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

Wyre Council using solicitors to pursue debtors for council tax debts

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3436 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

An interesting story that featured on SCOOP today has caught my attention.


The link to the story is below and the article says the following:


Council tax dodgers in Wyre could be targeted by a team of specialist lawyers under plans drawn up by town hall bosses.


Law firm Greenhalgh Keer has been lined up for a six-month pilot scheme that could see residents who refuse to pay up pursued more aggressively.


A report published by Wyre Council’s resources portfolio holder Coun Alan Vincent (pictured), who will make a decision on the plans next week, said chasing up the most persistent offenders is too “time-consuming and costly”.


He added: “Unfortunately, the council does not have the in-house resources for anything more than the occasional case.”


Wigan-based Greenhalgh, which currently has arrangements with 35 local authorities, specialises in chasing up council tax and business rate debts.


The trial scheme, which would cost the council nothing, will “test the water” with a dozen pre-selected cases.



Link to post
Share on other sites

The following page from their website is interesting:




"Otherwise known as a “conditional fee agreement”, we charge an hourly rate for work carried out. If we “succeed” on a particular matter, in that a recovery is made, the costs are normally added to the debt and recovered from the debtor. If we are “unsuccessful” in that no recovery is made from the debtor, the costs are written off.


Any disbursements incurred are payable no matter what the outcome of the case. Typical disbursements might include court fees, official receivers deposit, process server fees, and advertisement of winding up petitions.


All disbursements are recoverable from the debtor and in all cases we will seek to recover disbursements (in addition to costs) from the debtor so that the net result to the authority is that there have been no costs to pay"


PS: Taking the 'Attachment of Earnings' debate into consideration (whereby it is 'supposedly' the case that if an account is returned to the local authority by the enforcement agent there is no provision at all for any charges to be applied) it does beg the question....what disbursements and costs are companies like this charging to debtors...and more importantly....which part of the regulations allow these charges????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I be wrong in thinking that if it is deemed necessary to authorise by Law the use of bailiffs to collect debts for CT. then the use of Solicitors should also require a legal framework, not least to establish hourly charges and all their other fees.


Also do I understand that they are only using solicitors for the worst non payers [which could include the poorest and/or most vulnerable] and that EAs will continue with the others?


At least when bailiffs call at the door, they are more in a position perhaps to notice vulnerability though it seems that some

ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I be wrong in thinking that if it is deemed necessary to authorise by Law the use of bailiffs to collect debts for CT. then the use of Solicitors should also require a legal framework, not least to establish hourly charges and all their other fees.




It is certainly an interesting scenario and in particular, given the subject of Attachment of Earnings and the 'debt avoidance' contingent who 'believe' that if a person is self employed (and thereby exempt from an AOEO) they can refuse to deal with bailiffs and wait for the debt to be returned to the council and there can be no fees charged.


Taking the above press story from this firm of solicitors it would 'appear' that if a debt is returned the local council can simply send the account straight to lawyers and all their charges in attempting to get a Charging Order on the property are payable by the debtor !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...