by the debtor or by sale of his goods. They become payable but are not a debt like other debts. In re Long, ex parte Cuddeford (1888) 20 QBD 316 a judgment debtor sought to add the costs of an abortive execution to the judgment debt to reach the £50 necessary to support a petition for bankruptcy. It was held he could not do so. Lord Esher MR relied on the case of The Marquis of Salisbury v Ray (1860) 8 CB(NS) 193, but that case is not helpful here, I think, as it turned on whether under section 123 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 the expenses of a previous execution by fi. fa. could be added to those of an execution by ca.sa., it being held they could not. But Fry LJ stated:

"It seems to me that these costs can only be recovered out of a particular fund, viz., the fruits of the particular execution, and that the debtor is under no personal liability for them."

Thus the bailiff gets paid only through the process of execution: if he becomes entitled to charge fees, but does not continue with the execution process, he will not recover them and he cannot sue the debtor for them.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...