Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Series 2 - The Sheriffs are Coming


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3884 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 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The Sheriff's??

 

This will be interesting. Are they trying to show that these will be the good guys??? working for the poor against the rich??

Hope they show them enforcing a water debt from a vulnerable debtor, to show them up for what they are, but sadly it most likely won't happen.

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

The Sheriff's??

 

This will be interesting. Are they trying to show that these will be the good guys??? working for the poor against the rich??

 

oops my bad, it was robin hood :lol: Hmm Robin could be mistaken as Robbing though :pound:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh are they not such nice pleasant helpful good guys? Wonder if the BBC would do a program Bailiffs are coming.... don't believe a word they say!

Don't think so, But I would.

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 caught the first 15 minutes but unfortunately had to go out. From what I saw of it it seemed to be siding with "The Sheriffs", the emphasis appeared to be on unfortunate claimants including one who had sued Airbus for hearing loss, extraordinary that they hadn't settled the claim. There was one factual error which was the statement that elevating the judgement in the High Court was the only way of enforcing the debt if it wasn't paid. Quite a serious error because there are multitude ways of enforcing debts other than Fi Fa, eg charging property, garnishee orders etc. There was nothing in the program about the serious overcharging that goes on. All in all it appeared to be a promotional video for High Court Enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For them to appear in the programme they were probably allowed to pick what cases were to

be filmed , if not they wouldn' t take part. Yes of course you wont see the seedy side of their

activities ie holding a granny in a headlock whilst they rifle through her handbag for her cash card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a full episode today. The Police are called as the debtor threatened the enforcers, the Police ask for a warrant when they arrive, one of the enforcers replies that they don't need a warrant, which is surely incorrect? The Police allow them to carry on regardless. How long will it be before various **** take to the roads in their transits with made up paperwork and loot people's homes?

 

What isn't made clear by the program is that the enforcers aren't actually sheriffs but are in fact instructed by a sheriff, possibly splitting hairs but possibly not.

 

The amount they ask for on the first visit seems to be about £700-£800. I haven't worked out if they are going for the £800 a phone call £800 a visit drill after that.

 

I really don't know why the BBC is broadcasting such unquestioning carp, it's obvious that the more indefensible abuses and practises are not featured or commented on. It's also obvious that the more contentious type of claimants such as utility, government etc are being avoided. It's not journalism or factual it's shameful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"the Police ask for a warrant when they arrive, one of the enforcers replies that they don't need a warrant, which is surely incorrect? The Police allow them to carry on regardless."

 

Send a complaint to the BBC Trust and the BBC indicating where they have screened and condoned the police breaking the law, if we all do this maybe someone will take notice.

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've seen a full episode today. The Police are called as the debtor threatened the enforcers, the Police ask for a warrant when they arrive, one of the enforcers replies that they don't need a warrant, which is surely incorrect?

 

That is actually correct, they do not need a Warrant, they have a Writ of Fi Fa instead.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched two episodes. The police did ask to see the warrant ,well thats progress and took

half hour to turn up. They did not cart the man away for daring to threaten the bailiffs . Maybe

this was because the presence of the cameras . This program is not a documentry it is more

like hey hey were the bailiffs ( the theme tune to the Monkees ) Definitely portrayed as the

good guys righting wrongs, helping the little man out. They are only dealing with writs not the

nitty gritty stuff. More to this program than meets the eye.More like a PR exercise Oh I forgoto mention

they were collecting £19000 for someone but when they got to the door the sum increased to £22000

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is actually correct, they do not need a Warrant, they have a Writ of Fi Fa instead.

 

I assumed that the Police were confused and meant to say, a writ, a warrant being something that gave authority to that person to do what he was doing. I was confused between the two myself when I posted before. The enforcers I've across didn't carry a copy of the writ although Ihave seen premises being attended by an enforcer that was carring a sealed copy of the writ. It doesn't change my opinion of the program or the HCEO enforcement industry/[problem].

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01q0qdn/The_Sheriffs_Are_Coming_Series_2_Episode_5/ see at about 17:00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your spot on with your thoughts. It gets to be a bit of a joke when the "enforcement agent" has to explain to the Police what he is doing. Part of the problems is them using the knowledge that the Police don't have a clue to their own advantage. We have seen Bailiffs who will have the boys in blue accept them for something they are not, when in actual fact they are only in attendance to prevent a Breach of the Peace. With HCEO's it is a little different as the Courts Act 2003, Section 99, Schedule 7, Para 5 has this little gem:

Constable’s duty to assist enforcement officers

5.

It is the duty of every constable, at the request of—

a.

an enforcement officer, or

b.

a person acting under the officer’s authority, to assist the officer or that person in the execution of a writ.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"the Police ask for a warrant when they arrive, one of the enforcers replies that they don't need a warrant, which is surely incorrect? The Police allow them to carry on regardless."

 

Send a complaint to the BBC Trust and the BBC indicating where they have screened and condoned the police breaking the law, if we all do this maybe someone will take notice.

 

they have a writ of Fieri Facias

 

how silly do you look now with your complaint:oops::wink:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they have a writ of Fieri Facias

 

how silly do you look now with your complaint:oops::wink:

 

I hold my hands up sgt, confused a HCEO with a bailiff:oops::-) that'll teach me.... However, HCEO's need tighter regulation, and I still feel distress as a remedy is repugnant to modern day thinking. However we have to work with the system in place, until they decide to change it

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 hold my hands up sgt, confused a HCEO with a bailiff:oops::-) that'll teach me.... However, HCEO's need tighter regulation, and I still feel distress as a remedy is repugnant to modern day thinking. However we have to work with the system in place, until they decide to change it

 

 

its easy to do, the bailiff laws and laws of distress/distraint are the most confusing in the world, coz of layers and layers of different legislation going back to saxon times

 

however the person that never made a mistake, never made anything, so my mum used to say!!:whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites

they have a writ of Fieri Facias

 

how silly do you look now with your complaint:oops::wink:

 

 

A pleasant day to you too sgtbush. My guess is you are in the debt collection industry from the tenor of your posts, lots of urging to "take it on the chin" and "pay up".

 

I still don't see how it's possible for an HCEO representative to collect without a sealed copy of the writ.

 

you could have teams of crooks, dressed in black and shaven headed touring round taking people's possessions without a challenge from the Police.

How can they tell who the legalised crooks are?

 

The HCEO enforcers are not bailiffs,

they are authorised by an HCEO,

they could literally be anybody,

they are possibly untrained,

they could have criminal connections,

in short they could be very dangerous people indeed.

 

In the event of any problems it's highly unlikely that anyone would obtain redress from the courts or that an HCEO would have their enforcement authority withdrawn.

 

After all it's well known in the High Court that many HCEO companies charge massively more than they should and little seems to be done about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its easy to do, the bailiff laws and laws of distress/distraint are the most confusing in the world, coz of layers and layers of different legislation going back to saxon times

 

however the person that never made a mistake, never made anything, Oh so true :wink: so my mum used to say!!:whoo:

 

I think that Bailiffs and HCEO, sjhouyld carry ID and they MUST be required to show it on request by a debtor, or the police. As it would seem that nightclub bouncers are more professional and better regulated than Bailiff/HCEOs

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 think that Bailiffs and HCEO, sjhouyld carry ID and they MUST be required to show it on request by a debtor, or the police. As it would seem that nightclub bouncers are more professional and better regulated than Bailiff/HCEOs

 

 

they do carry 2 forms of id, one for the company and the other being the actual bailiff certificate issued by the courts, and they have to produce both on request, to a defendent/debtor and the police

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...