Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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
      • 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

Criminal case against debtor assaulting bailiff collapses (for info only)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4911 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

This was several months ago concerning one of my tenants who opted out of publicity but this is how I understand the events to have occurred.

 

He received a bailiff for a speeding fine for a nonexistent car (later discovered to belonging to a previous tenant and the offence was apparently speeding fine), the bailiff couldn’t find the car so knocked the door at 6am. Tenant answered through bedroom window upstairs, bailiff demanded he come down to the door.

 

The tenant opened the door and the bailiff wanted to gain entry to list goods inside, as the bailiff tried to pass the tenant standing in the door, the bailiff was head-butted by the tenant knocking two front teeth out.

 

Police arrested the tenant and charged him with ABH. Case went to court but he was cleared. His defence was the bailiff made a sudden movement towards the tenant who instinctively reacted in self defence.

 

The tenant is now speaking to lawyers about a civil claim against the police for false arrest and the bailiff company for extortion and blackmail. The grounds of the claim is the police officers at the scene were aware the tenants actual name and knew it was different from the name the bailiff claimed he was called, but police gave a different account of this in their written statements which gives rise to alleged corruption.

 

I thought I would share that little gem with you all. I’ll update when litigation completes.

Professional property investor and conveyancer

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was several months ago concerning one of my tenants who opted out of publicity but this is how I understand the events to have occurred.

 

He received a bailiff for a speeding fine for a nonexistent car (later discovered to belonging to a previous tenant and the offence was apparently speeding fine), the bailiff couldn’t find the car so knocked the door at 6am. Tenant answered through bedroom window upstairs, bailiff demanded he come down to the door.

 

The tenant opened the door and the bailiff wanted to gain entry to list goods inside, as the bailiff tried to pass the tenant standing in the door, the bailiff was head-butted by the tenant knocking two front teeth out.

 

Police arrested the tenant and charged him with ABH. Case went to court but he was cleared. His defence was the bailiff made a sudden movement towards the tenant who instinctively reacted in self defence.

 

The tenant is now speaking to lawyers about a civil claim against the police for false arrest and the bailiff company for extortion and blackmail. The grounds of the claim is the police officers at the scene were aware the tenants actual name and knew it was different from the name the bailiff claimed he was called, but police gave a different account of this in their written statements which gives rise to alleged corruption.

 

I thought I would share that little gem with you all. I’ll update when litigation completes.

 

 

I am surprised that the CPS even gave the "go ahead" on a case such as this. I would strongly suggest that the bailiff company be required to prodcue a copy of the Screen Shot of the account as this would show whether they had "data cleansed" the warrant BEFORE the bailiff visit. This would establish whether the bailiff company knew in ADVANCE that the person whos name was on the Distress Warrant had moved address.

 

In addition, with Magistrates Court enforcement MOJ awarded Contracts to only a few companies and under the terms of this they allowed the firms to use UNCERTIFICATED bailiffs for a period of up to 6 months. Therefore has the tenant checked to ensure that the bailif either was certificated at the time of the offence or is certificated now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what kind of bailiff it was, I am only the landlord, the property freeholder and I wasnt contacted to see if there has been change of tenant. However, a firm of solicitors did do a Land Registry search on the property itself which revealed me (my company) to be the freeholder. This type of lookup is only done as preliminary step before making an applicaiton to apply for a charging order.

 

If the bailiff or solicitor actually had a brain, they could have just asked me where to find the man they are looking for, and I would point them in the direction of Dartmoor Prison. I dont think asking for a screenshot would have solved anything, verifying the identity of their debtor is neither mine nor my tenants problem.

Professional property investor and conveyancer

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...