Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @Man in the middle I've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Thanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe concenquences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points?
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
    • Been perusing the actual figures on the polls above wondering where the '16% claimed for deform comes from? I understand that there are 'weighted' end results based on secret calculations ...   Probably going to repeat this later, but remember that the ukip/brexit/reform/deform party has ALWAYS had poll speculation FAR better than their actual  performance at elections - by large margins. SO: The labor and Tory votes come largely from simply the people who say they will vote for them - sorted Lab 43% Tory 20%, with maybe another small 1-2% coming from the weightings of the 'not sures' Greens largely get what is declared from 'other' , although with another declared green bit from the 'pressed' question   So as the share of the voting displayed in 'other' granted to reform/deform is around 11%, where does the '16% too often being reported come from? Seems that reform has been granted as beneficiary of effectively ALL the don't knows and wont says, who when pressed didn't actually declare for someone else ... effectively adding 40%+ to their reported polling % - rather strange given their consistent under-performance compared to polling - or perhaps that is the cause of the higher rating eh?   Now I admit the possibility (probability?) of wingers being ashamed of declaring their support for the yuckey lemon end of the spectrum ... but surely  that should affect the 'Torys as well? Maybe the statisticians have simply weighted in that deform wingers are simply more likely to lie?   But - without 'weightings' and assumptions that faragits will get everything that isnt declared as a definite and unequivocal 'not that Piers Morgan' - reform is on around 11% it seems.   Add to that the history of polling a lot less than the hype - and the simple fact that faragit wingers seem to be spread across the country (presumably skulking in their moms spare room despite being 45+) and greens and lib dems seem to be community minded - I think two seats will be an epic result for farage. Hardly the opposition - far more raving wingnut party.   and importantly - Has farage got a home in clacton yet?
    • "as I have no tools available to merge documents, unless you can suggest any free ones that will perform offline merges without watermarking" (which you don't) ... but ok please upload the documents and we'll go from there
  • 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

Help taking Ross and Roberts to court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3543 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

hi

 

I am preparing to go to court on Monday to reclaim £1.355.50 from Ross and Roberts because of unreasonable fees and interest.

 

I have the paper work which they have sent me saying that under Section h they can charge £24.50 even though goods were not removed.

I keep reading that they cant charge that but then some people say they can but they cant charge you if they have already charged a wp and a levy.

 

I need some cold hard facts and legislation that i can show the judge.

 

I am also fighting the default fees off £175 which they claim come under sec c which i can only see that it covers man and a van costs not default fees please help i need to get my case straight and know what i am going to say

 

thank you

 

charlotte

Link to post
Share on other sites

was this prior to the changes in april this year

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlotte,

 

In order to provide an accurate response can you provide the following:

 

Was the debt for council tax or a unpaid PCN (I am assuming council tax)

 

Was a 'levy' made upon goods and if so, when?

 

Was a walking possession signed?

 

Can you post back with a list of fees and most importantly, the dates on which fees had been applied.

 

Have you given R & R an opportunity to repay the fees that you consider are wrong?

 

Did you complain to the local authority?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Yes the fee was for council tax

 

it was over four years and five different debts.

 

they did two levy's and walking possessions which i don't dispute, but one of the levy they didn't do and charged me for. they also consolidated three into one and charged me three levy's, three walking possessions and three sec h .

 

i do have it all ready and printed out with the fees i dispute but not sure if i could upload it onto here.

 

they have also charged me 4x £175 for Default fee. I am arguing that this is unreasonable

 

charlotte

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without knowing the fees actually charged it is very difficult indeed to advise. However, what I would say is that on the matter of charging 'multiple fee' this is not permitted at all and was the subject of a highly critical public report from the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

Since 6th April this year the fees that can be charged are so much more easy to understand and this is leading to an astonishing reduction in the level of complaints but unfortunately in your case the fees were difficult at best to understand.

 

One point that I would make from the little information that you have provided is that the previous legislation (and this one) do not permit for a 'default' charge and in reality, this fee would have almost certainly been an 'attending to remove' fee. However.....and this is important, a bailiff can only charge ONE ATR fee and if a 2nd one were charged to the same account this may ONLY be done in cases where goods were actually removed.

 

Has R & R offered to refund any of the fees to avoid a court hearing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a word of warning, be very careful about what you actually claim for and ensure it is actual losses that you can substantiate and prove.

 

Claims made by litigants in person are often mostly without merit and the consequences can often be having costs awarded against them over and above whatever they originally claimed, even if they are partially successful.

 

Bailiff companies have been subject to claims for years and most have experienced lawyers that will tie you in knots and win.

 

My advice would be to do your research and set out your case to the bailiff company detailing what they have charged and why it is unlawful. Explain that you will have little choice but to issue a claim if settlement isn't reached within a reasonable time, say 14 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The same still applies to taking a Council to court. In fact any litigation can have consequences if it's not done correctly.

 

Unfortunately there is lots of duff information on various other bailiff help forums so just ensure you take your time, do your research and set all your ducks in a row.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically yes, providing the OP knows exactly what can be charged and when.

 

They then have to follow pre-action protocols before issuing a claim.

 

Requesting the refund as I describe is sufficient to be seen as reasonable prior to issuing any claim that in the first instance has upfront costs and secondly could fail for some reason not yet known to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pre-action protocol is simple enough, its called an LBA or Letter Before Action.

 

Taking the council to court is logical because they are less inclined to vigourously defend a claim but if a Ross Roberts want to tool up then its at their expense.

 

Elsewhere on this website its unanimous advice to take banks to court but not bailiffs. why is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not a lot of claims made about bailiff fees given that in the vast amount of cases the previous fee scale was subject to different 'interpretations' and many times courts would even be confused.

 

Thankfully the new fee scale has done away with any confusion and this has lead to complaints about bailiffs (previously known as Form 4 Complaints) almost drying up and cases about disputed fees almost none existent.

 

Unfortunately having the cost of issuing a court claim significantly increasing on 22nd April has naturally deterred many people from taking legal action in the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember some court fees are refundable/part reduced or reducded to zero depending on the type of fee and your financial situation. (Im talking about fees to lodge court claims)

 

Look for court remission fees information

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it was difficult to advise on the fees as you were not able to post details of the claim or the defence put forward by R & R. If multiple fees had been applied you need to ensure that you take a copy of the LGO report that dealt with the matter of 'multiple fees'.

 

I am sure that I speak for all on here by wishing you well for tomorrow and please do post back with the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...