Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi as this appears to be about a Parking Charge from a PPC,   I have moved your thread to the Private Land parking Forum, where you should get advice targeted to the situation   could you give some history about what the Invoice was for  and who the parking Contractor is  Did you appeal the charge, and it looks like you have had letters from the dreaded useless Gladstones demanding payment  Could you give the information asked for on this sticky and also post the  letter from gladstones to see if it is a Letter Before Claim/Action?    
    • it is also unlawful to change the ownership of a vehicle [or goods] to avoid enforcement action upon them. and this was done after you had already replied to the council regarding the outstanding ticket(s).   be careful upon pursuing a resolution arguing this point.   you could have quite easily changed ownership to gain a parking permit some months previously when getting the first windscreen ticket.              
    • I would start off by sending the bank an SAR. Which bank is it?
    • I agree with you DX100, but N/W don't want to play ball and send a copy of the agreement after 3 requests.  How will this stand if it goes to Court?
    • Sorry if this is in the wrong section as not sure where exactly its best suited.   So, we got the bank statement the other day & noticed 23 separate Xbox in game credit debits for Fortnite for £7.99 each over a 4 week period.  Now the daughter insists she didn't order anything.  And whilst most will say "of cause she would and just denying it etc" well, I'm not going to say I believe her even though I'm assuming using real cash to buy in game credit comes with a clear notification that your using real money (and stating the amount each time) to buy such in game credit.  And whilst I still need to check the Xbox security settings to see if as I think I did, I did set a security pin for purchases a few things are puzzling me on a legal footing and that mainly what I want to ask about.   As the bank statement indicates the card in question is an old card I had replaced and cancelled a while ago, about the time these transactions started.  When I ordered the new replacement I asked for the previous card to be cancelled.  2 weeks later I had to report the replacement card stolen\lost abroad and ordering another again asking for that card to be cancelled to prevent unauthorized use and money being taken from the bank account.   So, in the first instance I've already contacted the bank to enquire how and why they have allowed payments from an old debit card I had replaced and cancelled?.  They suggest that the card was never cancelled when the replacement was ordered and that the old card would remain valid until the expire date in a couple of years time!!!.  I asked them how on earth this can be the case as the replacement card has a completely different number and ordering the replacement should trigger (as per my request) cancellation and usage of said card.  The bank is suggesting otherwise as because the card was valid when setting up Xbox live that the card can always be used even if replaced regardless of reason it was replaced or if we cancelled the card.  They justified this action by saying the payments are continuous payments (similar to direct debit) and that's why they went through and referred me to Microsoft.   I pushed the issue and said they are not continuous payments but single individual 1 off payments that by nature (in game credit) and the number of payments (23 x £7.99) they could never claim them to have been continuous payments as a pre existing agreement for such payments for the game in question would have to exist and have existed when the card was valid which it doesn't.  And therefore these payments should not have been made because they are neither continuous payments and come from an old debit card that was replaced and cancelled.  The bank sort of agreed that these payments maybe are not continuous payments yet are now unsure where I stand.  So I have been referred to there disputes department.   Feeling I'm going to get the same run around on the rights over taking payments from an old replaced card that was supposed to be cancelled, I'm wanting to know what members think on a legal footing?.  As its like the bank saying I can use the same old & replaced debit card details to order items online because its still in date even if replaced & cancelled which I find highly unlikely!.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2588 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I urgently need advice,

 

in April 08 I made a verbal agreement with the owner of a boatyard to rent ground for my 2 containers & narrowboat

 

we agreed a figure of 65 pounds a week,

 

I made numerous unsuccessful attempts to gain a rent book or any form of agreement,

he always deferred the matter, at no time have I signed anything

 

I attended my container 31/10/12 to find the owner with a bailiff who had a warrant for 6,700 pounds If I don`t pay this amount by the 7 Nov ,

 

he intends to distrain my containers & narrowboat,

they are going on the assumption that I still own the boat,

it was sold some months ago,

the new owner returns to this country on 4/11/12

I will inform him on the matter ASAP,

 

I have checked my bank & have paid him 11,000 pounds in standing orders other payments into his various bank accounts

and some payments were made by foolishly giving him cash in hand & therefore unrecorded

 

he denies he was ever paid this way the owner is alcoholic and appeared regulary intoxicated

and sometimes in a state of in continence, I have always found him intimidating.

 

The owner has not issued me with a default notice or any type of breakdown as to how he has arrived at these totals

or that he intended to hand the matter over to bailiffs

 

he has also barred me from entering the yard without him being there,

 

can he do that?,

can they take property not belonging to me i.e. the narrowboat?

can they take my containers & van?,

are these exempt as they are my tools,

 

I am sick with worry can anyone help

 

S.O.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For bailiffs to be involved there must have been a court claim against you.

 

If there has not been a court claim,

 

then I not sure what a baliff is getting involved.

 

They certainly would not be able to apply any distraint.

 

In this situation,

I think I might see if the Police could become involved.

 

They may say that it is a private dispute between you so cannot help,

but I think this boatyard owner appears to be acting unlawfully.

 

If the Police won't assist, then I suggest that you appoint a solicitor to act for you.

 

If you don't have any contract with the boatyard owner,

 

then I cannot see how they are trying to obtain any money from you.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A landlord can instruct a bailiff (or be one himself) without a court being involved.

 

IIRC it goes back to the Statute of Marlborough (1267) and subsequent statutes.

 

The bailiff will be a Certified Bailiff (an officer of the high court) and this is why there was no court action beforehand.

 

There are certain procedures that should be gone through first though.

 

Sorry I can't be more help but it is about 20 years since I trained as a bailiff and then I wrapped the job after three days.


Love your enemies - it drives them crazy.

Thanks to Bobby Thompson (1911-1988) for the user name:"Let them knock, the paint lasts longer than the skin".

nec temere nec timide

 

So far, all done free for friends:

Cabot - F&F reduced debt by £7700 (70%)

NatWest - PPI claim - £1,800

NatWest - PPI claim - £6,200

NatWest - PPI claim - £3,000

Co-op Bank - PPI claim - £5,200

Halifax - PPI claim - £2,800

NatWest - debt identified as statute barred - £1,900

NatWest - debt identified as statute barred - £2,700

NatWest - loan identified as unenforceable - £13,400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who were the 'bailiffs'?

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parkinsons Bailiff services

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A landlord can instruct a bailiff (or be one himself) without a court being involved.

 

IIRC it goes back to the Statute of Marlborough (1267) and subsequent statutes.

 

The bailiff will be a Certified Bailiff (an officer of the high court) and this is why there was no court action beforehand.

 

There are certain procedures that should be gone through first though.

 

Sorry I can't be more help but it is about 20 years since I trained as a bailiff and then I wrapped the job after three days.

 

It is the oldest piece of statute law in the United Kingdom that has not yet been repealed.

 

The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, & c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267), which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267), which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of. Chapter 15 sets out places in which "distresses" are forbidden to be taken; these include the King's Highway and the Common Street. In other words, actions to remedy a breach of some kind by one person against another may not be taken in the street etc.

 

Repealed chapters include Replevin;

 

In creditors' rights law, replevin, sometimes known as "claim and delivery," is a legal remedy for a person to recover goods unlawfully withheld from his or her possession, by means of a special form of legal process in which a court may require a defendant to return specific goods to the plaintiff at the outset of the action (i.e. before judgment). In other situations, a party seeking relief may elect to adjudicate the right to possession prior to obtaining immediate relief to obtain the property in question. In such cases, replevin actions are still designed to afford the petitioning party a relatively speedy process for obtaining judgment, as compared to typical lawsuits. The summary remedy afforded by replevin statutes can be thwarted by defendants who contest the claimant's right to possession, by contesting the plaintiff's complaint, and insisting on traditional litigation involving discovery, and in some cases, trial by jury.

 

Replevin actions are often filed by secured creditors seeking to take possession of collateral securing loans or other debt instruments, such as retail installment contracts. A common example is where an automobile finance company initiates a replevin action to gain possession of a vehicle, following payment default. Replevin actions are usually employed when the lender cannot find the collateral, or cannot peacefully obtain it through self-help repossession. Replevin actions may also be pursued by true owners of property, e.g., consignors seeking return of consigned property that the party in possession will not relinquish for one reason or another.


Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is the oldest piece of statute law in the United Kingdom that has not yet been repealed.

 

The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, & c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267), which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267), which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of. Chapter 15 sets out places in which "distresses" are forbidden to be taken; these include the King's Highway and the Common Street. In other words, actions to remedy a breach of some kind by one person against another may not be taken in the street etc.

 

What I don't understand in this case, it why the bailiff thinks there is a contract issue for them to get involved with. Surely the landlord would have had to evidence to the bailiff that there was a contract and that there had been a breach of contract, with letters sent advising the tenant of how they can remedy the breach.

 

In this situation, I am not sure what I would advise the OP to do. The Police would probably not get involved, as it is a private dispute, even if there is something smelly going on. The OP could go to the bailiff to explain the situation, but the bailff is hardly likely to take their word, over their clients. The bailiff will presume the landlord is being totally truthful.

 

Perhaps the OP should get a solicitor involved and go down the court route if they need to.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK the bailiff can't get involved other than as a debt collector, he can't wear his bailiffs hat without a CCJ & certainly can't rely on the Statute of Marlborough.

 

Tomtubby will be better placed to answer I would think. ;)


Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I don't understand in this case, it why the bailiff thinks there is a contract issue for them to get involved with. Surely the landlord would have had to evidence to the bailiff that there was a contract and that there had been a breach of contract, with letters sent advising the tenant of how they can remedy the breach.

 

 

The Landlord only needs to tell the Bailiff he is owed rent.


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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFAIK the bailiff can't get involved other than as a debt collector, he can't wear his bailiffs hat without a CCJ & certainly can't rely on the Statute of Marlborough.

 

Tomtubby will be better placed to answer I would think. ;)

 

He can & will act as a Bailiff as no CCJ is required for this.


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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He can & will act as a Bailiff as no CCJ is required for this.

 

Thanks for the clarification. ;)


Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty the OP has is because there is no paper trail bar bank statements. It is very difficult to defend against what has happened and should look to see if getting an injunction may be a workable solution.


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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...