Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
  • 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
      • 160 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

Help taking Ross and Roberts to court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3463 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...