Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
    • i was merely pointing out if the OP did put in an N244 it required a bundle. as for what they need to do now.... it might be an idea to post a link to your thread then the OP can read it and understand where your guidance is coming from and the ongoing process he will have to follow... dx
    • The notes entered into circulation yesterday and are proving popular with collectors, who will be hoping to snap up examples with low serial numbers.View the full article
  • 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 4067 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

A bailiff called today but didn't explain who he was properly so hubby let him in, the man then said who he was and hubby quickly escorted him back out the front door. Hubby told him he wasn't going to be coming in and doors and windows would be locked. The man wrote a few things down and left. Is this now seen as allowing him in and I wonder if what he wrote down was a list of things he had seen. He also came at 6.30am I didn't think they were allowed to come that early. Can anyone help please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi selinajayne,

 

As you say, this is a big mistake. The fact that you allowed him in once means he can re-enter.

 

There are others on the forum with more knowledge than I have who will come to help, but

 

1. Who is he collecting for?

 

2. How much is the debt?

 

3. Have you got a car parked anywhere nearby? If so, move it immediately.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bailiff should only be there with a Court Order. Did he leave you with a copy of the documentation? If so, call the Court and see what they say. Do that now as Courts close at 4 or 4.30.

 

If your husband didn't know about this and feels it was a fine he should not have received you can apply to have it set aside, but the main thing is to get the bailiff called off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, it would seem that the bailiff gained "peaceful entry" .

 

If this debt is in relation to one that your husband did not know about then he can file a Statutory Declaration with the court.

 

If you can provide a few more details this would be of help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he was removed from the premises BEFORE he began a levy, then he would not have peaceful entry, he would need to have handed a list of goods on a Form 7 to your husband, or put ut through the letterbox at the time, however if it is a criminal fine, they may claim right of forced entry under the DCVA. Others will know more

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

Get to the court first thing in the morning and get a stat dec sorted out.

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

Might be worth sending detals to BBC watchdog, they are on the case of DVLA who have form for fraudulent and baseless prosecutions, it is up to them to prove you didn't send it, not you to prove you had, a statutory declaration that you had posted the V5 on whatever date, and s you can consider First class post as sufficient proof of delivery, there is NO legal compulsion as DVLA have tried in court and been spanked for to claim you MUST contact them after a month if you have heard nothing from them. A stat dec as to not getting the summons would allow you to challenge. DVLA have lost in this scenario, andWatchdog have caught them out on just this very thing..

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

DVLA go on and on trying to prosecute everyone and it's all a money making exercise. They took me to court over not paying my car tax which was delayed in the post due to a postal strike. It was a newly bought car and being a good girl I paid the tax from the beginning of the previous month even though there were only four days to go. I even sent them copies of the actual tax disc showing I had paid for the full six months but that didn't stop them. It was only when I got to Court and showed their lawyer that I had paid that he stopped it before we went into Court. Even he said he'd couldn't understand why they had done it.

 

You really must fight them on this, so do get the Statutory Declaration done first thing tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They (DVLA) also have form for going to court and gaining the criminal version of a default judgement by "neglecting or forgetting" to send out a summons so the first you know is when the Marstons, collectica Excel or other knuckledragger tries to kick the door in on the hapless, unbeknownst to them debtor.

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

Apologies if this is slightly off topic, but it may help others on this thread at some time:

 

Did you know there is now no 'period of grace' for car tax renewal? There used to be 14 days, and then it was reduced to five days, but now you only get five days grace if you have renewed online by the last day of the previous month. If you renew after that they can fine you even if you have paid online and the tax disc is in the post. :mad2: So if, for example, you are away from home on the last day of the month and don't renew online until, say, the 2nd of the following month you are supposed to take your car off the road until the tax disc arrives.

 

You can of course challenge this - there is a nice House of Lords' Authority about this kind of thing - but who needs the hassle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says on the log book if you don't get an acknowledgement letter within x amount of weeks, contact them because he didn't it means he's at fault

No he isn't there is NO LEGAL COMPULSION to contact DVLA after you send something in a judge found that you can assume delivery after 3 days or so by first class post BBC Watchdog are on the case as per below

 

see :http://whatconsumer.co.uk/forum/consumer-rights-television-programmes/10610-bbc-watchdog-dvla-dock.html

 

"Duncan Peck is a motorcyclist who took on the DVLA - after applying to take his vehicle off the road. He posted his SORN application but then six months later he received a penalty for £80. The DVLA insisted they hadn't received Duncan's application and told him it was his responsibility to contact them when he didn't receive acknowledgement of receipt. Duncan refused to back down and refused to pay the fine, so the DVLA took him to court. When the case was heard in March, the judge found in Duncan's favour saying the DVLA has no statutory power requiring anyone to contact them should they not receive an acknowledgment letter."

 

DVLA are woefully unfit for purpose, and have lost in court or withdrawn the case on similar facts to OP where they claimed non reciept of V5 for change SORN or whatever.

 

If Op had no summons then Stat Dec and a defence claiming docs posted should kill the DVLA and their scrote bailiffs pig.

Edited by brassnecked

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

If he goes to court does he say the dvla have no legal standing on it

He tells them that it was posted First class on Xth of whatever 20ish, and assumes that they had it via normal post 3 days later, and that there is no compulsion to contact DVLA to check anyhing, quoting the cases of Duncan Peck and James Collins who were prosecuted by DVLA (which had lost the documents) and appeals found in the favour of the defendants

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?380711-Collectica-and-DVLA-Fine

 

see also: http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?10714-DVLA-SORN-notification-system-is-a-shambles-legally-unenforceable-and-administ

 

http://www.bitterwallet.com/dvla-act-unlawfully-whilst-losing-your-letters-and-blaming-you-for-it/29151

 

I would suggest OP googles DVLA and unlawful fines

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...