Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is kind of related but does anyone know since I have this ban from entering UAE because of my loan, can I visit Qatar? 
    • Thank you for that i thought id just ask as i was unsure.  Just hope its returned to me and doesnt spend the rest of its life going back and forth to Singapore  
    • Thanks @lolerz. I've attached it to the post. What do you think? What's the organ grinder? NTK.pdf
    • I'm afraid that if the value of the item was under declared then that is probably the best that you can hope for. Also, because the item was incorrectly addressed – even by a single letter, if that because the issue relating to the delivery then that has probably compounded the problem. There is probably very little that can be done. If you are lucky you will get the item back and then you can start again and declare it properly. Undervaluing parcels which are sent by any means is always going to cause a problem if the item is lost or damaged. It may mean that the cost of delivery is slightly less – but at the end of the day the risk becomes yours. When you enter into any kind of contract, effectively you declare it a level of risk to your contracting partner – and they decide to enter into the contract with you based on that level of risk. You have declared a level of risk and £50 – and that's the deal.   Additionally, undervaluing an item which is an internationally has the effect also of evading customs and any VAT system which is in force in that country – and that makes the whole thing a little bit more serious
    • Perfect. Nice and brief and to the point. You don't bother to start telling your life story. Just the way it should be. Send it off. You have probably done enough reading to understand that it won't make any difference don't start drafting your particulars of claim. Open an account with the MoneyClaim County Court system and start preparing. Post your particulars of claim here before you click it off. You may have noticed that at some point you will be asked if you want to go to mediation on this. We used to advise it but now we recommend that you decline mediation and go to trial. Your chances of success are much better than 95%. Going to trial will incur an additional hearing fee but of course you will get that back. However if you go to mediation, they will simply try to penny pinch and to get you to compromise and also they will sign you up to a confidentiality agreement and probably threaten you if you breach it. Not only that, if the mediation fails because you stand your ground, it will add additional delay while they then give you a date to go to trial. The best thing to do is to decline mediation – prepare for court hearing. Pay the extra fee. The chances are that rather than get a judgement against them they will then offer you a full settlement rather than go to court. If they do offer you full settlement then you will be obliged to accept it – but that's what you want. If they don't offer you full settlement then you will go to trial and there will be a judgement against them. Just so that you understand, our first interest is that you get your money back – but a close second is that it does go to trial and there is a judgement which we will then be able to use to help other people. Anyway as you should realise, we will help you all the way.
  • 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 3595 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

This seems the best thread for posting this, forgive me if i am mistaken.

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/cvd95p/parking-mad--series-1---episode-1

Bailiff Debbie joins a roadside operation with the police during which she may have to confiscate a van

How this will fit with new regulations I have not yet considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

EXCELLENT programme !!!

 

Very worrying indeed to see CONFIRMATION that the bailiff and police "Roadside Operation" are certainly NOT 'multi agency' operations (ie: bailiffs, public carriage office, DVLA, Immigration dept etc. Instead, it was just ONE bailiff and 4 Police Officers and the police could be seen STOPPING the vehicles. Can't wait to see next week....

 

PS: I was pleased that the public got to see how PATAS actually works. I hope that motorists will now be encouraged to appeal PCN's that are in dispute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't once see a driver ask the police why they had been stopped, surely it cannot be legal for the police to intervene in order to collect outstanding debts

 

Once it is established that there is no reason for the Police to stop the vehicle, they can just drive on. They don't have to speak to the bailiff.

 

It is just with the Police there, people think they have to speak to the bailiff. The warrant the bailiff has does not allow the bailiff to stop a vehilcle on a public highway and to seize it straight away.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the footage showing the stops can be used to show Eric Pickles that the action is unlawful.

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 responses from the police that can be viewed by the link provided underline the relevance of HHJ Cryan's remark to a bailiff he was cross examining over such joint operations - 'Some people might be sceptical about whether what you are describing to me is the real world or not'.

It really was trite and utterly unconvincing reaction from an organisation which clearly has no idea about the fact that it is illegal for the police to be anywhere near a civil matter.

Section 163 only allows a police officer to stop a car. It does not allow him to detain the occupants for any civil reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone involved and stopped in the roadside operation should download the Police Complaints Commission form and send it off , there is no way the Police should have been involved in this and the people stopped should claim compensation from the Force involved

Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone involved and stopped in the roadside operation should download the Police Complaints Commission form and send it off , there is no way the Police should have been involved in this and the people stopped should claim compensation from the Force involved

So there would be nothing to stop the driver driving away then once the police officer had walked away and the bailiff approached..

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 was under the impression that the police have to have resonable cause to pull a vechile over (Might be wrong)

 

The legality or lawfulness of the pull if the sole reason is a CIVIL debt is dubious at best.

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

did you here her tell the bloke if he cant pay they would go and remove his mothers goods

The bailiff could well regret saying that on camera somewhere down the line hopefully, I think the content needs highlighting for the benefit of Eric Pickles.

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

So there would be nothing to stop the driver driving away then once the police officer had walked away and the bailiff approached..

 

spot on? (once any police checks are clear, which would be the only reason for the pol pulling someone over! ie not re a civil matter!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you here her tell the bloke if he cant pay they would go and remove his mothers goods

 

Yes I heard her say that - unbelievable !

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I heard her say that - unbelievable !

 

Hopefully that will come back and bite her.

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

She had a point though, if people paid their fines in the first place, they wouldn't be as bad as they were.

 

Yes the old bloke was right to appeal, but many of those cases could have easily been people not giving two hoots about where or how they park and they got a fine for doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She had a point though, if people paid their fines in the first place, they wouldn't be as bad as they were.

 

Yes the old bloke was right to appeal, but many of those cases could have easily been people not giving two hoots about where or how they park and they got a fine for doing so.

 

Given the proportion of appeals that are successful, it seems that many people are wrongly penalised by local authorities not giving two hoots about issuing tickets correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She had a point though, if people paid their fines in the first place, they wouldn't be as bad as they were.

 

Yes the old bloke was right to appeal, but many of those cases could have easily been people not giving two hoots about where or how they park and they got a fine for doing so.

 

To be pedantic, they are not criminal fines they are Penalty Charge Notices, many by CCTV for dubious reasons, like the ones where people are not parked per se, they are in a traffic queue, but the camera goes ding and the PCN is issued.

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...