Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks very much BankFodder, your help is invaluable and I will read through it more carefully this evening.  At this time I am not aware of any information I have left out. And thanks to jk2054, I realised after sending it about the third party rights, you are absolutely correct and I will proceed as standard BOC claim. I'll come back with any questions once I've had a thorough re-read and so I hope to get the letter emailed and posted early this week so I can start the 14 day clock. Thanks again, M
    • The original LOC is wrong. You are nothing to do with third party rights.   you placed the order on EVRi's website so there is no third party rights in it, its a standard BOC claim
    • nike pre provide the labels arguably here the easiest target is nike because they will give in very easily.  
    • @BankFodder have you seen the first paragraph of this defence on the name. Am I missing something?
    • TBH: it does matter whats asked of you. you goal here is not one of denial nor say incorrect/missing paperwork, which is the usual reason to refuse mediation when they ring 9/10. you goal here is to achieve a consent order. i would pers outline this ASAP to the mediator so you dont waste eveyones time. have a figure in your head £PCM that you are agreeable too, halve it, then offer that, but be prepare to jink upwards slightly toward you org £PCM figure. do nOT be bullied stick to your guns. if it doesnt look like your £PCM is going to be accepted, then close mediation and await it to be allocated to a judge, as he wont be too please lowell refused the consent order over £5/10PCM more. have you done a budget sheet? dx   dx  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3896 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

Morning,

 

I have two unpaid council tax bills from 2008 and 2009 that Rossendales are chasing.

I have been making small weekly payments each week direct to the council.

I sent Rossendales a notice of implied rights of access by recorded delivery.

 

They sent a reply that worries me and need advice on what to do next.

 

They say they will be enforcing two liability orders against me from the years above.

They say they are proof of my lawful obligation to pay council tax.

It says the orders enable a certified baliff to act for the council to levy distress.

Says recovery action can result in improsement through the courts.

 

Lastly they say they have peaceful right of entry

what i do know but the liability order maybe residing on assets and will supersede the notice of removal of implied rights of access.

 

Trawled through forums but can not find the answer to the implied rights of access being over ruled.

 

To add it is my partners property and everything is in her name.

 

Some advice would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget about the freeman of the land rubbish

 

Treat the debt as a priority and pay the council direct

The bailiffs are right they do have the right of peaceful entry

 

So keep property secure if they turn up do not let them in

There is no right of entry by force no locksmith no nothing

 

Any threat of prison is a long way off if that was the case the judge may remit the debt

As long as you are paying there will be no prison

 

Keep bailiffs out pay council direct

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

Peaceful entry means either you let them in ( a very BAD idea) or you leave a door unlocked or a window open, and they get in through those. Move and keep any car away, then if they claim a levy on a random car that is not yours they are knackered and a Formal complaint can help your case as the bailiffs are then in the wrong. Keep paying the council and deny the bailiff alevy.

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 looked briefly at this question this morning before leaving home and since my return I have been trying to find details of the legal case regrading this same subject and Rossendales earlier this year.

 

I have looked through my posts and realised that In May this year, I had written briefly about the recent court case and promised to write more further facts became known.

 

Sadly, writing about this subject (Implied Right of Access) on this forum has frequently lead to "spoof" posts being made on the forum with the sole intention being to dissuade the public from knowing that with bailiff enforcement such notices are not worth the paper that they are written on.

 

It would be far better therefore if I were to start a brand new thread regarding the Rossendales Case. I will see whether I can get this arranged today.

Edited by tomtubby
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Says recovery action can result in improsement through the courts. "

Imprisonment is for wilful non payers, you are paying something so that is most unlikely in your case. Dossendales like to instill fear and dread into debtors.

 

Caggers will help you sort this, and as already stated peaceful entry means you let them in or they get in through an unsecured door or window.

 

They have no statutory right of entry. The truth is that there is no law that compels you to speak to or even deal with a bailiff. deny them a levy and the most they can have in fees is £42.50.

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

Morning,

 

Lastly they say they have peaceful right of entry what i do know but the liability order maybe residing on assets and will supersede the notice of removal of implied rights of access.

 

Trawled through forums but can not find the answer to the implied rights of access being over ruled.

Some advice would be great.

 

 

.

Harry,

 

In response to your question regarding these Notices of Removal of Implied Right of Access you may be interested to read the thread that I started on this very subject earlier this week. As you will see, the bailiff company was Rossendales Ltd.

 

The link to the thread is below:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?406801-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access......debtor-loses-in-court-and-ordered-to-pay-bailiff-companies-legal-costs(3-Viewing)-nbsp

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...