Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Rossendales bailiff with LO from CSA - Statutory Declaration needed for OH's stuff?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4059 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

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

ARE YOU MARRIED TO YOUR NEW PARTNER????

important question

 

if you are not then they cannot sieze the car but it is up to the owner to prove the car is thiers

if it cannot be done on the doorstep by way of a form V5C ( registration document) and a bill of sale, the bailiff can levy upon the car, which gives you

5 days to submit the relevent info, this is known as replevlin

 

If the bailiff believes that that you own the car…he can take it. There is Case Law that shows that the onus of proof is on you, not the bailiff to prove ownership of the vehicle, and that it is “not reasonable to expect the bailiff to make enquiries as to ownership”.

I find your statement a little misleading.

 

Regardless of whether you are married or not the debt is your's it cannot be made your new partners debt because you have got married. If that is the case can you back this up with the relevant legislation.

 

Before a bailiff can take the said vehicle he has to make sure that the car belongs to the debtor. If he does take it then said bailiff and creditor will be in a certain amount of trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

people that are married have joint financial interests so the car would be levyable, but as they are not then the car cannot be as it belongs to his partner

please read up on replevlin as explained as it is up to the owner to prove the car belongs to them

also please read up on the website bailiffonline.com for more infomation

 

there is no website called [EDIT} ( I suggest you refrain from putting any other websites up until they have been checked by site team.)

 

If I am not mistaken is replevin to do with common law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

a bailiff wouldnt just ramdomly levy a car on the street, he would need reasonable cause, ie it was on the drive, then it is up to the owner to stop the levy being done, not the bailiff proving otherwise

 

Ahh but they do. this is why they have to prove who the car belongs to before removing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A replevin writ is a court order granted to a complainant to recover goods that have been unlawfully taken or retained.

In some instances, the complainant will be required to post a bond before the order is granted.

 

I think some one must be reading this wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my concerns about this website, I feel there may be an agenda here. Nonetheless I do not have concerns about being sent to prison or any of the other things as the CSA have assured me that so long as I have no income they cannot do this, which is why this is so difficult to understand, they are completely aware of my financial situation, I am on the other hand willing to make a same gesture of payment but I would rather it not be to a bailiff.

 

Have you spoken to you MP about this, they can often help in these matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...