Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3707 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Back in 2005 I signed up to to a post graduate university degree for which I had to pay fees of about £4,000. I paid £1,000 up front and was supposed to pay the rest in 3 instalments during the year. For personal reasons I didn't do any serious studying after the first term and I didn't pay the rest of the fees due for the year.

 

Two years ago the uni obtained a CCJ against me for the fees and I paid off about another £1k but I haven't paid anything for a while.

 

I actually wouldn't have a problem in paying the balance of the judgment in a lump sum but I want to do so in a way that gets rid of the CCJ from my credit record as it's causing considerable difficulties.

 

One option would be to offer to make the payment in full provided that the uni didn't object to an application from me to set the CCJ aside. I don't know whether they would accept that sort of offer. If they did is there any way I could get them to bind themselves to do what they say they would do? Assuming they kept their word, would it be normal for an application to set aside (based on not receiving the papers) normally go through if the claimant didn't do anything or would I likely have to go through a hearing?

 

The second option is apply for a set aside anyway and let them contest it. The original claim documents were sent to a house I still part own but haven't lived at for a very long time. I didn't see them until after the submission date for the defence. I could have appealed at the time or applied to set aside since but as I mentioned, I accept there is a valid debt here and I'm happy to pay it. Incidentally I think I may have a valid defence against part of the claim because I understand that the claimant has a duty to mitigate their loss and the uni have gone after me for the full amount of the fees rather than their actual losses. Putting these two issues together, does anyone think I have a hope of getting a set aside?

 

It wouldn't bother me if I did get a set aside and the claimant tried to come after me again as I would simply pay the debt. The key thing here is to get this CCJ off my credit record.

 

Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that you stand a snowball's chance.

 

It is difficult enough trying to clear credit records when you have the Right of it on your side.

 

You admit the debt. You have paid part of it. There is a CCJ which you have paid against. the CCJ is 2 years old.

 

I think that the chances of getting a setside are extremely remote at best. you would have to convince a judge that you have a reasonable chance of success if you are allowed to defend. You don't have a chance at all.

 

You suggest that the University might be prepared to clear your credit file in return for full payment. i doubt very much that they will be interested in dealing with you on that basis - but I suppose that it might be your best (only) shot.

Don't bother about the other ideas though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steamboiler - I agree with Bankfodder.

 

Mainly because you've stated that you started paying the amount(s) ordered by the court and are now in breach of the CCJ.

 

If you requested getting a setaside, considering your CCJ breach, I have a strong feeling that no judge would be sympathetic.

 

I think your best bet is to sit down, make sure you know exactly what you owe and speak to the University's accounts/finance office to see what their position would be should you pay the sum you owe in one go.

 

To be honest, I think you'll probably end up just having to pay the full amount and putting up with having a CCJ and a CCJ default on your credit file for the remainder of the six year period.

 

It's not great, but at the end of the six years you'd have a clean record and you'd not owe anything.

Please note, I am not professionally qualified in legal matters. Should you have any doubts, you should contact a legal expert.

However, I can and will help with matters regarding payroll as I am fully qualified.

 

If I've helped in any way, you're welcome to click on my "star" and thanks, but I gain the most satisfaction simply by helping/reassuring :O)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the pint you have made that they have charged you more than their losses. You could be right - but given the other circumstances and given that the courts are very much more hard-nosed about thiskind of thing since the last year or two, I don't think that there is a lot of miliage in your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...