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

Section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003...does NOT mean that bailiffs can only recover their fees by taking civil action?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3559 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

Misinformation, disinformation and a contempt for the truth on various websites is seriously harming debtors (many of whom are vulnerable) and this has been categorically proved today when a debtor was arrested and charged under section 68(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 with 'intentionally obstructing a bailiff lawfully acting as an enforcement officer'. I will write about this matter under separate cover but once again, this debtor was given the following incorrect 'advice' on the website:

 

 

  • 'Nothing in the regulation enables bailiffs to levy distress for their unpaid fee. They have to seek a civil order under Section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003 before they can enforce payment of their fees'

The same websites also make the following statement:

 

 

  • 'If a bailiff wants to recover his fees incurred up to and including the point at which the debt was paid direct to the council, he must take a new civil action against you under Section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003'

The above statements give the (wrong) impression that if a debtor makes payment direct to either the local authority (in cases where a Liability Order has been issued) or to a Magistrates Court (in relation to an unpaid court fine) that the bailiff company may only recover their fees by taking the debtor to court !!

 

The truth of the matter is that section 92 of the Courts Act has nothing whatsoever to do with bailiff fees and instead, relates to court fees payable when either a solicitor, local authority or member of the public files any document or commences any process in either the Supreme Court, County Court or Magistrate Court !!!

 

Examples below:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003

Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003 allows the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the court fees payable in the Supreme Court, County Court and Magistrate Court and allows him to also provide for exemptions, reductions or even 'remission' of court fees.

 

The actual word 'fees' is in relation to the court FEES that are payable by solicitors or the public when they file any document or commence any court process. For example the new court FEES that came into effect on 22nd April 2014 include the following:

 

 

  • The fee for issuing a claim using Money Claim OnLine (ie for claims under £300 is £35)
  • The fee for permission to apply for Judicial Review is £140
  • The fee for filing an N244 application is £155
  • The fee for an application for a Charging Order in the County Court is £100.
  • The fee to register a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre is £7

The link below is to the Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2014 which came into force on 22nd April 2014. This opening paragraph to this new statutory instrument states as follows:

 

'The Lord Chancellor with the consent and sanction of the Treasury, makes the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003'

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/874/pdfs/uksi_20140874_en.pdf

 

PS: In cases of default in payment of the court fee the amount can be recovered by the COURT as a civil debt (evidence below)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As outlined above, if a debtor (or even a solicitor) defaults on paying of the court fees then the COURT can take civil action to recover the court fee. This is provided under section 92.8 of the Courts Act 2003.

 

A full list of the current court fee can be read below. This link is to a copy of the Ministry of Justice Form EX50 entitled: Civil and Family Court Fees and is dated August 4th 2014.

 

http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex050-eng.pdf

 

On page 2 under the heading of refunds it states the following:

 

  • 'Under no circumstances should you cancel a cheque or card payment to HM Courts & Tribunal Service. Cancellation of a cheque or payment could result in HM Courts & Tribunal pursuing the fee from you as a civil debt'

For the avoidance of doubt section 92.8 of the Courts Act has nothing at all to do with bailiff fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, a debtor has been arrested and charged under section 68(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Act 2007. He is due in court in early October. The reason for his arrest are outlined in a new thread that I started this morning (link below).

 

Once again this case has highlighted the dangers of believing what is written on websites.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433030-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-.(20-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...