Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

A case from "Can't pay we'll take it away"


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2738 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

Hello my name is Matthew Wright - in Slough and I was featured on this programme

 

On the 3rd of June there was a loud banging on the front door

and upon opening it I was confronted by what appeared to be a police officer

but who I later discovered to be Paul Bohill with a Channel 5 Film Crew.

 

Paul Bohill told me he had a warrant from the High Court to enter the home

and collect items to settle for an on going claim made against me by a former contractor to my small business.

 

 

Paul Bohil then put his foot in the door and using his body weight pushing his way into the house against my will,

even after I asked him to remove his foot.

 

 

He then tried to goad me on by saying "hit me go on hit me", which was a very tempting proposition at the time.

 

I was not given the opportunity to check the so called "High Court Warrant "or validate his identity before he used force to enter the property.

Dressing as a Police Officer is false impersonation and misrepresentation of powers.

 

I also noticed in the programme that he went on to say "Mr Wright owes this money" like he is the judge and jury,

but Paul Bohill knows nothing of the facts of the case and is simply deluded from TV publicity.

 

A complaint is going to be made to the HCEOA and made public so your advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Matthew welcome to the Forum.

 

I didn't see the program that you were unfortunately involved in but am appalled [but not surprised] at your story. So many things were wrong that happened to you on that day and am pleased to see that you are now taking steps to redress the situation.

 

It would help to know what the debt was for-a Motoring offence, a business debt etc for example and whether you knew that bailiffs had been called in to collect

money from you. It is possible that you were overcharged by the HCEO since the ones who usually play fast and loose with the Law in one respect tend to do the

same with other areas of their job. If there has been overcharging it is possible to reclaim it.

 

Have you done anything about it so far or are you just starting to gain information about what happened on that day?

Have you asked Channel 4 for a copy of your tape as there will be a lot of things that may have been missed during the program that could help your claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No good him complaining about Bohill to the HCEOA as he is not an authorised HCEO but he acts on behalf of Simon Williamson who is - and remains responsible for the actions of his Agents. Any complaint against Bohill would have to be made to the Court that granted is Certificate but rather than submit an EAC2 which could expose him to costs then a letter that may lie on his file would be better.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As they have a warrant of entry, the foot in the door is allowed as trying to push them out and close the door is an obstruction of a lawful officer with a warrant. He was legally allowed to break the door down.

 

 

They wear the body armour as there are some rather unpleasant people out there and it is for their protection as are the body cameras. The tapes are edited so the full episode will be on record as well as what was shown on TV.

Personally I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

 

 

All episodes are available to watch - http://www.channel5.com/shows/cant-pay-well-take-it-away/episodes?season=17420

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I wonder if this should be a new post in its own right.

 

Secondly, Coniff you are completely wrong!

 

I have seen this episode and it is episode 1 of series 2 and the part referred to can be seen in the link below at 31 minutes - Illegal forced entry at 31 mins

 

If you haven't seen it you really should.

 

Bohill did not have a 'warrant' and it is widely believed that he uses this phrase, along with his Police uniform to misrepresent his powers to gain entry to property. However, he didn't need that on this occasion as he put his boot in the door and then illegally forced Mr Wright in against the wall. All of which is completely illegal and there for everybody to see on TV.

 

MW, have you asked for a breakdown of the fees you were charged?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree Colin and it is my fault for not telling the viewers that in fact The Claimant had already appealed through the contracting company we both used but lost and then decided to file papers through the courts based on a fictitious amount on money.

 

 

Of course I sent a response to the court (IE copies of the invoices from the claimant) but the court refused to hear my appeal in my absence as requested on my reply saying "It would be inappropriate"

The fact of the matter is the court is 400 miles away from my base and I just assumed it was clear cut.

 

 

Since then the claimant has issued final demands court baliffs and then most recently Mr Bohil (IE she has made a meal out of it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not clear what you are actually disputing ?

 

You've listed the fees and they appeared to be allowable.

 

The bailiffs are not pretending to be policemen, yes there are similarities but this applies to all sorts of uniforms and cars/vans with luminous chevrons, etc (If they genuinely were pretending to be the police you would have a strong criminal and possible civil case).

 

As Conniff has pointed out he was using legal powers to gain entry.

 

You say "I also noticed in the programme that he went on to say "Mr Wright owes this money" like he is the judge and jury,

but Paul Bohill knows nothing of the facts of the case and is simply deluded from TV publicity. " but you have to remember that at this stage, the case has been to court and judgement has been given, a bailiff doesn't need to be a judge and jury because that part has already been done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

andydd, you and Coniff are both completely wrong!

 

He DID NOT have a warrant to enter. He put his boot in the door and then forced his way in. Completely illegal.

 

If MW has cause for complaint he should make a complaint to the court that certificated Mr Bohill, to the company he works for and to the HCEOA. MW may have to ask Bohill/his company which court certificated him.

 

On the face of it the fees look reasonable but a further breakdown would at least details what exactly has been charged and this should be requested by MW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HCEO's is spot on....Mr Bohill did not have a warrant, he had a writ of Fi'Fa. A writ is an order from the Lord Chancellor to seize the debtors goods for sale at public auction in order to satisfy the amount owed to a creditor but, it does not automatically authorise the HCEO to force his way into a domestic dwelling to seize the said goods.

 

'peaceful' means of entry are still required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely as per HCEOs and WD, a writ of fi-fa does not carry a right of forced entry.

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

Writs of Fi Fa are not classed as warrants,

 

 

they are an order from the high court commanding the appointed HCEO to sieze goods to the value of the debt.

 

 

Writs can (and frequently are) challenged in the high court eg. stay of execution,

 

 

a warrant cannot be challenged in the same way.

 

 

Mr Bohill used the phrase 'warrant' a number of times,

 

 

he was wrong to do so as there is a vast difference between a warrant and a writ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick google shows that as of April 2014, writ of Fi Fa was disbanded and turned into writs of control.

 

The only issue as far as I can see is that an enforcement officer doesn't have a right to force entry although this may be hard to prove if you have already opened the door to him, they are also allowed to "Enforcement Agents can enter where a door is open, opening further to aid entry if required. "

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct, the writ of fi'fa is now referred to as a writ of control, not a 'warrant' as given by Mr Bohill. When attending to serve a writ should the EA try the door and find it unlocked or if it has been left ajar, he is entitled to enter/open it further to gain entry to the premises (peacefully) and seek out the debtor named on the writ, if however the door is opened to him by the debtor and he is not 'invited' to step over the threshold he cannot force his way in as Mr Bohill clearly did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrants are not issued as part of civil recovery action, they are more commonly associated with criminal matters, repossession etc.

 

For Mr Bohill not to be able to differentiate between the two is imho a matter that needs to be looked at closely, of course attending a debtors home with the telling he has a 'warrant' will without doubt lead the debtor to associate the meaning to be the 'warrant' could carry an imminent arrest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrants are not issued as part of civil recovery action, they are more commonly associated with criminal matters, repossession etc.

 

For Mr Bohill not to be able to differentiate between the two is imho a matter that needs to be looked at closely, of course attending a debtors home with the telling he has a 'warrant' will without doubt lead the debtor to associate the meaning to be the 'warrant' could carry an imminent arrest.

 

And prima facie evidence for all to see that Mr Bohill was ultra vires his powers. He has left himself wide open with no defence,

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

Warrants are not issued as part of civil recovery action, they are more commonly associated with criminal matters, repossession etc.

 

For Mr Bohill not to be able to differentiate between the two is imho a matter that needs to be looked at closely, of course attending a debtors home with the telling he has a 'warrant' will without doubt lead the debtor to associate the meaning to be the 'warrant' could carry an imminent arrest.

 

 

I know nothing about this so I am asking to learn. You say 'more commonly', does that mean that a warrant of entry 'could' be issued for a debt collection ?

 

 

I've heard him say on more than one occasion, "I have a warranty of entry", but that might well have been on the repossession visits, I can't remember ?

 

 

If what you say is correct, then it looks like the op has a good case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those working for High Court Enforcement Officers deal with Writs - used to be Writ of FiFa, now Writ of Control, Writ of Possession or delivery are the most common although there are others. What you have alluded to is that in this case it was being deemed to be a Court Fine - HCEO's do not deal with criminal matters only civil.

 

Warrants of Execution are still carried out by the County Court Bailiff and it was also similar that Bailiffs used to use for unpaid Parking Fines through the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2738 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...