Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4145 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

Hello and Thanks for Reading

 

I got into Some Trouble with CT been Self Empolyed it been a hard few years

 

I had 3 Libailty orders

 

1) for £300 odd Pounds - Cleared

2) for £1200 Currently at £800 -Been trying to clear this ( this is this years CT)

3)1700 Which is last years that i could not pay

 

The Bailiffs have a walking Order for my Property

 

They have been round a few time

 

Today they came with a letter giving 24Hrs to Remove goods

 

I advised i dont have the money and he advised he would be back tomorrow with a lock smith as i advised he could come in

 

While he was hear he phones do arrange a locksmith

 

Any advice would be helpfull

Link to post
Share on other sites

bailiffs lie they will not be back tomorrow with a locksmith

 

have the bailiffs had entry to your property

 

they are claiming a levy can you list the goods please

what paperwork have the bailiffs left

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they have been into the property ( big error on my part )

 

The good listed are

 

An Xbox

An Tv Flat screen 32

A clock

A cabinet and a sofa

 

I have treid to contest the levy with the CT office and they deemed it to fair

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to me their is insufficiant on the levy to cover the debt and costs

i think he is using threat tactics

 

contact council again and ask do they think the value of goods listed is sufficiant to cover the debt

remind them they are equally responsible for the bailiff actions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so we have a £800 debt and a £1700 debt

 

bet they have charged you two lots of fees and on the same day

 

levy will not cover the debt the sofa does it still have the fire safety tags on it do you have other seating little or no value

 

a clock little value unless it is antique or a expensive one

Tv they around £200 new so little value

Cabinet unless it is solid wood wont be worth much

 

The council make up there own rules should be a formal complaint to council copy in local MP

This is going to take a little wile wont be sorted over night!

 

At this point the bailiffs are a long way from forcing entry

Bailiffs lie

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sofa probley dose have the tag on it somewhere never looked

 

The tv is worth about a 100 tops

 

The Cabinet and clock worthless (to them)

 

As they have been in my property before , this is the issue .

 

As they said when they have entry to remove goods they will make a new list > although as we are moving soon there isent anything else in here Just kids stuff and my Home office

Link to post
Share on other sites

AS for breaking into to your home - the bailiff has to first gain peaceful entry. Most SLA's/Contracts/Code of Practice between Councils & bailiffs usually insists that where a bailiff gains peaceful entry and seizes goods, later goes back to remove same & is denied entry makes them have to ask:

 

a - the Council for permission to force entry and if they agree

 

b - go back to the Magistrates Court to gain an Order allowing them to do this, and if they agree

 

c - has to write to you giving a date & time when they will attend

 

d - only then if they are refused could they force entry

 

Orders such as these are only granted in exceptional cases - usuallywhere there is a history of wilful refusal to pay. You will be a long way from this scenario.

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As they said when they have entry to remove goods they will make a new list > although as we are moving soon there isent anything else in here Just kids stuff and my Home office

 

They making there own rules up any levy should be enough to satisfy the debt

 

clearly what they have does ................................NOT

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what i thought and i wrote a long letter to RD

 

I am trying to find the response as they stated they work on a 2 teir basis

 

Basically the first vist vist then the removal bailiff will remove the goods and make a new list in all draws and cuboard etc

 

I will try and dig it out

 

Ive been paying the CT direct weekly as much as i can as per advice on here . ,but seems to have stepped up a level

Link to post
Share on other sites

when bailiffs re attend do not let them in do you have a car?

 

it will be vulnerable to bailiffs if you do

If you exhaust council complaint procedure you can go to the local government ombudsmen but unfortunately it can be a slow process

 

You do not need to speak to the bailiff you could always hope it is raining and wave to him out the window:wink:

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good advice guys, you could also film the bailiff when he returns through the letterbox if you don't want to open the door, to capture any threats he m,ay utter, you don't need HIS permission to film HIM on YOUR premises no matter what garbage he spouts about permission and data protection. The levy could be argued as merely to garner fees for the bailiff as it is on insufficient goods, this could form part of a Formal Complaint to head of Revenues CEO, council lerader etc.

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

 

As they said when they have entry to remove goods they will make a new list > although as we are moving soon there isent anything else in here Just kids stuff and my Home office

 

Sounds to me as if:

a - they are reading this thread

b - they realise they have not seized enough goods - well they had their chance so tough.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they have been into the property ( big error on my part )

 

The good listed are

 

An Xbox

An Tv Flat screen 32

A clock

A cabinet and a sofa

 

I have treid to contest the levy with the CT office and they deemed it to fair

 

The council would never deem any levy unfair unless you can show the grounds the levy is not valid.

 

You can argue the levy is not compliant becase the items listed are of insignificant value compared to the debt being recovered.

 

Did the bailiff use the Form 7 for listing an inventory of goods ? if so then that disqualifies the levy. It should be a form 9. A common mistake.

 

Ditto if the goods listed are not yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council would never deem any levy unfair unless you can show the grounds the levy is not valid.

 

You can argue the levy is not compliant becase the items listed are of insignificant value compared to the debt being recovered.

 

Did the bailiff use the Form 7 for listing an inventory of goods ? if so then that disqualifies the levy. It should be a form 9. A common mistake.

 

Ditto if the goods listed are not yours.

 

the goods are mine, i will have a look at the form Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside if they took the sofa would there be sufficient seating left to seat ALL family members? Does the sofa still have it's original fire retardent compliance labels still attached? If not it would be illegal for the bailiff to sell it at auction, the bailiff commits a criminal offence if he does auction it without the original labels attached.

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

As an aside if they took the sofa would there be sufficient seating left to seat ALL family members? Does the sofa still have it's original fire retardent compliance labels still attached? If not it would be illegal for the bailiff to sell it at auction, the bailiff commits a criminal offence if he does auction it without the original labels attached.

 

 

There are 2 living rooms

 

There is a Corner sofa in one , it dosent have the label on (or not one i can see)

 

And there is a Normal table with 4 chairs in the other

 

2 Adults a 10 years old and 5 year old

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...