Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • thought your story rang a bell. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416315-knightsbridgecreditfix-iva-treated-me-very-badly-thinking-of-bk-now-help/ you vanished and never cameback. dx  
    • and it legally informs them of your correct and current address as you must do with all old debts last paid/used in say 7 yrs you dont want backdoor CCJ's. what were the names of these IVA scammers, the one you took it out with, and the one that scammed you to let them take over please? your story is slightly worrying. dx  
    • Incidentally, congratulations on not buying the warranty. That is another Big Motoring World rip-off. See what we have to say about extended warranties and the Big Motoring World attitude to them is particularly unhelpful
    • well that google is from 2019, but the photos are certainly of someone driving on the public highway in/out by an ANP system, though the site of where the camera actually is, is not showing there are anpr cameras up by the low yellow barriers but they wont get from facing shots from there. interesting, needs to be checked if the road IS a public highway but on private land, cause as you say, if the whole area is max 4hrs , how does the hotel work< ?? must have a reg entry system.  now as for taking pictures of cars on a public highway then guessing the are parking ...erm.... i dont thnk thats right nor allowed under GDPR. dx  
    • Under the consumer rights act 2015, if a defect manifests itself within 30 days and you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund. If any defect manifests itself within the first six months of ownership then you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund subject to the retailers right to carry out a repair. If the retailer declines to repair or if the repair fails then you have the right to return. The problem here is that you have to assert their right. It's a bit ridiculous – but you have to do let them know preferably in writing that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act either the 30 day right or the six month right. I suppose that you haven't done this – which would be quite understandable because most people don't know that these rights exist and that they are subject to these conditions – the condition that the right must be inserted. It is frankly ridiculous. The dealers know it and we have lots of instances of this company delaying appointments et cetera and our strong suspicion is that they are simply trying to run their customers out of time. On the basis that you haven't asserted your rights, we now have to look to ordinary contract law. You are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory condition and which remains that way for a reasonable period of time. Clearly it is in satisfactory. They are blaming you. Has your independent inspection identified the reason for the defect? This will be important because as you have seen BMW are already saying it is down to your driving and you are going to have to produce evidence that it wasn't down to your driving and the you drove it absolutely reasonably and it was simply the condition of the car. Have you been without the car for any period of time. Is it driveable now? If the car was off the road for a substantial amount of time and was still off the road then you would be able to argue that this is a fundamental breach of contract and that you have been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract and therefore you will be entitled to treat the contract as breached by Big Motoring World and insist on cancelling the contract. It may be that you will eventually be obliged to keep the car but have the repairs paid for. Have you had any quotations for the work that needs doing? I asked you questions about the MOT – but you haven't responded.
  • 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

Newlyn PLC bailiff visit re:CTAX and my dog


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4252 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

If the bailiff does not get a levy, and you don't let him in to seize and list goods, then no matter how many times he calls he can only have a total of £42.50 for a first and second visit fee no matter how many times he calls, or what he attempts to charge.

 

If you let him in and he levies and you default a whole world of new fees for the bailiff gets charged to your account.

 

Don't let him in or deal with him,

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

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

dont put signs up

 

its admitting liability if someone gets hurt.

 

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

I have to agree with Jenni G, dx.

 

If you have dogs in your home that are, how shall we say, boisterous, putting up signs saying "Beware of the Dog", you are giving visitors fair warning.

 

If they then decide to ignore the sign and proceed and, as a result, the dog takes a chunk out of their backside, they are deemed to have accepted the risk under civil law.

 

No, putting up a "Beware of the Dog" sign is a sensible move.

If a bailiff ignores the sign and gets bitten, that is the bailiff's own fault and they have little, if any, recourse against the dog's owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'beware of the dog' has been the subject of many a court case and often said to be giving notice to the dog is adjudged by its owner as 'dangerous' and then you get the charge of keeping a dangerous dog,

I know of several cases where this was argued,

 

 

however the sign 'I/we live here' depicts one or more friendly little faces and is always seen to be 'information' as opposed to a warning and there lies the difference?

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the picture sign is better that a Beware Of the Dog,

I need a Beware of the Cat sign

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

Find a picture or draw a particularly ugly woman on a piece of A4, print Beware of the Wife in bold caps 70 point Arial, laminate it and stick it in the porch window:lol:

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

Does anyone know where I can get a "Beware the Wife" sign :lol:

 

i've got one ...really

 

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

As I have said in my earlier reply, if the bailiff visits you home, he can levy upon your car. A levy fee would then be incurred.

 

If the bailiff is unable to levy upon a car or gain entry into your home, the fees that he can charge are CAPPED at £42.50. It is most important that payment is made for bailiff fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is truly ridiculous that a person cannot put a sign on their door to warn about a dog, if they themselves can be prosecuted if the dog then attacks an uninvited visitor! I am looking for an "I live here" sign, I have found a good one, that says "I can reach the door in 5 seconds, can you?" I have seen a few on ebay for both cats and wives ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry dont want to side track the 'real' issue here, but' i live here', is all you need.

 

as post 34.

 

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

Does anyone know where I can get a "Beware the Wife" sign :lol:

 

Yes. A company called Laughter Revolution makes such a sign, along with signs like "Rough Collie Lives Here". I have a sign on my living-room wall that reads thus -

 

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change those things I can and the Wisdom to hide the bodies of

the people I may have to kill because they **** me off!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is truly ridiculous that a person cannot put a sign on their door to warn about a dog, if they themselves can be prosecuted if the dog then attacks an uninvited visitor! I am looking for an "I live here" sign, I have found a good one, that says "I can reach the door in 5 seconds, can you?" I have seen a few on ebay for both cats and wives ;)

Difference with the cat is that if the cat or cats attacked the bailiff, even with a sign up, they could do diddly squat about it in law, you cannot be held responsible for the actions of a cat, nor can you get a ticket off a CEO if your cat poops in front of them on the pavement. I have come across some vicious cats on house calls which will attack people they don't like the look of.:lol:

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 aware of that Jenni G. According to OFT it has lapsed. Why this is so, I do not know. Not holding a valid OFT Licence means that Newlyn's ability to collect certain types of debt is severely restricted, especially if it requires an OFT Licence. Some public debt contracts require an OFT Licence as a condition of contract/tender. It is open to you to make a complaint to the MoJ via [email protected] and insert the words BAILIFF COMPANY COMPLAINT in the subject box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Old Bill, Would it be worth my while? I have no complaints myself, they have not tried to charge me unfairly, or acted in any way improperly. I just wondered if this meant they were technically not allowed to operate? I am happy to inform anyone of the "powers that be" of this lapse of certification :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT are already aware of Newlyn's licence having lapsed. It simply means that if Newlyn attempt to enforce any debt for which they are required to hold a valid OFT Licence, they would be acting illegally if they did, whilst unlicensed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys, Update time. I

 

originally received a hand delivered letter from Newlyn Plc dated 14.9.12 stating the following:

 

"take formal notice magistrates liability order dated 14.8.12 due to council total outstanding £694.50.

 

Since this was delivered I have made 3 payments.

The first was to the bailiff for £34.50 (before I received the advice on here) on 21.9.12

and then I have paid £70.00 to the council 23.9.12,

and another £100 to the council 25.9.12.

 

Today I received another hand delivered letter stating the exact same details as the other one,

but the outstanding is now £719.00.

 

i have only this current years council tax to pay.

 

What do I do now?

 

I have been at home when these notices have been delivered, and there was no knock at my door.

 

Do I contact the bailiff, or the council?

 

These letters do not detail any costs, just an outstanding balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...