Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Stautory Demand - I need Help Please!


LouLou70
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4160 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

Hi,

Hi to everyone - I hope you can help me. Last year (2 Dec 11 to be exact) I unfortunately had to put my business of 8 years into voluntary liquidation. It was extremely upsetting to say the least.

I had three personal guarantees signed on overdrafts or heavy equipment leases; one each with HSBC, Academy Leasing and CVF. The Academy and CVF ones are joint and several with another ex-director.

Having suffered the loss of the business, I had no income obviously and wrote to each of these companies in turn with a Citizens advice Bureau prepared statement of my personal financial affairs.

 

Yesterday, however, I received a Statutory demand from Bermans Solicitors on behalf of Academy Leasing demanding the £17,955.91 that they claim we owe them. we have both disputed the total amount we owe them is £17K because we feel that they completely undersold the equipment in an attempt to recoup some of their money and have not (after numerous requests) provided us with any proof that they received fair market value for the machinery they sold. It looks on the surface that they have sold it back to the manufacturer directly for a significantly reduced sum, a company with whom they have considerable dealings - it looks quite dodgy actually.

 

Whilst they seemed to ignore my last request to them for information regarding the offers they received, they did write back to the other guarantor and say that it was an all monies guarantee and that they were under no obligation to mitigate at all. Surely though, if they have chosen to mitigate their losses they have to be fair and reasonable to us as guarantors?

 

I intend to try and have the Stat demand set aside. Can anyone offer some advice please???? Thank you.

Edited by LouLou70
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need some proper legal or business debt advice. The chances are that the other companies you had the personal guarantees with will be after you as well. You could try to get it set aside, but this may not work. How did they actually serve the SD on you ?

 

What is the total amount of debt owing on the guarantees that you might be liable for ? What personal assets do you have at risk ?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I understand it then, the machinery was provided under a Hire Purchase agreement. They have repossessed the security and apparently sold it at undervalue?

 

They have also failed to provide a full statement of account. Have you requested one in writing?

 

Despite what any agreement says, I think they have a common law obligation to look after your interest if they want to claim the shortfall.

 

Have you got a copy of the agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks both Bandit and UB. Just for the record I don't have any personal assets. If they bankrupt me then so be it. However, I would like to avoid it if possible! Legal advice is difficult if you have no money to pay for it! I have been offered a small sum by a family member to help try and settle - it's not a lot but more than they will get if they bankrupt me I guess. The total debt being claimed is £40K. We are negotiating with HSBC and CVF (we also have disputed the way they handled the sale of equipment having also undesold it!) currently so we will see what happens there.

 

Yes, Bandit, I do have a photocopy of the agreement that they sent me in January. It is very difficult to read and in my last letter to them in May I did ask them to send me a more legible copy, as well as the details of the offers that they received for the equipment. I have not had a reply on either count.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks both Bandit and UB. Just for the record I don't have any personal assets. If they bankrupt me then so be it. However, I would like to avoid it if possible! Legal advice is difficult if you have no money to pay for it! I have been offered a small sum by a family member to help try and settle - it's not a lot but more than they will get if they bankrupt me I guess. The total debt being claimed is £40K. We are negotiating with HSBC and CVF (we also have disputed the way they handled the sale of equipment having also undesold it!) currently so we will see what happens there.

 

Yes, Bandit, I do have a photocopy of the agreement that they sent me in January. It is very difficult to read and in my last letter to them in May I did ask them to send me a more legible copy, as well as the details of the offers that they received for the equipment. I have not had a reply on either count.

 

Get some proper debt advice, by first phoning the business debtline. If you have no assets, it actually might be worth baiting these companies to make you bankrupt at their cost. I suspect that if they look into your financial situation, they will realise that it is not worth it, but the trouble if, once the SD is properly served they do not expire as such. Therefore at any time within 6 years (normal statute barred rules) they could proceed with the bankruptcy, if your financial position ever improved. If you find that these companies appear to be sitting and waiting, you might want to consider making yourself bankrupt. The number of times I have read of people being chased for money say 5 years down the line and in that time they have moved on in their lives, only to be troubled by these past debts.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they bankrupt me then so be it. However, I would like to avoid it if possible!

I am with you there. 49% of me wants HSBC to issue a SD for my mortgage shortfall of £50k and get it all over and done with. Yes, I earn good money and I would be (basically) on benefits for 3 years.

 

But 51% of me disagrees, so I am fighting on...

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it has been approved in the past

 

What question were you answering ?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the publications link. I have already read it.

 

I have also had some good debt advice and I am pretty OK with the current 'game plan'. We are genuinely disputing the actions of Academy and CVF particularly with regard to their disposal of the equipment.

 

So I guess that my question is "can I/how do I go about having the Stat Demand set aside on the basis that we are in dispute over the amount owed to Academy because they treated us unfairly/unreasonably as Guarantors by selling the equipment at a huge undervalue and not providing us with details upon request of how they achieved fair market value"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 42Man.

 

Yes, my last letter to them was in May after I had received a letter from them saying that they had sold the equipment. They enclosed copies of the invoices they had raised to show the amount they had achieved on the sale. The equipment was less than 6 months old and they sold it drectly back to the company who 'sold' it to me for less than 50% of the new price. I expressed my concern that the price achieved was very low even for second hand commecial laundry equipment and asked to send me details of other offers they had received to prove that they had got 'fair market value'. I never had a reply to this letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that this company have not really entered into real communications about the basis of this debt and therefore they have jumped the gun in using the insolvency system.

 

How was the SD served on you ? This is important as it could be another reason to get it set aside if it was not done properly.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Equipment doesn't usually depreciate that quickly. It is lifed for many years as it commercial grade. There are many second hand sellers out there who sell this kind of equipment on for substantial prices.

 

The SD was posted to me. Not recorded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also mention that the other Guarantor has not recieved a Stat demand. He has not had a response to his requests for the documentation about other quotations either although he has had some correspondence from Academy's Solicitor (Bermans). In their last letter to him they said that their client had no obligation to mitigate at all. He has gone back to them and said that as they have chosen to mitigate then they should be acting reasonably and fairly to all parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Equipment doesn't usually depreciate that quickly. It is lifed for many years as it commercial grade. There are many second hand sellers out there who sell this kind of equipment on for substantial prices.

 

The SD was posted to me. Not recorded.

 

The SD was not correctly served. According to the involvency service information I have read previously, they have to first try to serve the SD in person, using an accreditied server. Only after two failed attempts to serve in person, can they send the SD by normal Royal Mail post. I am not sure whether it is worth or wise to ask them for proof that a process server tried to serve the SD by hand, before it was posted.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

where is that from?

according to the gov't info posted, 'there is no expiry period for a stat demand'. (unless statute barred, or setaside), but suppose the longer its left, the less credibility it would have?

re service of an sd, and petition, etc have a look at The Insolvency Rules.

'2) The creditor is, by virtue of the Rules, under an obligation to do all that is reasonable for the purpose of bringing the statutory demand to the debtor's attention and, if practicable in the particular circumstances, to cause personal service of the demand to be effected.'

so, 'substituted service' can be acceptable depend on circumstances, as stated in the rules. also see rule 6.11 etc

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

well, as i see it, rule 6.11 (re petitions) doesn't state that an sd must have been personally served for there to be a petition rather just that it has been deemed served as required by the rules. and an sd can be deemed 'served' other than by personal service depending on the circumstances ((2) above). 6.11 (5) says that if not personally served, or service is not acknowledged, then the required affidavit must explain the particular service. then up to the J to consider/decide in the circumstances!

(6) allows for substituted service of a petition depend'g on circumstances re sub service of an sd.

but, they (those sols) do disclaim by saying 'in most cases' ie depends on the circumstances!

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

loulou

also see any case law re any interpretation of the rules/any precedent.

you mention no sd re other guarantee. afaik, a 'creditor' might 'choose' to only pursue those g's that they consider to have 'sufficient means to warrant pursuing'?

as has been posted, if there is deemed a poss triable issue/dispute/counterclaim then set aside should be considered at hearing. also, is the actual guarantee poss defective? all things that can be mentioned on application.

as you point out, there is that 'gamble' ie where there is no personal service and no acknowledgment of sd, then any explained 'alternative' 'service' may turn out to be unacceptable by J re a petition.

ps, presume this re a personal sd and not one against a company?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...