Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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 
        • 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

Bailiffs Calling After Bankruptcy - Help Please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4357 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

In aug last year my car I was told was levied by high court bailiffs. The car was left in my possession as my dad made a payment for me while i set up a payment plan. The payment plan wasn't accepted and the bailiffs came out again but i was out in the car at work at the time & a letter was put through my door. I then went bankrupt on 31st January as they continuously refused my repayments. Today i have had the bailiffs at my door wanting to take the car again, they are saying because its levied then it can't have been included in the bankruptcy. Plus the only thing i signed was a receipt for the money my dad paid, i've never signed a walking possesion order. Please can someone help as I am struggling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the debt for...ct, fine.pcn etc. can you give a little more info as it greatly increases you chances of getting the right advice.

meanwhile I will do a bit of snooping and see what the insolvency rules have to say about all of it.

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt was for rent arrears to a private landlord (which we didn't owe, but that doesn't matter now because we went bankrupt). I'm not sure if he levied the car either, as i didn't sign a walking poseesion order, my dad came and paid some money so they wouldn't take the car in Aug, & all i signed was a receipt for the money and an inventry listing the car, as the wrong colour.

 

The bailiffs are from the Sheriffs office.

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure of the basis of this to do with your BR.

 

Ordinarily then yes they could take the car as it is not used exclusively by you although the point could still be argued if your OH has nothing to do with your business.

 

The problem as I see it is that you appeared to owe to your Landlord, you say this was a mistake - do you have anything to back this up? When you went BR was this included in what was given to the OR? It now appears your LL has resurrected this claim and transferred it to the High Court for enforcement. Have you been discharged yet?

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not our current landlord that the money is owed, we haven't lived there for 5 years. The ccj was included in our bankruptcy & the insolvency ppl where told about the levy. We only went bankrupt on 31st Jan, so not been discharged yet. We have looked into levies & don't think this has been done correctly, because all i have is receipt that i signed for the money my dad paid, & an inventory sheet with the car on it that i signed, but no walking possesion order has been signed. Plus could we not go down the abondonment route if the levy is valid? The reason for us going bankrupt was to get this sorted in the 1st place, we where managing our other debts. We can't go down the route of the ccj being wrong as my dad paid something off it to get rid of the bailiffs the 1st time, so apparently that classed us as saying we owed the money. We went to the citizens advice to try going down that route. Thanks for all the help so far :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure of the basis of this to do with your BR.

 

Ordinarily then yes they could take the car as it is not used exclusively by you although the point could still be argued if your OH has nothing to do with your business.

 

The problem as I see it is that you appeared to owe to your Landlord, you say this was a mistake - do you have anything to back this up? When you went BR was this included in what was given to the OR? It now appears your LL has resurrected this claim and transferred it to the High Court for enforcement. Have you been discharged yet?

 

PT

 

As I understand BR, it does not matter if you remember to include a debt on the forms - it is just as "gone" as the ones you remembered, including CCJ's. Maybe this needs a transfer over to the bankruptcy section for a quick check?

 

But this is one of the reasons all bankruptcys are advertised, in for example the London Gazette, to give creditors a chance to put a claim in to the trustees if they see a debtor has gone BR.

 

I know, when a relative went BR, everything, including debts they could not remember, but which surfaced post BR, were still covered by the BR.

 

To give the OP some peace of mind

http://bankruptcy.org.uk/archives/item/9000-does-bankruptcy-cover-all-debts-even-if-you-forgot-some

 

The question, similar to the OP's is answered with:

Yes, debts that you may have forgotten about are included in your bankruptcy as all your unsecured debts are included in bankruptcy.

 

If a creditor from the past contacts you, you can inform them you were made bankrupt and provide them the details of the bankruptcy.

 

CCJ's are also absolutely covered by Bankruptcy. The things which are not are for example, modern student loans, secured loans, CSA Arrears.

 

So this Bailiff is on a hiding to nothing, and he and the creditor simply need to be reffered to the OP's Insolvency Practionery. The Warrant afaik can no longer be valid, as the debt is "gone"

 

As a side note, things such as defaults and CCJ's will still remain on your credit file for the full 6 year term, but are completely unenforcable.

Edited by caledfwlch

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debt died with the BR, and the bailiff took the car it would be theft imho

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

He is saying the car was levied before the debt got wrote off with the bankruptcy, so infect he is saying the courts owned the car before i went bankrupt!!!

But the OR has taken account of the car and it's relatively low value, and allowed you to keep it, rather than sell it to put funds into the BR ostensibly I would think as the OR doesn't want to lose you any employment that can help you back to solvency, so the bailiff is being a prat imho, as the car is the only tangible thing he thinks he can touch.

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

I spoke to the Insolvency ppl and they have told me because its rent arrears & its levied that the bailiff can take it, so someone has messed up because i had a letter from them saying i could keep it for work. I also don't think he's levied it properly last August anyway, but not sure as i don't know how it works!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they list the car on a Notice Of Seizure, make, colour, Registration Numbe, and provide you with a copy at the timer?

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

I spoke to the Insolvency ppl and they have told me because its rent arrears & its levied that the bailiff can take it, so someone has messed up because i had a letter from them saying i could keep it for work. I also don't think he's levied it properly last August anyway, but not sure as i don't know how it works!!!

 

But there ARE no longer rent arrears. The BR has removed your personal liability for them. I think this needs to be perhaps flagged up for a member of the Site Team, or for one of the Bankruptcy experts to have a look over?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

But there ARE no longer rent arrears. The BR has removed your personal liability for them. I think this needs to be perhaps flagged up for a member of the Site Team, or for one of the Bankruptcy experts to have a look over?

 

Definitely, but is the bailiff looking to take the car for his fees alone?

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

Definitely, but is the bailiff looking to take the car for his fees alone?

 

I have posted a thread over in bankruptcy with a link asking for the hexperts to pop in for a look to see if they can assist the OP.

 

And, I suspect you are absolutely bang on the mark, old chap.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted a thread over in bankruptcy with a link asking for the hexperts to pop in for a look to see if they can assist the OP.

 

And, I suspect you are absolutely bang on the mark, old chap.

Op needs to post this evidence of bailiff misfeance, on the MOJ consultation subforum

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...