Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • oh well i wonder what new fake documents they have made up then...for them to try this.... just to check nothing funky like Link have filed an n244 to lift the stay and strike out her defence....she hasnt moved since last court comms has she?   is this an n24? bit unusual for a 13mts stay to just be lifted... has she not received anything from link/kearns in the last fw weeks like a docs bundle? bit like this thread... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466576-lc-assetlinkkearns-claim-form-2-mbna-cc/?do=findComment&comment=5256397  
    • if the agreement was taken out jan 23, then she has not reached the 1/3rd mark so the car has not become protected goods under the consumer credit act.  this puts her in a very very vulnerable position regarding ever keeping the car....whereby once they have issued a default notice they can legally send a guy with a flatbed (though they are NOT BAILIFFS and have ZERO legal powers) to collect the car.  if the car is kept on the public highway then they can simply take it away and she will legally owe the whole stated amount on the agreement AND lose the car. if it's on private property i'e like a driveway, ok they shouldn't take it without her agreeing, but if they do, it's not really on but its better than a court case and an inevitable loss with the granting a return of goods order. are these 'health reasons' likely to resolve themselves in the very short term (like a couple of months?) and can she immediately begin working again ? i'e has she got a job or would have to find one?  answer the above and we'll try and help. but she looks to be between rock and a hard place . whatever happens she will still have to pay the loan off...car or no car....unless you can appeal to the finance company's better nature using health reasons to back off for xxx months.
    • no need to use it. it doubles the size of the thread and makes it very diff to find replies on small screens too. just like @username it - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread already inc you ...gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.
    • Hello all,   I ordered a laptop online about 16 months ago. The laptop was faulty and I was supposed to send it back within guarantee but didn't for various reasons. I contacted the company a few months later and they said they will still fix it for me free of charge but I'd have to pay to send it to them and they will pay to send it back to me. The parcel arrived there fine. Company had fixed it and they sent it via dpd. I was working in the office so I asked my neighbours who would be in, as there's been a history of parcel thefts on our street. I had 2 neighbours who offered but when I went to update delivery instructions, their door number wasn't on the drop down despite sharing the same post code.  I then selected a neighbour who I thought would likely be in and also selected other in the safe place selection and put the number of the neighbour who I knew would definitely be in and they left my parcel outside and the parcel was stolen. DPD didn't want to deal with me and said I need to speak to the retailer. The retailer said DPD have special instructions from them not to leave a parcel outside unless specified by a customer. The retailer then said they could see my instructions said leave in a safe space but I have no porch. My front door just opens onto the road and the driver made no attempt to conceal it.  Anyway, I would like to know if I have rights here because the delivery wasn't for an item that I just bought. It was initially delivered but stopped working within the warranty period and they agreed to fix it for free.  Appreciate your help 🙏🏼   Thanks!
  • 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

Another BAILIFF found GUILTY OF THEFT!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4338 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

I have posted details before of bailiffs being found guilty of THEFT !!! Here is yet ANOTHER ONE.......

 

If you cannot trust a bailiff.......who can you trust....

 

What is the world coming to !!!

Andrew Arthur, of Richmond Road, Ipswich, was given a 16-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, by South East Suffolk Magistrates’ Court after admitting theft between June 6, 2011, and November 30, 2011.

The court heard Arthur – who had worked as a bailiff for 21 years – was ashamed of his behaviour and had paid back the £4,478.79 he siphoned off after collecting it from an offender.

Wayne Ablett, prosecuting, said an internal investigation began when the 44-year-old was accused by an offender of keeping the money he had given Arthur to pay outstanding amounts of cash.

When confronted, Arthur submitted his resignation and made a full admission to what he had done.

The court was told he took the cash because he had a gambling habit, which he is now seeking to conquer with professional help.

References were handed in to the court including one from Arthur’s current employer praising his integrity and honesty.

 

 

 

http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich_bailiff_stole_4_500_to_fund_gambling_addiction_1_1356897

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely astonishing. The way some bailiffs treat the people they collect from - this bailiff steals and pretty much gets away with it!!

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any way we can find out who his employers are?

 

I wonder whether he can serve his community service working as an unpaid debt collector?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Words fail me...

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

Good detective work TT.

 

These reports are extremely worrying, and illustrates something is seriously amiss within the enforcement industry.

 

Doubtless MOJ will aver that increasing fees will cure these actions.

Edited by citizenB

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

This one concerns a bailiff who was working for Rossendales Ltd. This one is REALLY strange and there MUST be something else going on here ????

 

http://www.redditchadvertiser.co.uk/news/9746374.Court_bailiff_denies_stealing_from_his_own_Redditch_firm/

 

I agree, very odd as the amount was just £233.00 !!

 

 

 

This one worked for Rossendales and is another one for the "Hall of Shame"

 

 

http://www.bexleytimes.co.uk/news/bailiff_admits_to_20_000_theft_from_pensioner_1_611175

 

A BAILIFF who befriended a woman in her 80s and then stole over £20,000 from her must wait until next month to hear his fate.

 

The fact that an elderly woman in her 80's was being subjected to bailiffs in itself was shameful!

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Mr Boast is an arms length self employed casual trainer at Rossers.

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 remember coming across some of these a while back. Its totally disgraceful how their employers defend their bailiffs, give out the excuses that they were under stress, but yet cannot give the debtor the same compassion.

 

There should be a list made public of all the rogue bailiffs, that have been to court and have had complaints made against them. They should also NOT be allowed to work in the bailiff industry again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember coming across some of these a while back. Its totally disgraceful how their employers defend their bailiffs, give out the excuses that they were under stress, but yet cannot give the debtor the same compassion.

 

There should be a list made public of all the rogue bailiffs, that have been to court and have had complaints made against them. They should also NOT be allowed to work in the bailiff industry again.

 

That should be what is done at the very least, as it is rogue bailiffs are free like self employed debt collectors to freely go from one firm to another without it would seem even a cursory check.

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 am currently helping a forum poster who having requested a breakdown of the fees charged to him finds most of the questionable charges arise from the former bailiff handling his case.......John Boast.!!!

 

Rossendale have sent a letter which clearly states they will not be removing any of the charges as they believe Mr Boast applied them correctly.....

 

Cummon Mrs Jones...do you really intend to stand up in Court (yes that is where it is heading and the claim names you as well as your company) and defend the charges of a nationally exposed fraudster????

 

Anyone faced with charges from previous dealings with your crooked bailiffs should automatically have them removed, clearly they are questionable and raise more than doubt to having been legally applied.

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

WD

 

In the case of the fees charged by Rossendales, it is almost certainly the case that a complaint should be sent to the Local Authority as the LA are "wholly responsible for the levy and fees charged by THEIR AGENTS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...