Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Laura Cooke
      Bank Parking ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - wrong reg - Appeal failed - Belvedere Street Car Park, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG18 1JJ

      By Laura Cooke · Posted

      Unsure what would be classed as appeal I first contacted the applicant then IAS. I am not aware I could appeal again as Bank state I was informed that is news to me. I would have to look through the paper work, I apologise I forget so much due to my caring duties wish I had quality time to get so much done. Will try and look tomorrow, appreciate everyone's time and input.
    • timiny74
      Evri lost delivery of laptop

      By timiny74 · Posted

      Hi, I've been reading the invaluable advice on this forum and reading about the problems with Evri and lost delivery of items.  From what I gather the initial steps after having exhausted every's own lost item claim process is to draft a Letter of Claim, I think it is called and to register with the government Money Claims.  I have got a login for Money Claims and have made an initial stab at the letter but I'm not certain I have got it right. Am I right to assume that having exhausted Evri customer service's claims process and having received the denial of any compensation because the laptop I was sending is on the non-compensatory list that my next step would be to send the Letter of Claim to them? Let me provide some basic details which I hopefully have addressed in the letter. I purchased a laptop through Amazon.co.uk which a business in Belfast sold refurbished laptops through.  They had a 30 day money back guarantee for a full refund if you have any issues with the laptop.  I have the invoice from Amazon showing the purchase.  On 27 April, 2024 before the end of the 30 day period I used their ParcelShop (inside a Tesco) to send the laptop back and have the tracking reference mentioned in the letter.  As mentioned in the letter there was they advised they could not give me or sell me any insurance because laptops are on the non-compensatory list so I just paid the normal delivery cost.  It was scanned as leaving the ParcelShop on 29 April and the tracking has been like that ever since.  After a 28 working day Evri claim process they gave the expected response that they could not provide any compensation and simply could not proceed with my claim. I was hoping to get some advice on whether I go ahead now and email this to Customer Services straightaway and should I send a hard-copy to the Evri address as well?  Or are there any steps I have missed out on first?  I believe 14 days is the reasonable period of time for them to respond so if I were to send it tomorrow, for example 12 June then I should expect a reply by 26 June, is that correct and fair?  And assuming they don't reply with a full refund then I would then go down the government Money Claims site to proceed with that? Sorry for all the questions, I want to make sure I go about it properly.  I'll continue to read through other cases on here so I can get an even better handle on the process. I attached a LOC, happy for any edits or updates that will make it even better. Thanks so much for anyone's help! Regards, Matt Evri letter of claim.docx
    • FTMDave
      CPM/BW ANPR PCN Claimform - The Collective London Nw10 6Ff

      By FTMDave · Posted

      The date was 3 June. Get on MCOL now. The legal principle is that, even if you defence is late, if the other party hasn't requested judgement, then your defence takes priority and is accepted. You might be in time. When I say now I mean now.  Recently we had someone who was nine days' late and this was pointed out to them at 5:30pm.  They faffed around till 11pm.  When they went on MCOl they saw that judgement had been entered at 7pm. Every minute is vital. File the below standard defence if you still can - 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • belleofstmark
      CPM/BW ANPR PCN Claimform - The Collective London Nw10 6Ff

      By belleofstmark · Posted

      Hi friends,  I’m a bit worried I may have got confused with timings here. I thought I had 33 days from my acknowledgment to submit a defence but the date added above says 3/6/24.   have I missed the date?   if so how can I apply for an exception due to my disability and problems with deadlines and dates etc (ADHD)?   what should I submit as a defence?   I’ve had no reply from BW so far    just been back on MCOL and it says 28 days from service if I completed an acknowledgment of service so does that mean 28 days from that of acknowledgement (I.e. 16/5) which would make deadline for defence 14/6?   Thanks! Panicking here.
    • FTMDave
      Countrywide ANPR PCN - in carpark for 10 mins - Disabled Parking Spot - appeal refused by CW - Kingswood Way Great Denham Bedford Bedfordshire MK40 4GH

      By FTMDave · Posted

      Normally we don't advise playing your cards early in a snotty letter, but as you have appealed we might as well use what you wrote in the appeal against them. There is no rush, you have until 6 July to get it to them.  See what the other regulars think too. How about something like this? -   Dear Rachael & Sean, cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea you'd actually thought I'd take such tripe seriously and would cough up! As usual you'll have been too bone idle to do any due diligence.  Had you done so you would have seen that I appealed to your client.  Indeed the driver on the day is a textbook example of having done exactly what you should do when you do not wish to be bound by the T&Cs in a private car park. Of course none of that mattered to the spivs you represent but do you really want to put such a useless case in front of a judge? To be fair, your clients are very useful members of the human race - as comedians.  How I loved the page turner of their antics at The Citrus Building in Bournemouth.  It was chuckle after chuckle reading about them, letter after letter, month after month, insisting they were legally in the right, even through someone who had done just the first day of a GCSE law course could have told them they weren't.  Until the denouement - BOOM - an absolute hammering in court.  In fact - SLAM, BANG - managing to lose twice against the same motorist for the same car park in front of two different judges. Your client can either drop their foolishness now or get yet another tolchocking* in court where I will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spend the dosh on a nice summer holiday, while every day laughing at your clients' expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO COUNTRYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD   *  This word is used under licence from Brassnecked

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

dukes bailiffs council tax from 2008

claire52
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5174 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

seanamarts

seanamarts

Posted
Posted

Usually one person, called the liable person, is liable to pay council tax. Nobody under the age of 18 can be a liable person. Couples living together will both be liable, even if there is only one name on the bill. This applies whether the couple is married, cohabiting or in a civil partnership.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

westgarth

westgarth

Posted
Posted
Usually one person, called the liable person, is liable to pay council tax. Nobody under the age of 18 can be a liable person. Couples living together will both be liable, even if there is only one name on the bill. This applies whether the couple is married, cohabiting or in a civil partnership.

 

that still doesnt detract from the fact that the person on the liability order has to sign the walking possession - or maybe it does ?

 

regards

westgarth

Link to post
Share on other sites
seanamarts

seanamarts

Posted
Posted

Ok lets get this sorted, first of the bailiff gained a peaceful entry and made a levy, regardless whether a WPO was signed or not, thats the bailiffs leverage.

Even if the WPO was not signed, the bailiff would have left with the WPO written out as unsigned. regardless whether a payment plan was verbally set out and agreed to the bailiff would want some sort of payment plan. Unfortunately because the partner had signed the WPO it still stands as she is still liable for C/T for the property as well. however some items that have been levied are in fact not allowed so this may make the levy invalid, ie sofa's and vacuum cleaner, by the way 'Hoover' is a name of a brand and not an item. So unless he has stated vacuum cleaner then he cannot take it any way.

I suggest that you write to the council and state this, and ask if they could take back the debt, make an offer of payment and se where you go from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RaeUK

RaeUK

Posted
Posted

Seanamarts, that's exactly my understanding, thankyou.

 

Westgarth, you have completely miunderstood my post. You weren't pulled up on anything.

 

Claire52, I stand by my points in post #15. Please write to the bailiff / council as HW / SM advise.

 

Best wishes all and a Happy Easter. :)

Rae

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thegreenpimpernel

Thegreenpimpernel

Posted
Posted (edited)

For clarity - Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

In summary.

 

If the bailiff has made peaceful entry and obtained a walking possession agreement, he can return and even force entry ( in certain circumstances) to recover those goods if you default on the arrangement. He can also then charge an attendance to remove fee whether he removes or not.

 

But if the bailiff gained peaceful entry and did not obtain a walking possession agreement - then he cannot return to either force entry nor add an attendance to remove fee.

 

In this case there seems to be a WPA , but that needs to be invalidated due to the disallowed items.

 

Correct?

 

EDIT - In my opinion westgarth's point about who can sign the WPA is probably technically correct - but that would probably take a court case to establish and enforce. I suspect way beyond the means of the OP in this case.

Edited by Thegreenpimpernel
Link to post
Share on other sites
westgarth

westgarth

Posted
Posted
For clarity - Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

In summary.

 

If the bailiff has made peaceful entry and obtained a walking possession agreement, he can return and even force entry ( in certain circumstances) to recover those goods if you default on the arrangement. He can also then charge an attendance to remove fee whether he removes or not.

 

But if the bailiff gained peaceful entry and did not obtain a walking possession agreement - then he cannot return to either force entry nor add an attendance to remove fee.

 

In this case there seems to be a WPA , but that needs to be invalidated due to the disallowed items.

 

Correct?

 

EDIT - In my opinion westgarth's point about who can sign the WPA is probably technically correct - but that would probably take a court case to establish and enforce. I suspect way beyond the means of the OP in this case.

as far as i was aware if a levy was made and the baliff doesnt stay with the goods or appoint someone to stay with the goods or remove the goods and a wpa is not signed then there is nothing to stop the person levied against removing the goods as the baliff cannot prove that he has levied, if that was not the case then the baliff can simply look through a window and list and stick the levy list through the letterbox and say he had peacefull entry, the wpa gives the baliff the rights to collect the goods if payments are not made and the person levied against by signing the wpa has agreed not to remove the goods. possession is 9/10 of the law.......

 

regarding the court case to establish and enforce, it would be the baliff who would have to take the case to court in my opinion not the defendant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
westgarth

westgarth

Posted
Posted
Seanamarts, that's exactly my understanding, thankyou.

 

Westgarth, you have completely miunderstood my post. You weren't pulled up on anything.

 

Claire52, I stand by my points in post #15. Please write to the bailiff / council as HW / SM advise.

 

Best wishes all and a Happy Easter. :)

Rae

 

I have just read your post again and it certainly came across that way to me ?

 

anyway moving on

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thegreenpimpernel

Thegreenpimpernel

Posted
Posted

westgarth

 

As far as i can see we agree, no valid WPO - no right to return and seize.

However, i suspect that if the bailiff just pushes past them at the door (armed with the disputed WPO) or shows it to the police, he would have possession. Hence the court case.

 

You would need a kick-ass lawyer to, well versed in bailiff law. It seems hard enough to get justice for illegal forced entries and blatant assaults if you read some of the threads on here. Never mind a 'wrong person signed the form' scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
westgarth

westgarth

Posted
Posted
westgarth

 

As far as i can see we agree, no valid WPO - no right to return and seize.

However, i suspect that if the bailiff just pushes past them at the door (armed with the disputed WPO) or shows it to the police, he would have possession. Hence the court case.

 

You would need a kick-ass lawyer to, well versed in bailiff law. It seems hard enough to get justice for illegal forced entries and blatant assaults if you read some of the threads on here. Never mind a 'wrong person signed the form' scenario.

 

point taken, but if clare52 writes to the council and puts them on notice that that the baliff has not had the wpo signed by the correct person, and has not got legal access to the goods and has made charges for fee's that are not due and holds the council directly responsible for the baliffs actions as he is acting directly for them as their agent then the council will I am sure put a hold on the case while it is sorted out.

 

Thats what I would do as soon as possible and copy the letter to the baliff and my local MP so everyone is fully aware of the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
claire52

claire52

Posted
  • Author
Posted

here is the update done the letter to bailiffs by email and letter also sent to council bailiff now rung dad saying walking possession is legal and put phone down on him any idea what we do now

Link to post
Share on other sites
Completely desperate

Completely desperate

Posted
Posted

On the 6/1/2010 I was approached on my doorstep by two men. One introduced himself name and (a title of) enforcement officer and my partner (name) is a warrant officer, we are here on behalf of (name of council) non domestics arrears for () property £2,1034 " this officer has a warrant for your arrest if you are unable to pay this debt , you will be taken from here to (Place) police station where you will be held until tomorrow morning where you will then attend Magistrates court for committal to prison. Absolutly taken aback by this as this account is nearly ten years old for a failed business, which is another horrendous story. My reply "I dont have it his reply "collect your belongings and make your way to the van parked here". It has a cage in the back but no seats., not the best I know" In the mean time while I was getting my prescription tablets together, at this point let me tell you I have had 3 heart attacks over the last 18 months and take over 170 tablets a week to stay alive. My wife arrived on the scene after me telephoning her to tell her I was being arrested. at this time I felt myself at the start of an Angina attack To cut things short they convinced me to contact my sister who agreed to pay them £1000 which they said would stop the arrest. While on the phone to my sister I found they had walked into the house. My wife had to leave as she was still on work, they left me to go to my sisters house to collect their £1000 leaving me with a two receipts one for a walking possesion and another for me to pay the balance they said was owing at £90 per month for 12 months and if I didnt pay it they would be back to take me to prison. By this time I was in the throse of a full blown engina attack and spitting up blood which I showed to them and asked how much more do you want from me. JUst sign thewse and we,ll be out of you way. I learnt from my sister some 30mins later she paid them £1,400 not £1,000 making the receipt I had for the balance incorrect. he said she was,nt coersed into paying more but I am not to sure, as my sister is an Invalid and aged 65, I had no transport to get to her and the as I Know know them now to be BAILIFFS, said I could not go with them to my sisters as their insurance would not cover me to be inthe van. I suppose on reflection now that should have been an awakening call to me. But by this time I was completely out of it. I was not very well for the rest of the evening and the following day. Today Friday 8 January I managed to contacted the Council guess what!! no commital to prison had been applied for by them and certainly no warrant of arrest has been applied for. they had however passed the collection to the bailiffs concerned. How do I stand, my friends, can I get the money back my sister paid because of their conduct, and have I any redress about their lies and deceit. What would happen if my sister cancelled the Credit card payment or is she able to do this. As my username implies I am (Completely desperate) what can I do ? I have a name with which to speak to the council who was not available today because of the weather and was told to ring back on Monday. I went down to the Council Offices, they said no-one who has the authority to speak to you re. this is in the building. I am at my wits end. any help or suggestions I would welcome with open arms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
claire52

claire52

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK here is the latest on the bailiff from yesterday

 

OK so he put the phone down on my dad he has rung my dad in the last 10 minutes saying he passing it back to council as the goods levied will not cover the debt.

 

we think he went back and looked at his paper work and found out he got it wrong as well as being told we have sent them letter to his company asking for a break down (only guessing at this point)

Link to post
Share on other sites
seanamarts

seanamarts

Posted
Posted
OK here is the latest on the bailiff from yesterday

 

OK so he put the phone down on my dad he has rung my dad in the last 10 minutes saying he passing it back to council as the goods levied will not cover the debt.

 

we think he went back and looked at his paper work and found out he got it wrong as well as being told we have sent them letter to his company asking for a break down (only guessing at this point)

 

Bailiffs getting it wrong.. never!!!! lol ;)

He obviously realised that the levy was illegal and could not pursue it, and if a complaint was imminent he would rather pass the debt back in the hope that you wouldnt take this further, I would say you have won this battle.:D Now I suggest your dad gets on to the council and works out a payment plan before they contact him, this will show that your dad is willing to pay an no further action is sought after.

Link to post
Share on other sites
seanamarts

seanamarts

Posted
Posted
can we still be liable for the costs they have added and dad ringing them when he on his break so i think this battle has been won too now i can open some windows lol

Its possible for the 1st and 2nd visits which amount to £42.50, but as for the rest I doubt it as the levy seems to be illegal, it would be down to the council to decide I would imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
seanamarts

seanamarts

Posted
Posted
Surely if they pass it back as Nullo Bono then there are no Bailiff costs to pay.

 

PT

Quite possible plodd, but the bailiff could pursue his fees from the council and the council will add it to the debt. But I have been known to be wrong;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
ploddertom

ploddertom

Posted
Posted
Quite possible plodd, but the bailiff could pursue his fees from the council and the council will add it to the debt. But I have been known to be wrong;)

 

Would be very inclined to argue this strongly as they are "admitting" they were in the wrong in the first place. Would also strongly suggest that the OP contacts their local Councillor for help ASAP - unless already done so.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
claire52

claire52

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK this is where we at now. we have had a break down of costs sent to us

then this is where we not sure about it as we paid 450.00 by debit card

 

payment made 451.50

debt 1.121.88

letter 1.00

levy fee 57.00

walking possession 12.00

sch 5 head h 24.50

attendance/van 235.00

payment by d/c 1.50

attendance/van 185.00

 

and to make things just that little more interesting it also say the name of the bailiff and where he was granted his bailiff certificate but the name on the letter dose not match the name of the bailiff we have been talking to

Link to post
Share on other sites
claire52

claire52

Posted
  • Author
Posted
hhhmmmmm 2 van fees?????

 

yes and the last van fee i was at home all day the day the said they came and my mum was in till 2:30 that day and surprise they did not knock on the door if they came lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...