Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2718 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

I have a charge order placed on my house by Bristol & Wessex Water for £1800.

 

They recently sent me a letter stating that if I don't pay the full amount they will be taking legal action and apply for an order for sale.

I then will be sent an order to vacate my property within 28 days.

 

My house is owned outright with no mortgage and currently valued around £200K.

I am living on a small private pension with no chance of paying back the debt.

 

I went to the CAB who told me that I will end up homeless and living on the streets as there is no social housing available for single men.

 

The Water company placed a CCJ on my credit record so it's impossible for me to borrow money to pay back the debt and keep my house.

 

I could never understand why there were homeless people on the streets, but I do now. I will be joining them soon.

 

What an idiot I was buying a house.

If I had a council house I would have nothing to worry about and a safe roof over my head.

 

I know a chap near here who lives in a housing association bungalow.

 

He owes banks £73k and will not end up homeless.

 

Comments welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The logical thing to do is to sell the house, pay the debt and buy something smaller with what is left over.

 

But...it is very unlikely that a court will order sale of someone's home on the basis of owing such a small debt (relatively).

 

What you need to do is make an offer in writing to the company of a monthly or weekly sum to reduce the debt

and start paying it as soon as you offer it.

 

By the time they get you into court (months unless they have already started proceedings),

you will be able to show the judge that you have made regular payments since offering a fixed amount

 

(you'll need to do an income and expenditure form to show that the amount you are offering is as much as you can afford, not as little),

 

and that there was no need to take you to court as you were doing your best.

 

A reasonable judge will give them judgment for the outstanding amount,

 

but so long as you attend the hearing,

 

you can ask for your payments to continue as they are.

 

Once under a court order, if you don't miss a payment, the company can't ask for a charging order

 

and therefore won't be able to ask the court to allow them to get a sale order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The coalition government were considering a threshold for charge orders to be set at £25,000.

They then decided to set it at £1000.

 

The government said that setting the threshold that low would reduce bankrupcy petitions.

 

I have looked into the laws on bankrupcy and discovered that a debt of only £750 can bring about a bankrupcy petition against a debtor.

 

However, in order to be made bankrupt your debts must be greater than your assets.

 

So if you have a charge order on your house for £1000 and you own your house outright

you will loose your house even though the debt is far smaller than your assets.

 

I therefore assume that the government brought in this low threshold for charge orders to deliberately make house owners with a very small debt homeless.

 

An outright home owner with a house worth £250,000 could find himself evicted due to charge order of only £1000.

 

I am of the impression that the government encourage people to buy houses so they can take them off them due to a very small debt.

 

Why the government want people who have paid thier mortgages off living on the streets due to small debt is beyond my understanding.

 

I assume that the government hate people who buy their houses, live on private income and never claim benefits despite paying into the tax system for decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I have recently discovered that orders for sale after a charge order can only be obtained for debts under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This includes credit card debts and unsecured personal loans such as bank loans and HP. However, debts to utility companies such as gas, electricity, water and even council tax (which are not under the Consumer Credit Act),can bring about a charge order but cannot result in a order for sale.

Such creditors have to wait until your house is sold to get their money back.

They may threaten you with further enforcement action after obtaining a charge order on your house, but they are empty threats. I hope this information is of help to anyone worrying about a possible order for sale from debts to any utility company who has obtained a charge order against their property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware any creditor with a CO can attempt to obtain an Order for Sale? I don't think any reason for the debt prevents an OFS being attaempted?

 

 

And whilst they are extremely difficult to obtain (as there is case law and TOLATA that stacks up against them being granted as well as the difficulty in persuading a Judge they are proportionate?) I'm fairly sure Councils have a legal duty to follow to the max attempts to recoup debts owed?

 

 

Would be interesting to know where your info came from, though?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 94 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was brought into force on 17 May 2012. The Act incorporates a new section 3A into the Charging Orders Act 1979 and has given the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations providing that:

 

charging orders may not be imposed to secure an amount below a certain threshold; and

charging orders may not be enforced by orders for sale if the amount in question is below £1,000. This will only apply to debts regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. Indications at the current time are that this change will be introduced in December 2012.

 

The Second Change

Section 93 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 will come into force on 1 October 2012. The amendments allow an application for a charging order to be made in cases where the debtor has not defaulted on payment of an instalment judgment. However, it should be noted that:

 

The court must take into consideration the fact that there has been no default when deciding whether to grant the order for sale; and

An order for sale to enforce the charging order may not be made at the same time as the application for the charging order unless the whole or part of an instalment which falls due under the judgment remains unpaid.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently discovered that orders for sale after a charge order can only be obtained for debts under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This includes credit card debts and unsecured personal loans such as bank loans and HP. However, debts to utility companies such as gas, electricity, water and even council tax (which are not under the Consumer Credit Act),can bring about a charge order but cannot result in a order for sale.

Such creditors have to wait until your house is sold to get their money back.

They may threaten you with further enforcement action after obtaining a charge order on your house, but they are empty threats. I hope this information is of help to anyone worrying about a possible order for sale from debts to any utility company who has obtained a charge order against their property.

 

 

 

Do you have a source for this information?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the information in a PDF document from the House Of Commons Library.

The document is titled "Enforcing A Charge Order". The document reference is SN/HA/6614 and the author is Lorraine Conway. Section 3.2 deals with orders for sale. Paragraph 3 says "Creditors not covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (such as individual creditors, utility companies and local authority) are unable to take this measure and have limited means to recover monies owed to them"

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Regulations relate only to regulated debts defined within the Consumer Credit Act 1974. According to the Government, the reason for introducing a financial threshold only to these types of debt and not all debt is because the lender has priced the recovery risk into their premium interest rates. Creditors not covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (such as individual creditors, utility companies, government and local authority) are unable to take this measure and have limited means to recover monies owed to them.6

 

 

I think this may be the passage you are referring to? It is confusing as I think the paper is referring to the £1000 threshold only applying to Charging Orders on CCA debt? Certainly any individual owed money can apply for a CO and OFS so it is a liitle confusing?

 

 

Edited by eggboxy1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is the passage I was referring to and it does seem confusing. However the £1000 threshold applies to all charge orders whether the dept is covered by the Consumer Credit Act or not. The passage is from section 3.2 which is dealing with orders for sale. Knowing that utility companies can obtain charge orders I interpret the passage means that they can't obtain an order for sale.This implies that utility companies who obtain a charge order would have to wait until the property is sold to recover their money.

Edited by chiefmegawatty
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's badly worded (and I think wrong, too!), but my understanding was that the £1000 limit was only for CCA debts? With all other debts still not having any minimum threshold to pursue.

 

 

And if you look here

 

 

http://www.northampton.gov.uk/info/200028/council-tax/96/council-tax-recovery-of-non-payment/8

 

 

this council is laying out it's case to the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a long phone conversation with National Debt Line and realise that the document

from the House Of Commons library is super confusing. Utility companies CAN apply for an order for sale once they have obtained a charge order. I therefore recommend that anyone reading a document from the House Of Commons Library just take it with a pinch of salt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite right Sequenci!

 

 

The trouble is a lot of "official" information regarding CO's fail to highlight the rarity of OFS, especially for consumer debt.

 

 

Hence, the tabloid scare headlines when the £1000 threshold was introduced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that sequenci. I have been worrying myself stupid for the last two years after my water supplier obtained a charge order for £1870 against my house. I was afraid that I would end up living on the streets. However, once a year the water supplier send me a reminder stating that they may take enforcement action if I don't repay the debt. Does that mean that they could obtain an order for sale and I would be living on the streets?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The juxstaposition of Charging Orders and Orders For Sale is the prior is extremely easy to obtain, whereas, the latter is extremely difficult to obtain. Judges have virtually no discretion in granting CO's but they have absolute discretion in granting Orders For Sale.

 

 

If your house is your family or sole residence then, no, you won't get an OFS made against you for the amount owed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting when you read the statute - it implies that a court should have a fair amount of jurisdiction:

 

(Charging Orders Act 1979)

 

(5)In deciding whether to make a charging order the court shall consider all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, any evidence before it as to—

(a)the personal circumstances of the debtor, and

(b)whether any other creditor of the debtor would be likely to be unduly prejudiced by the making of the order.

 

I guess there is a far stricter test when it comes to sale orders - and quite rightly so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that sequenci. I have been worrying myself stupid for the last two years after my water supplier obtained a charge order for £1870 against my house. I was afraid that I would end up living on the streets. However, once a year the water supplier send me a reminder stating that they may take enforcement action if I don't repay the debt. Does that mean that they could obtain an order for sale and I would be living on the streets?

 

Unlikely. If the property is jointly owned and you have children it would be impossible anyway - as there is statute pretty much preventing it. Even regardless, I don't think any judge worth their salt would allow an order for sale for such a small amount of money (in the grand scheme of things).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting when you read the statute - it implies that a court should have a fair amount of jurisdiction:

 

(Charging Orders Act 1979)

 

(5)In deciding whether to make a charging order the court shall consider all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, any evidence before it as to—

(a)the personal circumstances of the debtor, and

(b)whether any other creditor of the debtor would be likely to be unduly prejudiced by the making of the order.

 

I guess there is a far stricter test when it comes to sale orders - and quite rightly so.

 

 

I agree and it does make you wonder why there is virtually no resistance from Judges in granting CO's given the above??

Link to post
Share on other sites

All my children are now adults and live elsewhere. The house is in my name only. My wife disappeared just over two years ago to live with another man. I guess that if the charge order doesn't kill me the impending divorce will. Either way I guess I will end up living on the streets.

Edited by chiefmegawatty
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the house is in your name only, then the CO will be deducted from your sale proceeds if and when you sell. But (and I'm not diminishing your problems) it does seem a "manageable" amount? Many people on this site have CO's against them for amounts far in excess of your order amount which they have no way of discharging without selling up.

 

 

But as Sequenci has stated, OFS are a rarity and there is strong caselaw opposing such if the house is your primary residence. But I would look to see if there is interest accruing on the debt as it's usually 8% and will stack up if you don't discharge the debt in a reasonable time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. I have discovered that interest can only be added to charge orders over £5000 so no problem there. The house is my only and primary residence which raises another question in my mind. I own a large plot of land in Wiltshire which is on the land registry in my name. The plot is worth about £30,000. I assume that the water supplier and the county court failed to secure the charge order on my land and stuck it against my house so they could threaten me with being homeless. They could have obtained a charge order

on my land and then obtained an order for sale without having to threaten me with being homeless. I therefore consider water suppliers and County Court Judges to be evil people who want house owners to live on the streets. They had the choice of sticking the charge order on my house or on my land. They chose my house just to be nasty when I have another asset that would easily cover the debt many times over and could be sold without causing distress. Should I ever meet a County Court Judge in public I would be tempted to punch him in the face for being a house owner hating nasty person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant and argumentative posts removed...please lets keep this civil and on track.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. I have discovered that interest can only be added to charge orders over £5000 so no problem there. The house is my only and primary residence which raises another question in my mind. I own a large plot of land in Wiltshire which is on the land registry in my name. The plot is worth about £30,000. I assume that the water supplier and the county court failed to secure the charge order on my land and stuck it against my house so they could threaten me with being homeless. They could have obtained a charge order

on my land and then obtained an order for sale without having to threaten me with being homeless. I therefore consider water suppliers and County Court Judges to be evil people who want house owners to live on the streets. They had the choice of sticking the charge order on my house or on my land. They chose my house just to be nasty when I have another asset that would easily cover the debt many times over and could be sold without causing distress. Should I ever meet a County Court Judge in public I would be tempted to punch him in the face for being a house owner hating nasty person.

 

 

 

 

Can't you sell the land yourself to settle your debts?

 

Were they aware you owned this land?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...