Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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 3885 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

H i Orangesmarties.

As someone who is seeking help on this site about my debts I hope you don't mind if I pass a couple of comments. First I am not trying to get out of my debts, I require advice and guidance as to how to deal with what seems to be strong arm and intimidating tactics by DCA's. I imagine that in any type of business that there are both good and bad examples and this includes bailiffs and HCEO's. In my opinion people in your situation have every right to use these people to reclaim what is owed to you. This does not give these people the right to act outside the law. In the programmes that I have seen most of the debtors got what they deserved but not all of them. I didn't like the way that one of todays debtors got out of paying what he owed by liquidating his ltd company and then started an identical company but that's the law. Good luck in reclaiming your debts. Please don't think that we are criminals just because we seek help from people who understand all the mumbo jumbo written in all these legal forms that we have signed over the years. If i understood it I wouldn't be doing what I do now to earn a type of living!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

H i Orangesmarties.

As someone who is seeking help on this site about my debts I hope you don't mind if I pass a couple of comments. First I am not trying to get out of my debts, I require advice and guidance as to how to deal with what seems to be strong arm and intimidating tactics by DCA's. I imagine that in any type of business that there are both good and bad examples and this includes bailiffs and HCEO's. In my opinion people in your situation have every right to use these people to reclaim what is owed to you. This does not give these people the right to act outside the law. In the programmes that I have seen most of the debtors got what they deserved but not all of them. I didn't like the way that one of todays debtors got out of paying what he owed by liquidating his ltd company and then started an identical company but that's the law. Good luck in reclaiming your debts. Please don't think that we are criminals just because we seek help from people who understand all the mumbo jumbo written in all these legal forms that we have signed over the years. If i understood it I wouldn't be doing what I do now to earn a type of living!

 

 

urh..please dont use DCA's and bailiffs in the same sentence [well giant block of text]

there is NO RELATIONSHIP...DCA HAVE NO SUCH POWERS AS A BAILIFF EVER!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree why people don't like any underhand tactics but there are plenty of reasons to like the HCEOs too - maybe it depends upon which side of the fence you're on.

 

Anyway, I'm off now to pursue my research.

 

You have made your point quite clear here, [in red]. Now to be fair, this is why we run a bailiff forum, not for the 'good guys' who may do a good job, but for those who do not.

 

We have, in fact advised those who are seeking bailiff intervention and what to expect.

 

This forum has not been set up to hate bailiffs, but to help those who have been bullied, threatened, lied too and cheated out of money that is not owed.

 

Why dont you come sit on our side of the fence for a few hours and read what people have had to put up with.

 

Good luck with your research.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police attend to stop a breach of the peace and the BBC are there to report only. The BBC with

this program have got it wrong. They are supposed to be impartial ,who persuaded who to waste the

publics money on this program ? Why not get the HCEOs to dress up as Batman and Robin and

film them roaring up in a souped up van and bursting through the doors !

" What do you mean you cannot afford our outrageous fees !" BIFF BAFF !

" I warned you once Joker that wiil cost you another £180 " thwack zonk !

" Curses Batman my biros run out, " Charge them £50 for a new one ! "

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police attend to stop a breach of the peace and the BBC are there to report only. The BBC with

this program have got it wrong. They are supposed to be impartial ,who persuaded who to waste the

publics money on this program ? Why not get the HCEOs to dress up as Batman and Robin and

film them roaring up in a souped up van and bursting through the doors !

" What do you mean you cannot afford our outrageous fees !" BIFF BAFF !

" I warned you once Joker that wiil cost you another £180 " thwack zonk !

" Curses Batman my biros run out, " Charge them £50 for a new one ! "

:lol: I shouldnt be laughing this time of the morning, not until I am on at least my 4th cup of coffee

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's silyl string. Perfectly apt for some of the bailiffs lately :)

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the sheriffs marc newton was on jbws cars cops and bailiffs. Now he pops up working for sherforce on tv. There is something a miss ?

He fancies himself as a jobbing actor?

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

One of the sheriffs marc newton was on jbws cars cops and bailiffs. Now he pops up working for sherforce on tv. There is something a miss ?

 

I'll repeat what I keep repeating. There is no such thing as a Sheriff. HCEO's are appointed by the High Court, the people you see on this program are not sheriffs or HCEO's but are merely lay people appointed as representatives by the HCEO. A representative may be a bouncer, private detective, removal man, "security consultant", carpenter or whatever, they do not need to be certified or qualified in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repeat what I keep repeating. There is no such thing as a Sheriff. HCEO's are appointed by the High Court, the people you see on this program are not sheriffs or HCEO's but are merely lay people appointed as representatives by the HCEO. A representative may be a bouncer, private detective, removal man, "security consultant", carpenter or whatever, they do not need to be certified or qualified in any way.

 

I bet that's the real reason they want the right to charge extortionate fees! So the actual HCEO can sit at his desk getting fat, whilst his lackies go out doing the actual work.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet that's the real reason they want the right to charge extortionate fees! So the actual HCEO can sit at his desk getting fat, whilst his lackies go out doing the actual work.

 

You've got it!

 

It's probably the reason why there are a lot of problems too. The representatives can take a few liberties and the HCEO can use the distance from the situation to muddy the issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've entered this thread somewhat late. (Always late to the party).

 

I want to introduce a new word into the proceedings

 

YEAHBUT (Usually used by errant teens to their parents)

 

Yeah But I agree with you all but ...

 

Baliffs and HCEO's. Two seperate and distinct animals in law.

I'm old enough to remember my father at the receiving end of county court judgements and actually being put into prison for debt. Those bad days are over now but people still suffer a lot.

 

In my job as a country parson I have to act as advocate for a lot of people including some who are homeless.

 

As in any profession, there are good ones and bad ones. In relation to HCEO's though the BBC Series is constructed to create "Good Telly"

 

The series focuses on a firm called "The Sheriffs Office" which is a trading name of "Sheriffs High Court Enforcement Ltd" in Croydon.

The actual name of the Registered HCEO is a man named "Peter Watt". All the other heavies seen in film, are agents of, or acting on behalf of Peter Watt, who acts on behalf of the High Court and Claimant.

 

One think to remember is that in this case, Peter Watt, is responsible in law for the actions of his agents etc.

 

Some other firms of HCEO's have more than one registered HCEO.

 

As someone else said, it depends on which side you are looking.

 

In my particular case, I have been suing Santander.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?373594-Bounced-Cheque-Cause-for-Action-for-Damages

 

I've now received a Judgment against them and having considered all my options, I'm sending in the HCEO's unless of course Santander get a 'setaside' or 'stay'.

 

I thought about using the heavies but I decided to send in a little lady who is herself an HCEO and talk to the local branch 'nicely' but with insrruction if she doesnt get the money in cash or card (no cheques please) then the lads outside are going to start taking computers.

 

This is turning their weapons against themselves.

 

I have no qualms.

 

Am I being Mr Nasty against Santander?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've entered this thread somewhat late. (Always late to the party).

 

I want to introduce a new word into the proceedings

 

YEAHBUT (Usually used by errant teens to their parents)

 

Yeah But I agree with you all but ...

 

Baliffs and HCEO's. Two seperate and distinct animals in law.

I'm old enough to remember my father at the receiving end of county court judgements and actually being put into prison for debt. Those bad days are over now but people still suffer a lot.

 

In my job as a country parson I have to act as advocate for a lot of people including some who are homeless.

 

As in any profession, there are good ones and bad ones. In relation to HCEO's though the BBC Series is constructed to create "Good Telly"

 

The series focuses on a firm called "The Sheriffs Office" which is a trading name of "Sheriffs High Court Enforcement Ltd" in Croydon.

The actual name of the Registered HCEO is a man named "Peter Watt". All the other heavies seen in film, are agents of, or acting on behalf of Peter Watt, who acts on behalf of the High Court and Claimant.

 

One think to remember is that in this case, Peter Watt, is responsible in law for the actions of his agents etc.

 

Some other firms of HCEO's have more than one registered HCEO.

 

As someone else said, it depends on which side you are looking.

 

In my particular case, I have been suing Santander.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?373594-Bounced-Cheque-Cause-for-Action-for-Damages

 

I've now received a Judgment against them and having considered all my options, I'm sending in the HCEO's unless of course Santander get a 'setaside' or 'stay'.

 

I thought about using the heavies but I decided to send in a little lady who is herself an HCEO and talk to the local branch 'nicely' but with insrruction if she doesnt get the money in cash or card (no cheques please) then the lads outside are going to start taking computers.

 

This is turning their weapons against themselves.

 

I have no qualms.

 

Am I being Mr Nasty against Santander?

 

Not at all, these are weapons they are happy to use, they cannot complain at them being turned back on them.

 

Why would you want your HCEO to faff around with Computers that will be worth peanuts? If she is going to walk into a bank and thus claim Levy on everything, she would be far better off levying on the tills full of cash!!! :wink:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt whether they will be taking computers, unless they take out each hard drive first, Far too much personal data and I hope you will speak to your little lady about that first. You need to remember, If they do anything wrong, you could find yourself wrapped up in it also.

 

Creditors, (you) have a responsibility to make sure that who they hire know what can and cannot be taken and know how things should be executed.

 

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about the sherrffs, but Marstons may have a little problem over the naming and shaming of a bailiff on another forum, and her posting and boasting on Facebook and Twitter about her harassment of debtors.

 

Wonder if the BBC will dare to show the Sheriffs tackling a vulnerable situation, say a Southern Water or utility issue against a family on benefits who cannot afford to pay the bill let alone the charges now added?

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

Are HCEO's allowed to perform a "Global Levy" on a car?

 

Episode 3 is on Iplayer at the moment. They have levied a car in the drive, fair enough, but he specifically said something along the lines of "We have levied the car, and all the goods inside it" as he hasn't had access into the car, its a global levy by looking through the windows, as presumably he will claim whatever is in the boot too.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are HCEO's allowed to perform a "Global Levy" on a car?

 

Episode 3 is on Iplayer at the moment. They have levied a car in the drive, fair enough, but he specifically said something along the lines of "We have levied the car, and all the goods inside it" as he hasn't had access into the car, its a global levy by looking through the windows, as presumably he will claim whatever is in the boot too.

I would agree caled, if he indeed did say that, and wrote it on the notice the levy should fail,

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...