Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OC 's don't do court   dx  
    • you will also need a copy of the CCJ and the particulars of claim on the claimform as... you'll need the particulars of claim as we don't know the judgement sum nor if post judgemental interest was allowed. did you defend it? did you ignore it? did you not get it?  did you know nothing about it?   its very rare on welcome debt either taken to court by welcome (doubtful in 2013) or a DCA (more likely)  i will suggest the debt was already at £18k before the CCJ so nothing bar court charges were added   please advise  i love bashing welcome and DCA but we can't help until we know our actual target and who did what and when.                
    • Janet Yellen confirmed as first female US Treasury secretary in Senate vote View the full article
    • I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread. I have an awful lot going on.   I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airport  ByeLaws 2020. which will help you no end.     https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/board-approved-london-southend-airport-byelaws-100220-d14ca659.pdf   If you go to Section 5  the headline reads 5. Prohibited acts on parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:   In other words the roads on the airport are either governed by the Road Traffic Act or the airport Byelaws- neither of which are classed as relevant land. Therefore PoFA DOES NOT APPLY throughout the airport.   Take a copy for the Court and point out that the VCS WS is somewhat lacking in accuracy. It is inconceivable that VCS have not read the Byelaws since they are operating there.    So looking at their WS it reminds me that a good few years ago it was said about the WSs of  parking companies that they and their lawyers simply do not care about the truth and are content with regularly supplying false information to the courts, happy that they will not produce a witness to defend their porkie pies, and that nothing bad will therefore happen to them.   This practice should stop since were the authors to have to appear in Court and challenged, their perjury would not only be clear to see but it would put a stop to the practice. If they don't turn up in Court they get away with their lies and are able to repeat them ad nauseam. And this WS is full of lies and misdirections -not that you can say in Court they are lies but you can point out where there is contradictions shall we say and let the Judge decide.    The WS says in point 31 that they robustly deny that their sign is prohibitive.    You could point out that  District Justice Glenn  in Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), at the High Wycombe Court said    “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach.   The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway.   It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.   All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”   And of course VCS cannot sue for trespass as they are not the landowners.  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

MIB-Close Credit Management - Claim issued


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2679 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

Complain to the following:

 

OFT&TS via http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/contact

 

BBC Watchdog http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/gotastory/

 

Your Local MP http://www.writetothem.com/

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 324
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh nearly forgot, the person my son bumped into was a woman and yet the CCM have quoted that it was a male - perhaps the £65,000 is to pay for the obvious sex change!!!!!

 

The more of these I read about the more convinced I am that MIB have been taken for a ride. They appear to have been seen as a route to easy money by a group of society. One I'm helping with personally is a 70+ yr old man who used securehomes to do his bills and only found out when shunted from behind into the car in front that they hadn't renewed for him that year (despite taking the same payments). SH refunded about £100 taken "in error" he was banned, fined, endorsed and has never driven since. Six years later he is approached by MIB for £22,000 paid out to the man he hit who now apparently is a woman who was carrying her two sisters as passengers at the time of the impact. No contact from MIB at time, no contact from man/woman for 2 years as claim was only raised four years ago. Somebody is seriously taking the Mick and MIB seem happy to sponsor that behaviour believing they will reclaim both the claimants winnings and their own rather substantial legal fees from the malfeasor.

 

Seems like nice work for the MIB lawyers getting paid twice for the same incident.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they're not a Government agency just a Ltd. company.

 

Lawyers getting paid to "defend" the original claim and then paid again to pursue the malfeasor for monies awarded (including probably both parties legal fees).

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi wotsy.... just thinking in your letter that the mib sent u it says that you disputed liability. just wondering how you did this, as you got banned from driving got a fine and the fact that you hit the car from behind.. would this not make you 100% liable?

 

 

 

thanx in advance

Edited by i.ash213

ManInBlack

Link to post
Share on other sites
hi wotsy.... just thinking in your letter that the mib sent u it says that you disputed liability. just wondering how you did this, as you got banned from driving got a fine and the fact that you hit the car from behind.. would this not make you 100% liable?

 

 

 

thanx in advance

 

Bit complicated to explain but i'll do my best:

The accident happened in May 2003.

In April 2003 I was convicted of driving with no insurance (this does not mean I was liable for the accident)

In January 2004 MIB sent me a form to fill in, on this form I apparently denied liability (I cant even remember getting this form) they said on the form I stated that the other vehicle purposely caused the bump by slamming their brakes on prior to impact.

I never heard from MIB again until December 2010, they had instructed CCM to pursue me for their outlay.

I emailed MIB with my concerns, MIB investigated my case.

In February 2011 I got the result of their investigation, they said that even though i'd disputed liability back in February 2004, they were of the opinion that I would not be able to successfully defend this point in court (because I ran into the back of their car) so they made the decision to pay out.

But they admitted that because I disputed liability back in February 2004 (which I don't remember doing) they should of been in further contact with me regarding the events leading up to the collision and also provided me with the opportunity to confirm that I was willing to defend any claim in court before they settled the claim!

So they apologised for this and told me they're no longer pursuing me for their outlay and the file is now closed.

Edited by wotsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

My son has just received a letter from MIB stating that "whilst we do not necessarily agree with your assertion that this debt is not recoverable, on this occasion, we have reached a decision to no longer persue you for the outstanding debt and our file of papers has now been closed" No apology from either them or the robbing CCM - how many people have paid money to these crooks? makes you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI GUYS.

FANTASTIC NEWS HERE AND IT SHOULD BE SAME TO REST OF U FIGHTING BACK.

 

I SENT WOTSY'S LETTER TO MIB AND GOT SAME RESPONCE AS HE DID.

SO IT WORKS PPL .

IT SEAMS THAT THEY NEEDED TO GIVE US CHANCE TO DEFEND AND IF THEY DID NOT DO THAT, THEY DONT HAVE A CASE!!!

THANK U SO MUCH "WOTSY" U SAVED MY BACON M8. BELIVE ME, I ARRANGED ALL FOR BANCRUPCY BUT UR POST SAVED ME. THANK U THANK U ....................NINE THOUSAND AND 36 TIMES LOOL

SO SPREAD THE WORD SAVE SOME MORE BACON M8. AND GOOD LUCK TO REST OF U GUYS.........

 

 

ps(someone should contact whom ever can investigate MIB becouse i am shore that they ILLEGALY took looads and looads of money from many inocent people, i dont know who to contact but u guys might)

 

Thank u all and fight on

moz-screenshot-19.pngmoz-screenshot-20.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
HI GUYS.

FANTASTIC NEWS HERE AND IT SHOULD BE SAME TO REST OF U FIGHTING BACK.

 

I SENT WOTSY'S LETTER TO MIB AND GOT SAME RESPONCE AS HE DID.

SO IT WORKS PPL .

IT SEAMS THAT THEY NEEDED TO GIVE US CHANCE TO DEFEND AND IF THEY DID NOT DO THAT, THEY DONT HAVE A CASE!!!

THANK U SO MUCH "WOTSY" U SAVED MY BACON M8. BELIVE ME, I ARRANGED ALL FOR BANCRUPCY BUT UR POST SAVED ME. THANK U THANK U ....................NINE THOUSAND AND 36 TIMES LOOL

SO SPREAD THE WORD SAVE SOME MORE BACON M8. AND GOOD LUCK TO REST OF U GUYS.........

 

 

ps(someone should contact whom ever can investigate MIB becouse i am shore that they ILLEGALY took looads and looads of money from many inocent people, i dont know who to contact but u guys might)

 

Thank u all and fight on

moz-screenshot-19.pngmoz-screenshot-20.png

 

Hi there.

I am having the same problem. I had an accident in 2004 when I was only 17 uninsured and got 6 points of my driving license and a heavy fine. But since then I have never heard from anyone until last month. Asking me to pay £7000.

 

I want to send the same letter but before I sent I wanted to ask, Did you email them or write a letter by post?

And How did you receive the response from them? How long they took to reply.

 

Sorry for so many questions!!

 

Thanks so much in advance.

Edited by gramoz1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im glad to help GRAMOZ1, becouse i know what u r going thru.

I emailed them same letter only dates, names and numbers i changed. i sent it on 18-feb and emidiatly recived acknowledgement letter in which they say that they will investigate and reply within 2 weeks.

and i recived e-mail today afternoon. it's quiet long describing the whole thing with main info on the end--case closed, shuda give u the chance to defend bla bla.

It took them 14 days egzactly.

hope this helps and if u have any more questions just ask buddy. Im more than happy to answer

sory for bad spelling

and most of all

GOOD LUCK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody actually made the relevant organisations who police this company aware of the continued breach of various laws and rights?

 

You MUST let the OFT&TS know via consumer direct, as well as your local MP, and BBC Watchdog, simply complaining to the MIB, will allow them to continue their bad unlawful practice of chasing people who are not liable.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

I need your quick answers then I will tell my story with MIB & CCM and how I ended up with CONSENT ORDER from the solicitors of CCM.

 

Firstly, please someone explain me what this CONSENT ORDER is. It says;

 

By Consent it is ordered that;

1. Default Judgment entred on the 20th January 2011 be set aside.

2.The registry entry be cancelled.

3.The Clamimant discontunies the claim against the Defendant ansd will not pursue any claim arising from the Road Traffic Accident dated 7 December 2002.

4. There shall be no order as to cost

 

1,2 and 3 are quite clear to understand but what 4 means?

 

Is this Consent Order means, they drop al the charges and will not pursue it again ever?

 

Thanks for your time and help.

 

mutaf76

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi everyone,

 

I need your quick answers then I will tell my story with MIB & CCM and how I ended up with CONSENT ORDER from the solicitors of CCM.

 

Firstly, please someone explain me what this CONSENT ORDER is. It says;

 

By Consent it is ordered that;

1. Default Judgment entred on the 20th January 2011 be set aside.

2.The registry entry be cancelled.

3.The Clamimant discontunies the claim against the Defendant ansd will not pursue any claim arising from the Road Traffic Accident dated 7 December 2002.

4. There shall be no order as to cost

 

1,2 and 3 are quite clear to understand but what 4 means?

 

Is this Consent Order means, they drop al the charges and will not pursue it again ever?

 

Thanks for your time and help.

 

mutaf76

 

Basically they are agreeing to cancel the CCJ and remove it from the registry, cease their action against you

 

and in return they want you to agree that neither side will claim costs from the other.

 

The short answer is YES, they will have backed off completely and you should hear no more from them. this is a victory

 

They obviously feel that they cannot win and are trying to ensure that they don't have to pay your costs

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you still have the option to negotiate with them so that they still pay part of your costs - if you feel that it is appropriate and that your case is strong enough, obviously there's isn't otherwise they wouldn't be trying to back out.

 

As I said, it's an option and entirely up to you

Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another MIB/CCM story:

Here’s my problem – mid 2006, my daughter got hit in the rear in our driveway (shared with 4 others but private land) 50 yards from the public road. She wasn’t going anywhere, just moving the car. Insurance out by a few days as car had MOT pending. Small amount of damage to both cars’ bumpers. Other person demanded (with menaces) several thousand for damage to old scrap car bought for under £100 (and probably not insured, insurance details were not volunteered), hoping they could get it done up at my daughter’s expense. They then claimed through MIB for damage and loss of use. Lied about the event, damage and the age of the car. I spoke to four people at the MIB and they’d apparently been given three different versions – one saying my daughter had reversed into their vehicle on the public road, two other versions that it had happened at different places along the drive plus other inconsistencies with the story yet still it seems the MIB paid out, expecting my daughter to pay without a murmur. (My neighbour also told me this person had asked them to lie about being a witness – which they’d refused to do). I wrote pointing this out, saying weren’t they a little suspicious and which story were they going with? Not very professional, I thought – their solicitor, when I phoned her, was actually quite uncomfortable about it and didn’t really know what to say. I heard nothing more after January 2008 when I had to send copies of the letter/photos of daughter’s version of events etc to the MIB solicitor as the MIB said they’d never received the ones I sent them in December 2006, also reminding them of the story inconsistencies. I thought the matter was done and dusted until the recent letters from Close Credit Management demanding money plus interest – though, oddly, only about half as much as the original amount the MIB wanted back in 2006.

My daughter has never accepted liability, never paid any money and she’s had no court threats. (By the way, my daughter was actually stationary at the time, waiting for me to move my car).

My worry is, while this is blatantly a blag on the part of the other driver, I understand this is not Statute Barred (is it?) as it’s not been six years, so she can’t plead that. I can see, sod’s law, she’s going to end up getting screwed and it’s so unjust. Also, I can’t actually get these letters to her as she’s working abroad. Anyone any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another MIB/CCM story:

Heres my problem mid 2006, my daughter got hit in the rear in our driveway (shared with 4 others but private land) 50 yards from the public road. She wasnt going anywhere, just moving the car. Insurance out by a few days as car had MOT pending. Small amount of damage to both cars bumpers. Other person demanded (with menaces) several thousand for damage to old scrap car bought for under £100 (and probably not insured, insurance details were not volunteered), hoping they could get it done up at my daughters expense. They then claimed through MIB for damage and loss of use. Lied about the event, damage and the age of the car. I spoke to four people at the MIB and theyd apparently been given three different versions one saying my daughter had reversed into their vehicle on the public road, two other versions that it had happened at different places along the drive plus other inconsistencies with the story yet still it seems the MIB paid out, expecting my daughter to pay without a murmur. (My neighbour also told me this person had asked them to lie about being a witness which theyd refused to do). I wrote pointing this out, saying werent they a little suspicious and which story were they going with? Not very professional, I thought their solicitor, when I phoned her, was actually quite uncomfortable about it and didnt really know what to say. I heard nothing more after January 2008 when I had to send copies of the letter/photos of daughters version of events etc to the MIB solicitor as the MIB said theyd never received the ones I sent them in December 2006, also reminding them of the story inconsistencies. I thought the matter was done and dusted until the recent letters from Close Credit Management demanding money plus interest though, oddly, only about half as much as the original amount the MIB wanted back in 2006.

My daughter has never accepted liability, never paid any money and shes had no court threats. (By the way, my daughter was actually stationary at the time, waiting for me to move my car).

My worry is, while this is blatantly a blag on the part of the other driver, I understand this is not Statute Barred (is it?) as its not been six years, so she cant plead that. I can see, sods law, shes going to end up getting screwed and its so unjust. Also, I cant actually get these letters to her as shes working abroad. Anyone any ideas?

 

My advise would be to Email Mib at feedback@mib.org.uk as this seems to be the best way to get your case investigated.

Tell them you've always denied liability, you've never been given the opportunity to defend yourself in court and that you think it's a fraudulent case. Add anything else you think relevant.

When Mib recieve your Email they'll tell Ccm to postpone pursuing you for money until they've investigated you're case. Let us know what happens. Good luck.

Edited by wotsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both - Wotsy, I've read your case with interest - congratulations and well done for standing up for yourself. Though didn't you 'win' because of the Statute Barred thing? My daughter's case was mid-2006 so not long ago enough for that, I'm assuming - though I've seen a term of 3 years mentioned here too - can't say I really understand whether it's 3 or 6 years or from what date - the incident/the last letter received or sent/the date of a court hearing (which never happened)? Should they have gone to court within a certain time from the date of the incident? It'd be great if they'd just give up but couldn't they now just issue a summons or something, given the incident was only 4 and a half years ago? While I know my daughter was not in the wrong, she is working abroad and wouldn't be able to deal with all this apart from the fact I'd rather not worry her with it all. I'm hoping some kind person on this board will take pity on me and explain the Statute Barred thing in language for dummies. I will take your advice, Wotsy, and write to the MIB hoping I can rely on the fact the MIB seemed to make such a mess of it, deeming my daughter to be guilty and paying out, on the strength of a questionable and inconsistent account of events from the other person, without allowing her to defend herself in court first. I'd be grateful for anyone else's views though, and also, if anyone knows what should have been the sequence of events (should we have been sent any forms to fill or anything) before the MIB say you're liable and send in the rottweilers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you both - Wotsy, I've read your case with interest - congratulations and well done for standing up for yourself. Though didn't you 'win' because of the Statute Barred thing? My daughter's case was mid-2006 so not long ago enough for that, I'm assuming - though I've seen a term of 3 years mentioned here too - can't say I really understand whether it's 3 or 6 years or from what date - the incident/the last letter received or sent/the date of a court hearing (which never happened)? Should they have gone to court within a certain time from the date of the incident? It'd be great if they'd just give up but couldn't they now just issue a summons or something, given the incident was only 4 and a half years ago? While I know my daughter was not in the wrong, she is working abroad and wouldn't be able to deal with all this apart from the fact I'd rather not worry her with it all. I'm hoping some kind person on this board will take pity on me and explain the Statute Barred thing in language for dummies. I will take your advice, Wotsy, and write to the MIB hoping I can rely on the fact the MIB seemed to make such a mess of it, deeming my daughter to be guilty and paying out, on the strength of a questionable and inconsistent account of events from the other person, without allowing her to defend herself in court first. I'd be grateful for anyone else's views though, and also, if anyone knows what should have been the sequence of events (should we have been sent any forms to fill or anything) before the MIB say you're liable and send in the rottweilers.

 

No, I 'won' because Mib paid out before giving me the opportunity to defend myself in court.

Email your concerns to Mib - feedback@mib.org.uk

 

(I'd Email them as if it was your daughter)

Edited by wotsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Having thought about it I am sure the two year period for recoveries under the limitation period would have to apply in these cases

 

As I understand it Mib can get over the statute barred thing by claiming it's 'equitable' to pursue their claim.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...