Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3867 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

Can the good people of this forum please explain their understanding of the "foot in door" action that some bailiffs use in connection with Magistrates Court fines please?

 

Does it make a difference if the bailiff just stands there with his foot in the door refusing to remove it but going no further than the threshold or do folk believe it to be an illegal action regardless?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stamp on it. Hell soon move. Just kidding. Gotta be careful since its a court fine.

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

Thanks outlawla, very interesting reading. However, this is a guide provided by a bailiff company and as such a little bias. The sections you refer to relate to "peaceful entry" by the bailiff.

 

What if the bailiff uses this method as a means of continuing a verbal conversation with a debtor (who refuses to cooperate) after a conversation takes place about the money allegedly owed to the Crown?

 

If the bailiff places his foot in the doorway and refuses to remove it but goes no further than the threshold while continuing said attempts to remedy the situation on behalf of HRH, does he break any law where case law can be used to confirm said unlawful action?

 

:???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let them in and go out locking them in the house. Then call the police and say that you have burglars.

That will waste them a few hours, however if they're court bailiffs the problem won't go away.

You will still need to pay the fine and costs unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let them in and go out locking them in the house. Then call the police and say that you have burglars.

That will waste them a few hours, however if they're court bailiffs the problem won't go away.

You will still need to pay the fine and costs unfortunately.

 

And end up with a charge of false imprisonment????

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

And end up with a charge of false imprisonment????

 


you are out and find strangers in your house and lock them in before calling the police.
I call this 'any person arrest' under PACE.
How would you know they're bailiffs?
You probably forgot the front door open and they entered without breaking in.
Then you saw them through the window and locked them in.
Police will have trouble ruling this version out.
Link to post
Share on other sites

King, you just changed the scenaro. You said, and i quote:

 

Let them in and go out locking them in the house. Then call the police and say that you have burglars.

 

No. You have guests you allowed in then locked them in. That is false imprisonment.

 

You then change the topic to

 

you are out and find strangers in your house and lock them in before calling the police.

I call this 'any person arrest' under PACE.

How would you know they're bailiffsicon?

You probably forgot the front door open and they entered without breaking in.

Then you saw them through the window and locked them in.

Police will have trouble ruling this version out.

 

 

So you are willing to lie to the police and risk heavy penalties including substantial prison time.

 

 

I think its time you stopped posting as your attempt to justify what you are saying is falling flat. We have no doubt that you hate bailiffs with a passion, but stopping to their level NEVER works out. Play by the rules and dont give them a single inch to move and theyre easy to deal with.

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

King, you just changed the scenaro. You said, and i quote:

 


 


 


No. You have guests you allowed in then locked them in. That is false imprisonment.


 


You then change the topic to


 


 


 


 


So you are willing to lie to the police and risk heavy penalties including substantial prison time.


 


 


I think its time you stopped posting as your attempt to justify what you are saying is falling flat. We have no doubt that you hate bailiffs with a passion, but stopping to their level NEVER works out. Play by the rules and dont give them a single inch to move and theyre easy to deal with.


 


It was a tongue in cheek email, but I see that it failed to come through as such.
Never had to deal with the lovely bailiffs myself, apart from when they knocked at my door to gain antry to my neighbour 's back garden.
I let you imagine my answer (little clue: starts with f and ands with u, followed by the common word starting with c)
If you read my entire post you would have seen that I said that if they are court bailiffs the problem won't go away, but it will just get bigger.
Anyway, excuse my intrusion in your personal blog
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it was a tongue in cheek, but unless you state that in your post ( like i did in mine), you run the risk of someone misinterpreting it and possibly trying it. Especially on a public open forum.

 

And less of the personal attacks. There is absolutely no need for it.

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

I know it was a tongue in cheek, but unless you state that in your post ( like i did in mine), you run the risk of someone misinterpreting it and possibly trying it. Especially on a public open forum.

 

And less of the personal attacks. There is absolutely no need for it.

 

How true, a little thought before posting especially when the comments come from one with no experience of a particular situation.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't it a good idea to film the bailiff if they put a foot in the door. If you've asked them to remove it on camera and they refuse do they not as such leave you with the option of standing there forever or moving away allowing them in? Is this not then forced entry as you would be technically under duress? Or am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always a good idea to film a bailiff. Even if they are acting completely in line with all regulations. If they refuse to be filmed, or are aggressive, then you have to ask yourself why.

 

If they wont remove their foot from the door, iirc you can take reasonable force to remove them. What defines reasonable though is completely up for debate, as many rogue bailiffs will claim assault. Even if its a 90 year old frail woman who did it.

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

It is always a good idea to film a bailiff. Even if they are acting completely in line with all regulations. If they refuse to be filmed, or are aggressive, then you have to ask yourself why.

 

If they wont remove their foot from the door, iirc you can take reasonable force to remove them. What defines reasonable though is completely up for debate, as many rogue bailiffs will claim assault. Even if its a 90 year old frail woman who did it.

 

Think R v Tucker 2012, mind you the bailiffs lost their cetrificates over that one, where a debtor was wrongfully convicted of assaulting two bailiffs who perjured themselves, and the conviction was overturned on appeal. The police came out of that one with discredit also

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 don't think king12345's advice was tongue in cheek just the usual drivel by somebody who knows nothing about the subject matter. And what is meant by court bailiff.?... Advice like this is dangerous and not up to the usual standard for posters on here.

 

I would remind anybody that a bailiff has a right to force entry once inside and that includes to get out. Kicking the door through will not please anybody.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would add is that any type of Enforcement Agent should not use the foot in the door approach. Access should be peaceful at all times.

 

 

 

 

Just reading your post reminded me about a comical incident around in 2006 at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court. At the time I was observing a Form 4 complaint with a client and her solicitor and we were really early and there was a steady stream of bailiffs arriving for either certification or renewals and one bailiff arrived on crutches with plaster on both his feet.

 

I would have loved to have been in court because the bailiff came out of the court and said that Judge Cothrane ( who I think has now retired) refused to grant him a renewal without knowing more about the incident that led to all his toes being broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...