Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been reading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. On mediation form you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee that you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4297 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

right where do i get a form 4 from are there any templates on here for pcns

 

 

this is not really a form 4 complaint situation

 

you should be getting on to the local authority who issued the pcn because they should have stopped enforcement

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is not really a form 4 complaint situation

 

you should be getting on to the local authority who issued the pcn because they should have stopped enforcement

 

hi i spoke the local authority on wednesday and they would not listen they just said that i have to deal directly with the baliff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have just sent a complaint to the council through there website about the excessive fees and an excessive levy.

and also complained about the council not helping and just telling me it has nothing to do with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

two threads merged

 

please keep to ONE thread per issue

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this about the tickets/fees you had in 2009 still?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

phoned council to get CEOs email to make a complaint i was put through to the manager of parkingwho was a very obnoxious lady and basically the reply i got from her was i have to deal with baliff i offered to pay for the fine she said i cannot do that because it is with the baliff.so i have to pay them.i replied i don not agree with balifs fees so i will not be paying them but i am happy to pay the fine. she then said she cant take the payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this about the tickets/fees you had in 2009 still?

 

dx

no that was my partners...this is in december 2011 i was supposedly parked ilegally at 22.50pm in the town centre cctv image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just phoned newlyns to get a breakdown of costs and i asked if it was possible to have details from the first visit(which i believe did not happen)

i got the response of i dont know i asked who the balif was i got the response i dont know it was just an area balif.asked for the name of person i am speaking to gave me his first name but i am not allowed his second name..ok a little strange

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi have sent an email to complain about the fees and the way things were done to newlyns.no confirmation they have recieved it and also no breakdown of cost sent to me yet.......i have also just learnt that if they make a levy they have to leave a copy of the warrant which they didi not do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, if you did remove it and then gave it back, then he could have you charged with criminal damage.

 

Not unless the clamp has actually been damaged, that is, it is rendered useless or less useful as a result. No damage, no offence. Unless there is legislation stating otherwise, if a bailiff has applied a clamp ultra vires, you are within your rights to remove the clamp as long as you do so without damaging the clamp.

Edited by old bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, you need to put your request for breakdown of costs in writing and give Newlyn 14 days in which to respond. Newlyns have a legal duty to provide you with such a breakdown and they know it, so don't take any bull***t from them. If they claim it is vexatious to request a breakdown of costs, just remind them it is an offence under Section 2(1) and Section 12, Fraud Act 2006 to obtain or attempt to obtain money to which they are not legally-entitled by fraudulent misrepresentation, including work they have not carried out.

 

Section 2(1), Fraud Act 2006 is used to deal with individuals who commit fraud, whilst Section 12 of the Act is used to deal with companies and their management who engage in fraud or allow it to take place. Also, any threats made by Newlyns or their bailiffs in respect of fees to which they are not legally-entitled amounts to Blackmail or Attempted Blackmail, which is contrary to Section 21, Theft Act 1968.

 

Blackmail and Fraud, including attempts to commit these offences, are taken very seriously by the courts and carry substantial custodial sentences, a maximum of 10 years for Fraud and a maximum of 14 years for Blackmail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worth using this template that is advised for council tax, but i would have thought equally applicable for bailiff fees from a COUNCIL PCN.

 

"From:

My Name

My Address

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

Ref: Account No: 123456

Dear Sir

With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a Breakdownlink3.gif of the charges.

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were certificatedlink3.gif at.

e - the date of the Certification.

 

This is not a Subject access requestlink3.gif under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Ripped off customer"

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...