Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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
      • 161 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

bailiff took keys and v5 out of car and will be back tmrw - HELP ASAP please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4457 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

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

had a day off from it all today to recharge, on to the council again in the morning to get keys back as police dont want to know

 

Hi, Did the police give a reason for no interest, a document

and keys have been stolen, this now needs the intervention

of a senior officer.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

they just said he is not perminantly depriving us of them? i dont get it either but i did email top bod at police station to get no reply

Try the chief constable office with a formal complaint.

 

 

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok bit scared as they seem to be getting enoyed with me keep contacting but i suppose thats what they get paid for.

 

Once TEC set aside, all enforcement ceases, any money paid to bailiff has to be refunded, by LA, s bailiff doesn't get paid so that is why he is messing you around

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yuk, got a letter of newlyn today about my complaint, to cut a long story short it says they interviewed bailiff and hes given them a story like he is bailiff of the year. The also said everything ive said is "completly fictitios". It also says im lcuky he hasnt gone to the police with the damage to the clamp (what damage) looks like they dont give a whistle about my side of the story and what hes said is gospel. He said we handed over the keys and logbook (yea right) and said he didnt threaten to smash window but said the police will be called (he never said that)

 

Looks like newlyn take care of there own and no full well what they get up too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sorry been moving home just settling in, i have had a letter from the court saying the council are not accepting my oot stat dec as they sent a few letters first class but i have not herd anything since? Also not got keys or v5 back. Currently have another problem of getting a court letter saying i have a £3000 + fine due to me being summoned 5 times for no insurance???? i never even got pulled over let alone drove without insurance so somthing has gone wrong there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you can afford to pay the pcn only, i would pay it straight to the council using their on line payment facility. I would then email the parking service's manager and state that this is what you have done.

 

if you cannot do this then i would still write/email the manager of the parking services, explain your situation..

 

It may help to have a word with your mp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to your local police station and tell them you want to make a Statement of Complaint against this bailiff. This forces the police to investigate. If you have an independent witness to him threatening to damage your car, as well as yourself, he can be arrested without warrant for Threats to Cause Criminal Damage (Section 2, Criminal Damage Act 1971). It's a pity you didn't call the police when he kicked off, as they could have arrested him under the Public Order Act 1986 if they had arrived and he had continued with his behaviour. From what you've said about your local police force, they sound as if they've dealt with goons like the bailiff you mention before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to your local police station and tell them you want to make a Statement of Complaint against this bailiff. This forces the police to investigate. If you have an independent witness to him threatening to damage your car, as well as yourself, he can be arrested without warrant for Threats to Cause Criminal Damage (Section 2, Criminal Damage Act 1971). It's a pity you didn't call the police when he kicked off, as they could have arrested him under the Public Order Act 1986 if they had arrived and he had continued with his behaviour. From what you've said about your local police force, they sound as if they've dealt with goons like the bailiff you mention before.

 

trouble is many police forces wont involve themselves and will often side with the bailiff, we see this happen so many times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am aware of this and the reason this happens is because police officers receive little or no training in what bailiffs can and cannot do. I think what it is that throws a lot of younger officers is when bailiffs use the words "officer of the court". The simple fact is, bailiff disputes are only civil matters so long as the bailiff stays within the law. The moment they cross the line between legal compliance and non-compliance, they cease to become an "officer of the court", the warrant becomes invalid, their bond is at risk of forfeiture and they are at risk of arrest, charge and prosecution.

 

When I was in the police force, we were told not to get involved in disputes involving bailiffs unless criminal offences were being committed by the bailiff or the debtor. We had to be at evictions because some bailiffs were, how can I put it, a little too over-enthusiastic in removing occupants from properties. One eviction I attended, a bailiff pushed an evictee so hard, the evictee fell and cracked their head open on the pavement. We had no choice but to arrest the bailiff for assault because excessive force was used.

 

I have heard a rumour that ACPO have been cosying up to the organisations that represent bailiff and HCEO companies, but in the light of the News International scandal, that relationship may well be reviewed.

 

There is nothing to prevent a debtor seeking an ex parte order under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against a bailiff and bailiff company that is engaged in unlawful/illegal conduct against them. This has the effect of preventing the creditor from using them anymore and if the order is worded correctly, it will force the creditor to monitor the conduct of any bailiff/bailiff company they employ, as Section 7 of the Act states that any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures another or others to engage in a course of conduct amounting to harassment shall be regarded as committing an offence of harassment themselves.

 

Additionally, there is nothing to prevent any individual posting up an e-petition to put a stop to the current situation and force police forces to crack down on bent bailiffs.

Edited by old bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for that Old Bill.

I have to say that it is such a hard fight to get a bailiff arrested for an offence like an assault, reason being the bailiff lies and the police tend to believe them unless there is solid proof for example a credible witness or the police saw it happen.

We are hoping that this will soon stop, there is just no need for aggressive, lying bailiffs, with ego's as big as mountains. :D

 

not all are like that though, just the majority

:lol:

I hope you stick around, you could be useful ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to set up an e-petition to make the Home Office force chief constables to crack down on certificated bailiffs and HCEOs who cross the line between legal compliance and non-compliance. I've just set up one to force the DfT to return DVLA VEL and insurance enforcement to the DVLA's own staff and not farmed-out to firms like VEAS who are going around clamping and seizing vehicles in contravention of the applicable legislation and statutory instruments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. E-petition has been set up and is subject to checking. Look in 7 days time. Title of E-petition is "Police to treat misconduct by bailiffs as crime and not civil matters", but I have included HCEOs in the reason for the petition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. E-petition has been set up and is subject to checking. Look in 7 days time. Title of E-petition is "Police to treat misconduct by bailiffs as crime and not civil matters", but I have included HCEOs in the reason for the petition.

Excellent old bill, could you sort out posting a link to the petition once it is live with the site team, I'm sure there would be a good response:-)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...